Wigderson goes to Washington

(Note: I'm behind on posting my newspaper column here, so I am catching up this week. Here is the Waukesha Freeman column from August 13th.)

Publication:Waukesha Freeman (Conley); Date:Aug 13, 2009; Section:Opinion; Page Number:10A

What I learned on summer vacation
Government’s failings evident in capital city

(James Wigderson is a blogger publishing at http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com and a Waukesha resident. His column runs Thursdays in The Freeman.)

My wife and I have just returned from a trip to Washington D.C., or what I happily refer to as the “crab cakes and monuments tour.” It’s been a few years since I’ve made the trip, and this was the first purely as a tourist.

Since school children all over Wisconsin are about to be asked to write on what they did on their summer vacations, I thought I would pass along a few lessons from my own. I would just suggest that those kids should not copy any of my ideas. Your teachers will be able to tell.

Upon arrival in Washington, D.C., we quickly learned a lesson in government-run mass transit. Our nation’s capital has one of the best mass transit systems in the world, but you can’t get to where you want to go when you want to get there.

The hotel was not far from the Metro train stop at Union Station, but really too far to drag our bags. This means we had to take a taxi from the airport.

On our first day there, we had tickets on a boat from National Harbor to Mount Vernon. That involved a taxi to the boat launch. Then another taxi back to the hotel afterward.

Dinner that night was in Georgetown at one of the city’s best restaurants. Apparently, the planners for the Metro system never conceived that anyone would want to go to the oldest part of the city. Another taxi ride back and forth.

Stranded by the Vietnam War memorial on the opposite end of the mall away from the nearest metro stop, we took another taxi. You can see a pattern, and it was expensive. We finally caught a break going from the hotel to the airport. The hotel called a car service for us.

Washington, D.C., has a government like any the city. However, for much of its history the city was governed directly by Congress. Even now, Congress still controls much of what happens in the federal territory.

Despite the presence and the control of the federal government, the city still has an obvious problem with poverty. The homeless are ubiquitous, and sections of the city resemble many of the poorer urban areas around the country.

Obviously federal spending is not the issue. The really big buildings occupied by federal agencies quickly dispel that notion. Clearly more government jobs are not the answer.

Higher taxation is not the answer. We paid a shocking 10 percent sales tax on our restaurant meals. Sales taxes in Washington range from the already-high 5.75 percent to the obnoxious 14.5 percent hotel room tax.

Nonetheless, poverty remains an issue directly under the noses of those who promise so much more from the federal government (if we only allow them to spend more money).

If government has trouble with the big things, perhaps a small thing will shed some light on why.

The grass on the federal mall in front of most of the Smithsonian museums is in a really poor state. Most residents of Waukesha would be ashamed to have lawns in that condition.

One of the buildings facing the lawn belongs to the Department of Agriculture. It is a rather impressive building, visible all the way from atop Arlington Cemetery.

Most of us would assume the Department of Agriculture would be filled with experts on growing things. We would be wrong. The Department is responsible for spending large amounts of money for purposes related to agriculture, even if only tangentially.

The national park system, including the mall in front of the Smithsonian, is run by the Department of Interior. Unlike the television show “Trading Spaces,” they do not think they can accomplish a miracle growth of new grass for $100. A source working on Capitol Hill told me the department wants close to $400 million.

I immediately offered the services of my father-in-law. Just give him a new tractor, a home improvement store credit card, and bullhorn to keep the kids off the grass, and by the end of summer the mall will look like a fairway at Augusta.

He could do it on his next summer vacation.

JAMES WIGDERSON

That's why they call it a railroad

In my column this week for the Waukesha Freeman (just a couple of quarters for the deadtree edition), I questioned the leadership of the Waukesha County Board and their inaction on the proposed Regional Transit Authority in southeastern Wisconsin.  It was a timely piece, appearing the morning the Joint Finance Committee in the legislature was to consider the structure and funding of the RTA.

According to local environmental writer Jim Rowen, former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist said there were two stages to any transportation plan: “It’s too soon to know” and “It’s too late to do anything about it.”

By deciding to punt on this important question, the county board’s executive committee decided to push off the decision from possibly too early to possibly too late. The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee is expected to consider the RTA for southeastern Wisconsin today.

Contrary to Wolff’s assertion, the RTA is not an inevitability. There is a very real chance it may be defeated today, or else modified to only include Milwaukee County.

Waukesha County’s leadership could have taken the opportunity last week to express clearly the opposition of Waukesha residents to any proposal to include Waukesha County or any of its communities as part of the RTA. Such a clear statement that Waukesha County would never be a willing part of the RTA might have helped kill it.

Instead, Waukesha residents might wake up at the end of the state budget process to see Milwaukee County trying to suck more of our tax dollars to fund their buses and a train from Milwaukee to Illinois.

Even I could not foresee the Democrats' sense of self-preservation taking such precedence over any common sense. The Democrats, fearing a taxpayer revolt in Racine removing their Senator John Lehman, decided to exempt Racine and Kenosha counties from the proposed sales tax. However, Milwaukee County would be taxed, while Racine and Kenosha would receive representation on the RTA. Those counties would have representation, but Milwaukee County would not given how unreliable the suburbs within the county have proven in their support for a train or light rail system. Instead on the City of Milwaukee would have representation.

So we have no taxation with representation (Racine, Kenosha) and taxation without representation (Milwaukee County).

Waukesha County residents might take some false comfort in all this. After all, we have been spared in this opening round and a precedent has been set. Perhaps the city of Waukesha should petition the state to force Milwaukee County to build (and pay for) the pipeline necessary for Milwaukee to provide the City of Waukesha with water from Lake Michigan.

But the reality is the other precedent this sets. Waukesha County residents should be increasingly wary of any attempt to force them to subsidize Milwaukee's transit issues. That pressure will grow as the pressure on Milwaukee's taxpayers grows.

Unless we start taking firm stands now, the legislature may decide to punish our Republican representation, even as the state is currently punishing Milwaukee County residents who voted for Scott Walker as their County Executive.

Cooperation between the Waukesha and Milwaukee on transit is possible, such as the recent agreement between the City of Waukesha and Milwaukee County to eliminate the transfer fee between the two bus systems. But such cooperation must be as equals, and not imposed from the state.

Going the extra mile

Mass transit may not be the solution, either. Maybe it's time to introduce these kids to the telecommute.

In suburban areas like Seattle's Northshore district, the Times reports, school officials are asking children to walk farther to their bus stops so districts can squeeze a few more miles per gallon.

The scaling back of bus routes could be an inconvenience to parents, but provided there's a safe sidewalk to use, a little extra walk won't hurt most students. Reacting to the new bus route by dropping kids off in the family SUV would not be the best solution, from an environmental perspective; reducing unnecessary school bus trips is. Older diesel school buses can pump out twice the asthma-inducing pollution of a tractor trailer. (Click here for an analysis of the greenest ways to get your kid to school.)

I walked a mile (we measured) to school every day and it didn't kill me. We didn't even have sidewalks for about half the distance. And yes, it was uphill (and downhill) both ways.

Of course, we know what the answer is to the high cost of busing, right? Build trains to the school. Have little Johnny and Mary ride the train every day. And when it comes time re-route the train because Johnny and Mary are going to a different school, we'll just tear up the tracks. Heck, I bet Tim Sheehy's planned trains can get your kids within three miles of your kids' schools.

James Wigderson and his critics

Note: I received the following e-mail from Leah Harnack, associate editor of Mass Transit Magazine. My response is below.

Mr. Wigderson,

There were a number of questions and thoughts that came to mind as I read your rail expansion op-ed piece.

The first thing that caught my attention was the reference to rail being early 19th century technology and why would we look to that as the wave of the future. There may be some pretty old-looking systems out there, but with today's automatic train control, automated guideway transit, positive train control, automated people movers and the host of other technologies involved with intelligent transportation systems, there is very little familiarity with trains from the past.

The point you make about looking at the entire trip is very important. Transit of yesterday did not always do that and that has changed. More and more agencies are now referring to what they do as "mobility management," not as simply providing mass transit. Not only do they provide bus, ferry or rail, today's transit agencies also have programs for walking, biking, carpooling and vanpooling. Rail transit is not meant to stand on its own, it is a part of transportation planning.

I imagine you do realize that everyone that rides transit is not expected to walk "three miles" to get to their destinations. As I said, no agency or MPO creates a rail line to stand on its own. With bike ammenities, pedestrian provisions, bus routes, bus rapid transit lines or streetcar lines, the passengers aren't stranded in a dead zone.

Having had opportunities to visit cities across the country, Canada and Europe to ride the various bus and rail systems, I have the advantage of having seen what is typical and what is possible. I don't think it's members of local governments being "deprived as children" of riding Thomas the train. After experiencing it myself, I'm sure it's more that they've experienced the best in cities with mobility options and are planning for the future of our community, instead of simply looking at today.

Thank you,

Leah Harnack
Associate Editor
Mass Transit Magazine
& Sustainability Concepts

Despite all of the advances cited by Ms. Harnack, the train is still essentially a train. It runs along a fixed route (rails) requiring a substantial infrastructure outlay when first implemented (building the rails) and then more substantial infrastructure outlays every time the route needs to be changed or needs additions (more rails).

Here in Waukesha we're very familiar with trains, since it is almost impossible to cross town without being stopped by one.

No train system is very successful at taking people, goods and services from point to point without different supplementary forms of transit. This is actually a point upon which Ms. Harnack and I agree. The "three miles" was not my standard, but the standard of MMAC President Tim Sheehy who negelects to mention Ms. Harnack's point that more transit infrastructure would be needed to transport people to the rail service, from the rail service, back to the rail service, and then back again from the rail service. Again, this is also a point I raised in my Waukesha Freeman article.

Where Ms. Harnack and I disagree is the need for rail in the first place, when the other modes of transit would be just as effective (and more efficient) without the rail component.

Ms. Harnack cites her wonderful experiences in her travels riding the rails. What she should note is that almost every rail system (and every other mass transit system) is an endlessly expanding demand upon the taxpayers because it simply cannot go everywhere and serve as efficiently people using their automobiles.

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Fred Jandt, the editor of Mass Transit Magazine.

By calling these projects boondoggles, transit opponents are saying that they are a) politically motivated and b) have no real value to the community or nation.

Now I can sit here in incredulous disbelief at that thought, but having listened to and read enough material by transit opponents, I know that they truly believe in boondoggles. They truly believe that transit really is a crock. It won’t help their community and the money being spent on it is a complete waste.

Of course, a laundry list of facts and figures can be laid at their feet as proof of transit’s value, but this doesn’t seem to change a thing. Facts and figures can be shown that prove the lack of value transit has. Of course facts and figures are like polling results in an election — they can be manipulated.

It all comes down to belief. Do you believe transit projects are just a waste of time? Those who have and use transit don’t think so. Many places I visit can’t wait to get more transit once they get a taste for it. (Emphasis added.)

Of course they do, because no matter how much “transit” they have you still can’t get there from here and back again unless those points just happen to be along a pre-arranged trail, and oh-by-the-way-I-have-stops-to-make. They have “transit” but they don’t have transportation.

In the meantime, ya gotta beliiieeevvve!

Pardon me boy, but is that the Tim Sheehy choo-choo?

And that, my friends, is why I don't write my own headlines at the Waukesha Freeman.

I take on the silly idea that trains are the future, partially in response to MMAC President Tim Sheehy's column in last Saturday's Waukesha Freeman.

I'm sure Sheehy's friends all congratulated him on taking on big, bad, talk radio's Mark Belling. Woo, scary. As if it takes courage to repeat the CW talking points.

But I actually took Sheehy at his word, and I find the whole argument for a train ridiculous.

If the desire is to move from an origin point to an end point, and probably return, then transportation must be focused on that goal. Putting down fixed rails and requiring passengers to move along those points (regardless of the passengers’ desire) defeats the purpose of transportation.

Tim Sheehy’s desire for some sort of rail connecting Kenosha to Milwaukee is supposedly to service 360,000 jobs within three miles of the proposed stations. Even taking Sheehy at his word, three miles is a large distance for most people to traverse by foot, especially in bad weather. Sheehy’s choo-choo train will only require still more public expenditures at every point along the rails to complete the transportation from point to point.

Sheehy also fails to mention just how many people filling those jobs live within a realistic distance of the train. Which of Sheehy’s tax-sucking ideas can we expect to get people to the trains, and then from the trains to the employers, and then back to the trains, and then back to their homes? The proposed sales tax increase in Milwaukee County? The proposed state expenditures for the KRM line? (Read: money from Waukesha taxpayers.) More hotel and rental car taxes?

How would increasing tax burdens for what will likely be bottomless pits of mass transit desires improve the living condition of taxpayers and the conditions for doing business in southeastern Wisconsin?

On the other hand, how many hundreds of thousands of jobs are within a few feet of the nearest road built for automobiles? Roads that, despite MMAC’s supposed efforts, will suffer because the governor has raided the transportation fund. Roads that we have already committed to building and maintaining. Roads that are still the most efficient way man has devised of moving people, goods and services from point to point.

MMAC should expend its energies organizing car pools and private buses rather than figuring out new ways to raise taxes.

Advice to the next candidate for mayor

Crime, taxes, and "regional" transit.

Trust me.

Left behind

Sancho explores the world of mass transit. Misses the transit part of it. Maybe a little ZZ Top will make him feel better.

Pardon me boy, is that the money chewing choo-choo?

Fred Dooley has the details from the Wisconsin Car Rental Alliance on the KRM rail plan in the proposed state budget. Read the details at Fred's site, but there's one aspect I want to address.

The train won't go to the airport. How stupid is that? If you're going to have a train, why would you skip the airport when the people who would probably use it the most are people landing at Mitchell International?

And this is the problem with any plan that involves trains and rails. The trains don't go where people need to go. The ridership is never what is expected because the trains don't go where people want to go. So they have to build more rails to get more riders. And the rails will have to stretch into neighborhoods and the neighborhoods fight it more fiercely than they fight the freeways. (You think the people in Story Hill are fighting mad now about possible freeway expansion, wait until somebody decides they need a train to run from West Bend to Miller Park.) Meanwhile, even after they expand the trains still won't go where people want to go.

Do you know why every train plan involves government subsidies? Because it's 19th century technology applied to today's problems. Do you know the most efficient means invented of moving materials, people, goods and services - the true model of mass transit efficiency? The interstate freeway system.

In the early 1990s I traveled to Washington DC several times. Each time I rode the Metro system because it would take me to within a couple of blocks (with a couple of exceptions) of where I wanted to go on those visits. I was also much younger and fitter then, so a mile or two by foot wasn't a problem. However, I stayed in the College Park area and guess what was happening. The Metro was trying to expand and the community was fighting it, exactly as I described above. I also noticed I never had to struggle to find a seat.

The last time I went to Washington DC I rented a car. I think I've joked here about ending up in the wrong neighborhood in a rental car and a tourist map. I should've just put a bumper sticker on the rental, "Carjack Me Please." I've also ended up in the wrong neighborhood riding the Metro. At least in the rental car I could do something I couldn't do on the Metro. I locked the car doors. I also picked a single direction and started driving, not stopping until I saw horses and a barn, and then I pulled out my map again. Again, not something you can do on a train.

The reason I bring it up is that, unlike Milwaukee, Washington DC is close to the ideal for trains. But even in Washington DC they couldn't make rail work.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

I read liberal blogs sometimes for the good news

Because as much as I make fun of their bleak outlook on life, sometimes they pass along news that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Rail politics in Wisconsin has made city rail - - light, trolley or hybrid vehicles like those suggested, but also derailed for Milwaukee - - so difficult to achieve that the state's major cities will be the Light-Rail-Free-Zones of the US.

I feel like the Hyenas in The Lion King when Scar tells them they're going to get rid of Mustapha.
"No rail! No rail! No rail! No rail!"

Interestingly, while I'm positively giddy, Jim Rowen isn't. Perhaps he should read this post by former Madison Mayor Paul Soglin, and this one, and this one. Soglin, who accuses Republicans of "treason" because we don't give enough money to the road builders (I can't make this stuff up), and Rowen should have a debate some time. Despite living in the "suburban sprawl" of Waukesha they despise so much, I'll moderate if they want me to. It'll be nice to see left-of-center bloggers actually disagree on something. It would be interesting, too, to see how long it would take one of them to blame the White House for something.

Returning to our movie theme, if Scar had planned the food supply better, then wouldn't he have been the better king? After all, he was certainly more inclusive in that he brought the Hyenas (the only apparent minorities in the movie) into the Prideland. The young Simba cub probably would not have been a good king thrust into the role so young, reckless and immature. It's not like Scar had usurped a democratic regime; he usurped a hereditary monarchy. There was no objection to his seizing power after his brother's death and the disappearance of Simba. Nobody raised a voice of objection to the hyenas, even though the hyenas were the untouchables of the Mustapha reign. So, other than Scar's poor planning for the drought (which he seems to have answered by dispatching the lionesses to find new sources of food, something seriously neglected by the previous regime), why are we encouraging our children to cheer for the return of Simba to the Prideland?