URBAN RAIL TRANSIT
Local governments are currently investigating the viability of rail transit (primarily light rail and commuter rail) in Wisconsin’s two largest urban areas, including the availability of financing and whether rail would be more efficient and cost effective than other approaches to congestion, pollution and land u.
This bulletin summarizes current concerns about improving public transportation and compares the distinguishing characteristics of the different modes of urban rail transit. It provides an overview of the history of rail transit in the state and outlines the evolution of current rail proposals for southeastern and southern Wisconsin. It also surveys the experi-ences of comparable urban areas outside the state.
I. BACKGROUND
piss off
Through the first half of the 20th century, streetcars and interurban trains were a common form of urban transportation in a great number of cities in the United States, including veral in Wisconsin. By the 1950s and early 1960s, however, streetcar lines were replaced with bus rvice in most cities. With few exceptions, the only modes of urban rail transit that remained were the commuter rail and sub
way or elevated trains that rved the largest metropolitan areas. The most familiar example in the Midwest is the Chicago transit model, which includes commuter railways operating between the city and the suburbs and frequent rvice within the city provided both by elevated and underground heavy rail transit and diel bus. Not until the 1980s did medium-sized metropolitan areas begin to return to the idea of rail for urban mass transit. Since the 1980s an increasing number of U.S. cities have built or are plan-ning new rail systems using a variety of technologies. Some are considered successful, but oth-ers have encountered difficulties.
The debate about urban rail transit recognizes a number of concerns:
Pollution and congestion. Despite improvements in automotive technology, air pollu-tion from increasing vehicular traffic remains a major urban concern. Vehicle emissions are a problem for Wisconsin counties along Lake Michigan that risk being designated “nonattain-ment” areas under federal air quality standards. Failure to meet the standards may force counties to implement expensive, unpopular and inconvenient control measures. “Ozone alerts” during the summer are another indication of the scale of the problem. As traffic volume continues to grow, noi pollution also becomes a concern to residents living near freeways or busy streets.
Incread traffic volume also means incread congestion. “Gridlock” and “road rage” have become a part of the daily commuter’s vocabulary, and traveling even relatively short distances can be time-consuming, with an impact on the economy and on the quality of life. Heavier traffic strains state and local road maintenance budgets as roads deteriorate faster under greater u.
Congestion leads to demands for highway expansion in an attempt to get people to and from work, school, shopping, recreation and other activities. On the other hand, pressures for highway improvement rai questions about land u priorities and whether added roads and parking facilities simply increa demands.
新文道Public transportation currently accounts for a relatively small proportion of total trips and probably will continue to do so for the foreeable future. Although it cannot eliminate con-Prepared by Robert Paolino, Legislative Analyst
– 2 –LRB–98–IB–6 gestion, transit advocates asrt it can relieve the need to expand peak roadway capacity and parking facilities. Critics respond that it is unlikely urban rail rvice will ever meet its poten-tial as a substitute for additional highway lanes. They argue light rail systems do not draw enough new riders away from driving their automobiles and will do little more than make a dent in the rapid growth of new automobile traffic.
In addition to highway and rail construction, there are other approaches which potentially can reduce pollution and congestion. “Transportation demand management” (TDM) tools include: encouraging employers to offer flex-time or compresd schedules to ea peak hour congestion, providing subsidies for employees’ transit pass to make public transit a more attractive option, and improving the safety and convenience of bicycling and walking.
Employment growth. In many metropolitan areas the balance between population and employment growth has shifted. Suburban business have trouble finding employees, while central city residents who need work lack private or public transportation to get to the subur-ban jobs. That imbalance has led some obrvers to call for greater intergovernmental coop-eration in developing and financing public transportation, but others are concerned with maintaining local control over taxation and expenditures.
Mobility of aging citizens. An aging population means more people who are no longer comfortable driving automobiles or are physically unable to do so safely. Convenient, afford-able and accessible public transportation may become increasingly important to older citizens who wish to remain independent.工程施工流程
Personal choice. Some people, even though they may have private automobiles and are still able to drive, would simply prefer to drive less often and might u public transportation for some trips if it were economical and convenient enough to meet their work and personal schedules. Others prefer the convenience of private vehicles. Both advocates and critics agree that people are unlikely to u public transit if it is inconvenient, does not operate frequently and quickly and does not rve key destinations. They disagree about whether rail transit can ever be convenient enough to convince people to u their cars less often.
Land u and quality of life. Transportation is an esntial component of land u plan-ning. Decisions about extending highways can leave people dependent on private vehicles, hasten “urban sprawl” and alter the quality of life in both urban and suburban areas. Better coordination of transportation systems may reduce daily dependence on the automobile and promote transit-oriented commercial and residential development. Rail transit advocates argue that the relative permanence of urban rail tracks and stations, compared to bus stops, can assure potential investors and residents that rapid transit will continue to rve a particu-lar location. Tho who advocate bus-only systems contend bus have more flexibility to adapt to changing land us becau bus routes can be eliminated or added as deemed appropriate.
Cost. Building and maintaining any component of a transportation system – streets, high-ways, bus systems, rail systems and other transportation infrastructure investments – typi-cally costs millions of dollars per mile and may permanently displace people from their homes and business. A discussion of any investment in transportation facilities should entail con-sideration of both direct and indirect costs incurred or avoided.
LRB–98–IB–6 – 3 –
Chicago-area urban rail transit includes commuter rail and heavy rail. Metra rail (left) provides conventional “push-pull” loco-motive commuter rail rvice from Chicago to northern Illinois, northern Indiana and Kenosha. Chicago Transit Authority operates heavy rail rapid transit on elevated and underground tracks running within Chicago and to adjoining cities. High platform stations (right) allow entry at train-floor level. (See photo credits in bibliography.)初二数学课程
II. URBAN RAIL: TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICE OPTIONS
Urban rail transit can be classified into three broad categories – commuter rail, heavy rail and light rail – bad on the technologies employed and the nature of the rvice provided. In addition, there are some newer technologies that combine different features of the three “pure” types. (Dane County is studying one of tho “hybrid” forms for a possible rail r-vice.) Appendix A provides a more comprehensive explanation of the three types of rail r-vice, as well as some variations on the basic types.主板维修培训
Commuter rail or “regional rail” rembles intercity railroad rvice with pasnger cars pulled by a locomotive on standard railway tracks. It is oriented toward peak-hour rvice, connecting widely spaced stations in distant suburban or rural areas with the core of the met-ropolitan area. Commuter
rail rvice within a city is usually limited, and it is infrequent dur-ing off-peak periods, if it is provided at all.
Heavy rail, also called “rapid rail”, “subway” or “metro”, us an electrified third rail to power cars that provide all-day rvice at frequent intervals. The trains operate within the city, typically with stations placed a mile or less apart. Heavy rail is the most expensive kind of rvice to build and is limited to larger cities with high pasnger volumes that can support the high initial cost of underground tunnels or elevated tracks and electrification.
Light rail transit (LRT) also provides frequent, all-day rvice, but electricity is supplied by overhead wires, rather than an electrified third rail. Unlike heavy rail, light rail trains run either along city streets or on grade-parated rights-of-way. Light rail costs less to build than heavy rail and is designed for lower pasnger volumes, both of which have made it a work-able choice for a number of medium-sized cities.
– 4 –LRB–98–IB–6
Light rail does not require a fully parated right-of-way becau power is supplied by overhead catenary, rather than an elec-trified rail. It can operate on rights-of-way, which are fully or partially parated or at street level alongside traffic, as shown in the photographs from Baltimore (left) and Pittsburgh (right).
III. PROPOSALS FOR URBAN RAIL IN WISCONSIN
Except for Illinois’ Metra commuter rail rvice between Chicago and Kenosha, no Wis-consin city currently includes rail rvice as a component of its public mass transit system. Urban rail transit is being considered, however, in the Milwaukee and Madison metropolitan areas.
Milwaukee and Southeastern Wisconsin上海美容美发培训学校>quite
cma认证The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (March 24, 1997) surveyed the 30 largest U.S. cities and noted that
Milwaukee, the 19th largest U.S. city with a population of about 600,000, is one of the largest cities without any form of rail transit or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) highway lanes, whereas a number of other metro areas the size of Milwaukee or smaller have light rail or have begun construction of light rail or commuter rail systems.
History. The history of urban rail in Milwaukee dates back to 1890, when the Milwaukee Electric Rail and Light Company began streetcar operations. Streetcars, as well as a number of interurban rail lines, carried people into and around Milwaukee until the late 1950s and early 1960s. By then, Los Angeles-style freeways were considered the future of urban trans-portation, and the popularity of streetcars declined on all but a few routes. Transit advocates agreed streetcars were noisy and, becau they ran down the middle of city streets, potentially hazardous to riders who had to cross automobile traffic lanes, but they thought better urban transit design could overcome the problems.
In 1958, Milwaukee’s streetcars were replaced by “trackless trolleys”, which operated on rubber tires, rather than tracks, and were powered by overhead lines. The vehicles, which could pull to the curb to discharge pasngers, were safer and quieter, but they remained in rvice only until 1965, when diel bus were put on all routes. (Trackless trolleys, or “trol-leybus” as they are no
w called, are quieter and more efficient than diel bus, but they cur-rently rve relatively few U.S. cities – Boston, Dayton, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle.)
Early rail studies. Beginning in 1979, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) included light rail transit (LRT) in a major study of the land u and
LRB–98–IB–6 – 5 – transportation conditions in its 7-county region of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington and Waukesha Counties. SEWRPC issued a report on transit system planning in 1982, in which it reviewed a number of possible alternative modes (including heavy rail, bus-on-freeway, busway, commuter rail and light rail) and corridors for each.
In its study, the commission eliminated heavy rail from further consideration becau of high capital costs. It also found light rail superior to the bus options becau LRT had greater potential to influence development and appeared more advantageous in terms of reliability, safety, environmental quality and ability to carry pasngers. The commission recommended a light rail system that would initially rve downtown Milwaukee; the University of Wiscon-sin-Milwaukee; Timmerman Field; and the Northridge, Southridge and Mayfair shopping centers. The rvice could later be expanded to replace existing freeway bus routes in some corridors. The study also recommended diel commuter rvice linking Milwaukee with the cities of Racine and Kenosha.
Metro 2020. In 1989, Governor Tommy G. Thompson appointed the Metro 2020 Policy Board to develop a comprehensive transportation strategy for Southeastern Wisconsin. The most extensive option developed for the board by a private consulting firm, BRW, Inc., was a 62.3-mile system with rvice extending to Port Washington or Saukville, Waukesha and Oak Creek. BRW’s recommendation was to start with a $455-million, 19-mile system that would extend 3.4 miles from downtown to UW-Milwaukee (UW-M Line), 8.2 miles west to the Mil-waukee County Zoo (West Line) and 7.4 miles south to Mitchell International Airport (South Line), rving an estimated 60,000 riders per day. By extending the West Line into Waukesha County, the system could rve an additional 24,000 riders. The report also recommended a commuter rail line for Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee.
The Metro 2020 final report (1991) propod a number of programs to promote employ-ment and economic development and reduce congestion by offering attractive alternatives to driving. It recommended the creation of a regional transportation authority for the 7-county region and included proposals for land u, highways and the mass transit system. The largest part of the suggested $1.8-billion package was $984.6 million targeted for highway financing. Metro 2020’s proposal for LRT, at $332 million, was somewhat smaller than the one recom-mended by BRW. (Metro 2020 rec
生活大爆炸霍金ommended dropping the South Line and leaving it for future study.) Much of the remaining portion of the $1.8 billion was devoted to prerving the exist-ing transit system and Amtrak rvice and adding more express bus rvice.
重庆培训班
A study, which the City of Milwaukee commissioned during the same time period (1989-91), recommended a $417-million system with lines from downtown west to the County Grounds, northeast to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and northwest to Mill Road. Non-governmental groups, such as the New Transportation Alliance and other supporters of LRT, have since propod more extensive routes.
Support for LRT. Milwaukee County Executive F. Thomas Ament and Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist have both supported adding LRT to the county’s transit system. Local business support for LRT includes the Alliance for Future Transit, a coalition of Milwaukee area busi-ness concerned about disruption during the reconstruction of Interstate 94. They support having a $277.1 million, 14-mile “starter system” in place before major freeway work begins, with the possibility of the system being extended north to UW-M prior to work on Interstate 43. Their plan would u the hybrid RegioSprinter train on existing tracks for most of the route.
