Cars and trains are both transit technologies that have roots in 19th century.
The infrastructure for cars is also expensive.
Of course people are always going to drive, but it’s also no coincidence that growing and successful cities in this country all seem to have developed rail systems or are planning to develop them. Do you really think that Milwaukee is the city of the future (car) and multi-modal cities like Seattle and Portland are living in the 19th century?
The infrastructure for cars is expensive but it already exists and serves multiple purposes. Freight transportation isn't ever going anywhere, so you will always need highways and roads. Building a new mass transit system, from scratch, is astronomical---at least to the level that will make people here happy. Sure, you might be able to contruct one or two lines somewhere but they can never be useful to anywhere close to the vast majority of people in this city or region. Even in Chicago, 50% of commuters still drive their cars and they have rail infrastructure (and road traffic) that is beyond anything we can dream of.
We missed the boat on rail in the past but we can be at the forefront of electric, autonomous, and battery powered vehicles. I feel this is a more prudent use of limited taxpayer money than trying to play catch-up to other cities because we feel not having rail transit makes us less than. I think this obsession, almost anger here on any topic regarding transportation largely being a product of that. We can try bus rapid transit, as well.
I would be less opposed to rail, of course, if Milwaukee's (and suburbs) population were to explode but we aren't anywhere close to that. Our priorities are elsewhere thus. You all think lack of rail transit is the cause of our low-population growth, I think it's our crime rate, concern with schools, weather, and job market. It's not like Chicago, a much larger version of ourselves, is booming in population either, despite having trains. Like us, their attractive parts of the city are thriving while everything else is declining or treading water. How can we fix
those areas? It isn't the commuting that is the problem. Cities like Minneapolis, Seattle, or Portland don't have those perceptions, even after last summer. We are lumped in with Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. Crime-ridden, depressed industrial cities.
We've done a good job changing some of that perception without the trains, as the downtown area has become more of a cool place to be the last 20 or so years. We've done this by focusing on the individual neighborhoods and even creating new ones, like the Beerline, Third Ward, or Pabst. This is why I am so bothered by this unintentional damage to the theme of Old World Third St. This patchwork of unique neighborhoods within and surrounding/connected to downtown with plenty of room for expansion north and westward. This was all done without trains or gridlock.
Milwaukee needs some growth but do you really want to explode in population? I think the charm would quickly be lost, as the entire city becomes yuppie/hipsterfied. Unlike most, I think we exist in a preferable position as an affordable but improving city. People dream of massive population growth but don't realize we are essentially apart of the third-largest city in the country at the fringe of Chicagoland. We have most of the advantages and few of the disadvantages of a major city, including access to an international airport with O'Hare. We should seek better connections with Chicago. I'm not opposed to the Hiawatha and would agree to any proposal to a bullet train there. I'm not opposed to the KRM proposal.
