Monday, December 24, 2007

Saving the Number 9

McIlheran has stated that he is all for raising taxes if it means building bigger and faster freeways. He's probably all for the Pabst Farm Interchange as well. Since Paddymac is all for throwing millions after millions of dollars at needless road constructions, I hope he wouldn't mind (actually I don't care if he minded or not) if a mere $100,000 dollars were diverted to save the #9 bus route that services Milwaukee workers who have jobs in Waukesha.

For the want of $100, 000, Dan Vrakas, Waukesha County Executive, is willing to let this route disappear at the end of 2007.

James Rowen makes some clear, logical points on how and why this should be done, which I am sure would be lost on the right wing media, especially McIlheran.

But I like Gretchen Schuldt's suggestion as well. There is something appealing about the thought of knocking Scott Walker's and Dan Vrakas' heads together in an effort to knock some sense into them.


  1. At what point is it wise to decide that a bus route is unprofitable?

    On Average this route has 100 riders(even though the number I hear most is 70 riders) per day for a 5 day work week. Now with 9 round trips per day at a fare of $1.75 each way equals $3.50.

    $3.50 times 140 equals $490.00 in paying customers.

    Multiply $490x52 weeks per year and you arrive at a total of $25480.00

    Please explain why taxpayers should be on the hook for $74520.00? and further more I would also be interested in hearing WHY, Waukesha County residents should be on the hook for all that money? And regional cooperation is NOT an answer.

    And actually come to think of it neither is well they work in Waukesha County so therefore they should have to pay to get them there. They may work in Waukesha County but odds are they will spend that money they earn in Waukesha County in MILWAUKEE county where they live.

  2. Perhaps they could just take some from the millions of dollars they want to waste on the Pabst Farm Interchange project.

    But that would mean actually putting the money where it would help people that aren't already rich. Is that what you're afraid of?

  3. The last time I checked the "dead ends" that inhabit city and suburbia alike are paved, plowed and generally taken care of by the city/county. To my knowledge these "no use but to a few" streets are costing a ton of money for the very few who drive on them to get to their houses. Why should we pay for it? I rarely if ever drive down a dead end street but in all honesty do not mind paying for those who do. We can go round and round about all sorts of “unfair for me” costs. If you choose to live in a society then try your bests to look beyond yourself for a moment!

    When will this illogical capitalistic argument of breaking EVERY public entity down into a per use basis stop? It is getting OLD!