He goes to great lengths of logic and illogic to try to convince his reader that it is an absolute necessity to build bigger and wider and more costly highways. So it is no small wonder that he avoided this story (emphasis mine):
The perfect commute is easy, inexpensive and reliable. In cities boasting
such factors, like Buffalo, N.Y., Salt Lake City and Milwaukee the trip to work is a breeze. But for commuters in Atlanta, Detroit and Miami, the daily grind is just that, thanks to bad traffic, insufficient infrastructure and drivers who resist carpools and public transportation.
and later in the same article:
A high efficiency rating also affects cost. Driving alone is more expensive than carpooling, which is typically more expensive than public transit, which is more expensive than walking. Sweet crude oil is currently selling at more than $110 a barrel, and the less dependant commuters are on it, the cheaper the commute.
Of course, being a good member of the right wing local media, he wouldn't want you to know that, would he?
I don't get the connection. :/
ReplyDeleteMcIlheran is for raising taxes and building highways that aren't needed. At the same time, he opposes mass transit options like sufficient buses, bike racks on buses, and rail systems, all of which would be cheaper.
ReplyDeleteBut that fact, along with the fact that Milwaukee already has an efficient highway system doesn't fit into his agenda.
Hmmm....how much has the population grown for the area? That might be an indication on whether or not newer roads are needed. Looking at the really BIG cities, they're road system is totally inadequate, so I'm wondering....
ReplyDeleteAs for buses, ever seen how many empty buses there are stinking up the place? :) Rail in warmer climes makes sense. If they wanted to build an underground system, I think Milwaukee would have to shut down for a couple of decades. :/ Bikes? Uh....it's flippin' COLD up there. LOL
The population has actually dropped a little, so there is even less need for the freeway expansion.
ReplyDeleteFor the buses, thanks to Scott Walker's mismanagement, Milwaukee is one of the few cities that hasn't seen an explosion in ridership in the last year. Needless to say, McIlheran approves of Walker's methodology.
As to bike racks, Kate, I know of which I speak. Even in cities farther north of Milwaukee, like Stevens Point and Wausau, has seen increases in ridership from bike racks.
Likewise, many warmer weather climes have successfully put in rail systems, so why couldn't we, except for some short-sighted money-grubbers.
Hmmm... Money grubbers...you mean kind of like what Doyle did with the transportation fund so he could claim to have balanced the budget?
ReplyDeleteBeing a warm weather creature m'self, I can't see riding bikes in the winter up there. but hey, there are no doubt some serious diehards. :)
Ok, the population has dropped (we won't get into the whys of that heh). Milwaukee still has a LOT of traffic going through there, from Chicago and such. So, in a way, I can understand building roads for the future. Actually, I think there needs to be a serious by-pass for ALL cities, and no one would be allowed to build anything but gas stations. :)
I'm still having some trouble understanding why you think roads are bad, and buses with bike racks are good. If the population declines....
Ok, maybe I'm having a Monday on a Saturday. :)
LOL!
ReplyDeleteKate, the state of Wisconsin grew, Milwaukee County shrunk. Quality of life means more than six bucks, I guess.
We already have a bypass. But with the gas prices the way they are, mass transit is jumping. Since putting a rail system in would actually be cheaper than rebuilding and expanding the highway, which would you rather have? Plus having less vehicles doing the same works saves money, woul hopefully keep gas prices in check (although with Big Oil, and the Repubs kissing their tushes, I doubt anything will keep gas down), and keep the air cleaner. It's a much better and more logical answer.
A bypass? Where? LOL That thing that ya take past the airport? Jiminy Crickets! That thing is dangerous!
ReplyDeleteAgain with the "big oil". Yikes. LOL Ok, I'm not get into India and China, and THEIR demand. The oddball "speculators", the OPEC nonsense. sigh...
Anyways, the quality of life in Milwaukee has declined...why? I don't suppose it has anything to do with the mega gain activity? Hmmm... Shoot, it's declined in a lot of big cities because of the illegal activities. Pay per hour doesn't really decide if you are going to be a thug or not. Character might have a bit to do with that. :)
Totally irrelevant, but while I was out today, I noticed the price per gallon had dropped 8 cents. It's a shame I didn't need any gas. sigh...
Kate, answer me this, if you would. If the oil companies were allowed to drill ANWR or anywhere else, and let's pretend that there was enough oil to make a difference, do you really think that the oil companies would sell it here as opposed to overseas, where they would make a higher profit on it?
ReplyDeleteAh, and the quality of life. Yeah, like the rural papers I read this morning with the murders, the drug dealings, the OD deaths, the rapes, the armed robberies in thug country like Stevens Point, Wausau, Scandinavia (population is something like 600). Not a lot of gangs in rural Wisconsin, by the way.
Perhaps, Milwaukee's problems is a little more complex than the right would have us believe. Interestingly enough, a colleague of mine wrote of the broken windows policy related to the county. If you have crappy parks, a broken justice system, and no safety nets, things are more likely to get bad. Make things nice, and people will be nice, or at least would want to care about it more.
Well, it all depends on the oil company, doesn't it, and how much local regulation the gubmint keeps slapping on them. :)
ReplyDeleteMilwaukee, or any larger city's problem, has become complicated due to the left's inability to see how simple the solutions really could be. :) Ok, I'd get into all kinds of theology here, and I know ya don't want that.