Milwaukee I-94 Expansion Opposed by Mayor
by Lewis DerkinsMay 28th, 2008, 5:22 pm
Tom Barrett, the Mayor of Milwaukee, is opposed to expanding interstate 94 with federal funds granted explicitly for that purpose.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the proposed expansion occurs on a
35-mile stretch of I-94 [that] plays a key role in the state’s economy. The recommended plan will improve safety, ease congestion and modernize this important transportation artery that serves more than 150,000 vehicles daily.
Economically, the project will keep vital interchanges and portions of the freeway open so goods and services can continue to move through our area.
Providing eight lanes versus six lanes is expected to result in 100 fewer crashes per year. Reconstructing the Mitchell interchange and the Plainfield curve will also increase safety in the system and reduce crashes.
So why does Mayor Barrett oppose the expansion? ……wait for it……
He wants to spend the money on mass transit instead.
This violates federal rules about how the money can be spent, and so probably won’t happen, but let’s talk about how moronic this opposition is.
Milwaukee already has an extensive taxpayer funded mass transit system that encompasses airports, boats, rails, an award winning bus system, and bike trails.
Despite providing transit service within a quarter mile walking distance of 85% of every Milwaukee County resident, the service is only used by “1 of every 12 Milwaukeeans every day”. Another way to look at that is that the transit system currently serves a little more than 8% of the residents despite being so extensive and convenient.
By comparison, 85.6% of Milwaukee County residents and 81.2% of city residents use cars to commute to work. These people comprise over 150,000 vehicles per day on one of the sections of I-94 up for expansion. That’s more cars on one short stretch of road than there are daily rides on the whole Milwaukee Mass Transit System.
According to Wisconsin DoT:
1.3 million people, 28,500 businesses and 595,000 jobs are in these three counties combined. About one in six residents, businesses or jobs are in close proximity to the corridor.
In other words, this road is the backbone of Milwaukee’s economy.
But instead of protecting lives and jobs by expanding the interstate, Mayor Barrett wants to double the size of mass transit systems that people aren’t fully using now. Brilliant idea. Here’s a question Mayor, where are all those new buses you want to purchase going to drive when you cram all of that increased I-94 traffic onto local roads?
Posted in Highways, Mass Transit, Spending |
Why do you guys think you know what’s better for Milwaukee than the Mayor of Milwaukee?
Capitalist,
That’s a nice little talking point! Unfortunately, it doesn’t pass the logic test.
You said in another comment: “Did you account for the trillion or so dollars we spent over the last six years establishing a police presence alongside our Middle East gas station?”
Your tone connotes a criticism of America’s foreign policy.
By your logic displayed above, what makes you think you know what’s better for America’s foreign policy than the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, Director of the CIA, etc?
Logic test?
When I asked whether you accounted for military expenditures in your tally of the cost of US automobile dependency, I expressed no judgment about whether protecting the flow of cheap oil out of the Middle East with US troops is good policy or bad. I just asked if you accounted for the military expenses associated with keeping our vehicles moving in this country. Your lack of an answer to the question would seem to indicate you did not. You can choose how much, but you need to assign some military cost to our current, auto-dependent transport system. There’s a climate change cost too but that’s a lot harder to tally.
The other question is pretty simple too. What makes you think that you know what’s better for Milwaukee than its own mayor?
Barrett’s a pretty smart guy. He has watched as these highway projects have sucked money, residents, businesses and tax base out of Milwaukee and into a far-flung suburban sprawl over the last few decades. He recognizes that transport money is finite and with gas prices doing what they’re doing, suburban sprawl is probably not the best long-term investment for the city or the region. Barrett is, essentially, trying to stand in the way of the continued, fifty-year-long, big government social engineering project that has created the suburban sprawl that has come to engulf and overpower his once great American city.
You seem to fashion yourself a libertarian which would indicate that you’d like to see local communities and individuals and guys like Barrett making decisions for themselves and not being imposed upon by outsiders and big federal and state entities like the Wisconsin DOT with their federal largesse.
Yet, it seems whenever a transit project comes along, that is, in your eyes, an imposition of big government and a waste of taxpayer dollars. But if that same money were used to add another lane to the freeway, it would somehow meet your libertarian sniff test.
Seems pretty squishy-brained and ideological, Judd. I don’t get it.
Capitalist - I think the climate change cost is difficult to calculate because it doesn’t exist.
You may have a point about the strategic investment that we currently outlay in defense dollars to protect oil, and you’ll hear no arguments from me that we need to find another source of energy - but we’re discussing that on your other comment thread.
As to defense dollars, the problem with that again is that it’s tied to more than just automobiles and you’re casting a much wider net than the intent of our original post. If we’re talking about whether or not automobiles pay for their own infrasturcture, they do.
What you’re talking about is a much larger cost benefit analysis that we don’t have time fro unless we quit our day jobs.
To your point about Barrett, this is why I criticize him:
First, he wants to divert FEDERAL funds to pay for this. If he wants to divert city funds, I would still object, but since he’s reaching into my pocket for this outlay, that gives me and you and everyone else a say in whether this choice makes any sense.
Second, If I could drive 75mph through Minneapolis during rush hour, but the trains were running at 150% capacity and you had to wait for three trains before there was enough space to cram you on like they do in Tokyo, you would hear zero oppositiuon from me about expanding the mass transit.
The problem is that only 8% of the residents use the system currently. I don’t know what their operating capacity is, but given that they are designed so that 85% of the residents live within a quarter mile walk from the services, and only 8% actually ride, I’d say it’s safe to estimate that they’re not stratched to capacity.
That’s why I criticize Barrett. And you’re right, I could probably be nicer, and not call him stupid, but this is Commuter Outrage, and he is an elected official who should be able to withstand the criticism.
Fortunately, it’s really not a matter of what you think, Lewis. It’s a matter of fact. And the fact is that you are wrong.
Capitalist,
Prove it.
OK Capitalist, I’ll indulge you for a moment –
Let me clarify my position, manmade global warming doesn’t exist.
Now, if I’m so wrong about that, why do over 31,000 scientists support me? Last time I checked, that’s over 12 times the number of scientists who are on the IPCC telling us we’re doomed. And that’s being generous to your side because several of those scientists have resigned or publicly come out against the IPCC’s conclusions. By the way, that petition number is growing by about 35 signatures per day.
If I’m so wrong, why did the IPCC, the very people who have been scaremongering us, announce last month that we’re about to go through a decade of cooling?
That doesn’t make sense – if our temperature is inextricably linked and irreversible unless man acts, then as we continue to put CO2 into the air, temperature should continue to rise no matter what. The fact that it doesn’t indicates that CO2 isn’t the true cause – the sun is. In fact, scientists have recently announced that historical records of solar activity closely match temperature changes on earth. All of this makes sense if you know anything at all about science and geological history – the earth has been much warmer than it is today in periods before there were people to warm it up, and it has been much warmer during periods of human history before we were emitting CO2 in large quantities. Of course, it also makes sense if you pay any attention to the world around you – you might notice these things called seasons – they’re what happens when the earth is tilted ever so slightly closer to or further away from the sun. For that matter, you may have noticed night and day – when the sun shines or it doesn’t. Both of these mysterious phenomena change the temperature you feel by dozens of degrees each day. What a surprise that changes in solar activity may cause the earth to warm or cool.
If Global warming exists, why hasn’t there been any in the last decade?
Again, with steadily increasing CO2, this doesn’t make sense.
Now let’s consider a few things about global warming:
Who are the big proponents? – Answer politicians, celebrities and big business.
Why? – They have things to gain from you. – Politicians can tax the hell out of you and get you to surrender personal liberty for the cause, celebrities maintain a public image that is healthy for their public perception and big business stands to make a killing off of dupes like you who won’t do the research for yourself or ask basic questions. Your failure to see this makes me wonder if you truly are capitalist since subscribing to state run money grabs is typically a socialist view.
Take a look at this list of the biggest vocal proponents and their credentials (You’ll notice only 1 has a science degree and it’s not in climate sciences):
Celebrities
Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)
Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O’Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout
Politicians:
John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, ‘recovered’ Heroin addict)
Scientists:
Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt’s Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Social Scientists:
Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)
But you don’t really need to know any of this in order to know global warming is a crock. All you really have to do is ask some basic questions.
Can scientists reliably predict the weather 3 days from now? Nope. Since they cannot, how can they predict the climate, something thousands of times more complex, 100 years from now, with computer models that to date have never once been right in their predictions? They cannot. Now ask yourself, why would it be bad for the earth to get warmer? This would allow us to grow crops in wider areas of land, and if you pay attention, you’ll notice that every year, cold weather kills many times more people than warm weather.
Science is never settled by consensus. It is settled by independent verifiable and repeatable observation. Science doesn’t take sides, it is or it isn’t, and the debate is never over as long as there are two sides to the debate. People like Al Gore are on a big kick now, calling those of us who question deniers and comparing us to people who used to believe the earth was flat – well let me point out to you that the flat earth people, and the people who believed in alchemy and that the earth was the center of the solar system were all part of the “consensus view” before they were proven utterly wrong – and usually by one man’s research.
Lewis, the fact is that you are wrong.
That is all.
Judd, the fact is that Capitalist is a communist.
Lewis,
Do you really believe that Matt Damon and Al Sharpton are the go-to experts on climate change?
Judd,
Is climate change a communist plot?
You guys started off pretty good with this blog but you increasingly appear to be complete whackjobs, especially you, Lewis. Lord help America if there are a lot of you out there.
When you’re done reading whatever Madonna and Gwyneth have to say about climate change, you might want to check in with the IPCC…
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
Capitalist,
I think it’s pretty obvious that I could care less what celebrities say about anything. The whole point is that a celebrity is hardly an expert when compared to 31,000 scientists - and last time I checked that number outnumbers the IPCC 12 to 1.
As for whether we’re whack jobs, I notice you don’t dispute any of my facts, you just point out that I mock the fact that the proponents for your side of the argument are not scientists, which is exactly my point.
As for your report, I’ve read it already. It’s a political report, not a scientific report, and again, this is disputed by over 12 times the number of scientists as there are in the IPCC. You also may not know that this report doesn’t even represent the true veiws of the 2,500 scientists - only about three dozen have any say in its authorship.
Are Michael J. Fox and Kareem Abdul Jabar still signed on to that bunk petition or did Dr. Strangelove finally clean up his list?
Pull your head out, Lewis.
You know, Capitalist, your comments are becoming more and more enlightening and stimulating. Sometimes I have to re-read them, as they’re so dense with evidence and analysis. Do keep it up!
That’s a valid point, however if you actually read all of the info on the petition, you would note that any dicovered forgeries have been removed.
Michael Fox is a real scientist with verified credentials, so is Perry Mason. Kareem Abdul Jabar isn’t on there.
I wonder if you have applied the same rigor to the IPCC signatories - have you verified to see that they are real and their credentials valid? You do know one of their main contributors, Christopher Monckton - he shares Gore’s peace prize - accused the IPCC of research fraud late last year, don’t you?
You also know that the credentials of many of them have were called into question last year don’t you? You can read a synopsis here, or read the whole examination into the issue here.
Look, I don’t care if you believe global warming is happening - you may very well be right. My position is that we don’t know why it’s happening, and we don’t do ourselves any good by refusing to have an honest debate on the science.
The biggest danger as I see it is that you’re right, global warming is happening and it is manmade (or at least a portion of it) - but take it one step further and assume that there is nothing we can do to stop it. Is it really in our best interests to try to stifle development and productivity in order to try to stop something we can’t stop?
I mean, the seas rise. Our feet aren’t planted in cement. One thing you don’t often hear is that the seas rose 12 inches over the last century - twice what the IPCC predicts for this century, but where were the mass starvations and plagues, the flooding and drowning? It didn’t happen. We’re not talking about a tsunami of water, we’re talking about less than 6 inches over the course of a century, mankind has the capability to deal with that - look at the Dutch.
Let me make a serious point. And this is to all our readers.
Link-dropping - the 55-page IPCC report, for instance - is good only if you provide a few sentences explaining the main point of whatever you’re linking to and why you’re linking to it.
For instance, give us the executive summary (in your words), point out this or that page you want us to look at, recap the main arguments, concentrate on one argument you like best, etc.
We love data, and want as much of it as we can get our hands on. But we also want to hear your opinions and positions, even if they’re talking points you’ve heard from somewhere else.
Don’t just drop some link into the bottom of your post without any real commentary or analysis and expect us to be impressed.
That’s not what we do here at Commuter Outrage.