Getting to Work:

Getting to Work: Opportunities and obstacles to improving transit service to suburban Milwaukee job hubs

ABOUT THE PUBLIC POLICY FORUM Milwaukee-based Public Policy Forum – which was established in 1913 as a local government watchdog – is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the effectiveness of government and the development of southeastern Wisconsin through objective research of regional public policy issues.

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was undertaken to provide citizens, policymakers, and business leaders in the Milwaukee area with information that will allow them to better understand the many considerations and challenges impacting the potential to improve public transportation connections to suburban job centers throughout the region. We hope that policymakers and community leaders will use the report’s findings to inform discussions during upcoming policy debates, budget deliberations, and civic gatherings regarding public transportation services and strategies in our region. Report authors would like to thank the leadership and planning staff of the Milwaukee County Transit System for patiently answering our questions and providing us with information that made it possible to model potential transit routes. We also would like to thank officials and staff from the Milwaukee County Department of Transportation, Waukesha County Department of Public Works, Waukesha Metro Transit, and Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington Workforce Development Board for providing additional information and insight. Finally, we wish to thank Transit Now for commissioning this research and for helping to fund it with a grant from the Greater Milwaukee Foundation, as well as the Helen Bader Foundation for its grant to the Forum for workforce development research, which also helped make this report possible.

Public Policy Forum 100th Anniversary Sponsors Pillars of Public Policy ● Herzfeld Foundation, Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Helen Bader Foundation, Northwestern Mutual, Quad/Graphics, Wisconsin Energy Foundation Sentinels of Civil Conduct ● Baird, BMO Harris Bank N.A., Potawatomi Bingo Casino

Getting to Work: Opportunities and obstacles to improving transit service to suburban Milwaukee job hubs

December 2013

Study authors: Joe Peterangelo, Researcher Virginia Carlson, Research Director Rob Henken, President

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Job centers and transit accessibility............................................................................................... 4 Selecting job hubs for transit improvements .............................................................................. 9 Last mile challenge .................................................................................................................................. 11 Bus service was attempted before but eliminated ................................................................................. 11 Trip time on transit is prohibitive ........................................................................................................... 12 Transit exists, but service is not designed for reverse commuters ........................................................ 12

MCTS considerations and obstacles related to new transit routes ................................... 13 Route productivity .................................................................................................................................. 13 Funding limitations ................................................................................................................................. 15 Planning and implementation challenges............................................................................................... 17 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Route modeling .................................................................................................................................... 19 Route 80X from Oak Creek to Mequon via downtown Milwaukee ........................................................ 19 Route 10X from UWM to Brookfield Square via downtown Milwaukee................................................ 28 Route 351 from West Allis to the Westridge Business Park in New Berlin ............................................ 31 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 34

Alternatives to fixed-route transit ................................................................................................ 35 Vanpools ................................................................................................................................................. 35 Shuttle services ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Car purchasing programs ........................................................................................................................ 38 Driver’s license recovery programs ........................................................................................................ 39 Private fixed-route bus services.............................................................................................................. 39 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 40

Observations and policy considerations..................................................................................... 41 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................ 44

Page 2

Introduction In recent years, the divergence between where workers live in the Milwaukee area and where jobs are located – also known as the “spatial mismatch” – has been well documented, particularly in the context of declining public transportation services in the region. It is difficult or impossible to get to jobs in many suburban areas without an automobile, a problem that has been exacerbated over the past decade as the severe fiscal challenges facing the Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) have produced a series of cuts in service. In fact, those cuts have resulted in a 22% decline in total annual bus miles between 2000 and 2012 and have caused tens of thousands of jobs to become inaccessible via public transportation. 12 This report takes a fresh look at workforce mobility in metro Milwaukee by reconsidering the options that may exist to improve access to suburban job centers for those who cannot afford an automobile, or who otherwise cannot or opt not to use one. Our focus is on the four-county Milwaukee metropolitan statistical area, defined as Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Waukesha, and Washington counties. In exploring this topic, we acknowledge that the relocation of jobs to Milwaukee’s suburbs that has occurred during the past several decades is problematic on many levels, and that an ideal solution would be to encourage job growth in areas that already are well-served by transit. That is a long-term solution, however, and in the meantime there is merit in re-exploring potential transportation strategies that will better connect those seeking employment with areas where jobs currently are available. The report begins by examining and identifying suburban Milwaukee job centers that might benefit most from improved transportation access. Transportation accessibility is discussed in terms of both the reach of current bus routes and the scope of alternative transportation services. The report next examines how new bus routes are developed – including the many operational, financial, and political considerations that factor into route planning – and models a few new suburban bus routes to illustrate potential costs, obstacles, and benefits. We also look at how alternative transportation services are managed and financed and their potential for expansion. With MCTS struggling to maintain existing bus services – and federal and state funding for public transit and other employment-focused transportation services in the Milwaukee area down from previous years – improving access for workers who depend upon or choose transit to get to suburban jobs in the region is no easy task. We hope this report will help policymakers as they deliberate potential ways of doing so.

1

According to the Milwaukee County Transit System’s 2012 MCTS Annual Ridership Statistics Book, total bus miles fell from a peak of 22.2 million miles in 2000 to 17.4 million miles in 2012. 2 The UW-Milwaukee Center for Economic Development estimated that a minimum of 40,000 jobs became inaccessible via public transit between 2001 and 2007: http://www4.uwm.edu/ced/publications.cfm

Page 3

Job centers and transit accessibility Jobs are distributed unevenly within the Milwaukee metro area, with numerous job locations inaccessible by public transit, thus creating a particular problem for workers without cars. This is especially true for city of Milwaukee residents, where 13.3% of workers do not have access to a personal automobile, compared with 6.1% of workers in Milwaukee County’s suburbs and 4% or less in Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties. 3 While transit-accessible downtown Milwaukee has the highest concentration of jobs among the region’s zip codes, many zip codes outside Milwaukee’s core also are large employment centers. We define 29 zip codes in the four-county region that each contain at least 10,000 jobs as “job centers,” including 11 located in Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties, as shown in Table 1 on the following page (job centers located outside of Milwaukee County are shaded). Each of the Milwaukee metro area’s four counties contains at least one job center. 4 Not all of these job centers are reachable by public transit, creating a potential problem for the 13.3% of Milwaukee workers without access to a personal automobile for work trips. In Figure 1 (page 6), we map the reach of public transit into metro Milwaukee’s job centers. With a few exceptions, Milwaukee County job centers are reasonably well served by Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) bus routes. Outside of Milwaukee County, only job centers in Brookfield (in Waukesha County) and Mequon (in Ozaukee County) are served by MCTS bus services, while the city of Waukesha is accessible with a connection between MCTS and Waukesha Metro Transit bus routes. Overall, among the Milwaukee metro area’s 29 job centers, 15 have relatively high levels of public transit access, including those located primarily within the cities of Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, and West Allis. By contrast, four job centers are completely inaccessible by transit (Germantown, Oconomowoc, New Berlin, and West Bend). The 10 remaining job centers are connected by transit on a limited basis, including those located in Brookfield, Franklin, Menomonee Falls, Mequon, Oak Creek, Pewaukee, Waukesha, and Milwaukee County’s North Shore communities.

3

PPF calculations based on American Community Survey 2012 estimates, table B08203. A “worker without a car” is defined as an “extra” individual living in a household where there are more workers than autos. For example, a worker in a single worker household without a car is a “worker without a car;” in a dual worker household with one auto, one individual is a “worker without a car,” etc. Households without workers and without autos are not counted in this methodology. 4 It is important to note that the size of zip codes vary considerably, so jobs are more likely to be geographically dispersed in larger job centers located in outer suburbs than they are in smaller urban job centers with a comparable number of jobs. We address the specific locations of concentrated “hubs” within the region’s 29 job centers in the next section of this report.

Page 4

Table 1: Job centers are scattered throughout the four-county Milwaukee metro area ZIP code Primary city 2011 Employees 2004 Employees 53202 Milwaukee 58,235 55,870 53226 Wauwatosa 34,408 33,381 53186 Waukesha 29,835 32,819 53051 Menomonee Falls 29,672 29,004 53233 Milwaukee 27,468 21,029 53005 Brookfield 25,123 26,067 53214 West Allis 22,385 21,166 53188 Waukesha 22,266 19,636 53151 New Berlin 20,114 18,654 53215 Milwaukee 18,500 21,558 53204 Milwaukee 17,143 17,122 53209 Milwaukee 16,982 18,039 53212 Milwaukee 16,559 14,227 53154 Oak Creek 15,951 16,626 53203 Milwaukee 15,660 16,521 53223 Milwaukee 15,599 18,132 53045 Brookfield 15,166 15,621 53224 Milwaukee 14,301 15,333 53095 West Bend 13,653 16,047 53222 Milwaukee 13,463 17,837 53227 West Allis 13,424 16,124 53207 Milwaukee 13,355 17,026 53217 North Shore 13,260 12,584 53072 Pewaukee 12,835 10,844 53066 Oconomowoc 12,675 12,243 53092 Mequon 12,327 12,853 53132 Franklin 11,246 10,179 53208 Milwaukee 11,016 12,663 53022 Germantown 10,607 9,888 Highlighted zip codes are located outside of Milwaukee County. Data are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s ZIP Code Business Patterns.

Page 5

Change '04-'11 2,365 1,027 -2,984 668 6,439 -944 1,219 2,630 1,460 -3,058 21 -1,057 2,332 -675 -861 -2,533 -455 -1,032 -2,394 -4,374 -2,700 -3,671 676 1,991 432 -526 1,067 -1,647 719

Figure 1: Job centers and public transit services in the Milwaukee metro area

Within Milwaukee County, accessibility problems exist primarily in the far southern communities of Franklin and Oak Creek. Franklin is served by only one bus route, which offers extremely limited service to the county’s House of Correction on Saturdays only. Oak Creek is served by several MCTS bus routes (40, 40U, 48, 80, and 219), but two of those routes are “freeway flyers,” which are express bus routes primarily designed for suburban residents who commute to work in downtown Milwaukee, as opposed to city residents seeking to reach jobs in Oak Creek. (Those routes only operate on weekdays during rush hours, which also limits the shifts they serve.) The remaining routes offer very limited service south of Oak Creek’s northern periphery along College Avenue.5 To reach jobs outside Milwaukee County, a worker who lives in Milwaukee may be able to use one of the five routes MCTS currently operates that extend beyond the county’s borders. MCTS route 10, for example, offers relatively frequent service seven days a week to Brookfield Square, providing the only opportunity to transfer between MCTS and Waukesha Metro Transit bus routes. 6 Two of the five routes are freeway flyers primarily configured to serve suburban commuters, however, with extremely limited service for Milwaukee residents making the reverse commute. The following summarizes the five MCTS bus routes that extend beyond the county’s borders. •

Route 10 is a popular local route connecting Bayshore Town Center to Brookfield Square Mall in Waukesha County via downtown Milwaukee. Service frequencies range from every 14-20 minutes during weekday mornings and afternoons to every 30 minutes in the evenings and on weekends. At Brookfield Square, transfers can be made to Waukesha Metro Transit route 1, which extends to downtown Waukesha.

•

Route 42U is a freeway flyer route offering 12 express trips per day on weekdays only from downtown Milwaukee to MATC’s north campus and Concordia University in Mequon. This route only operates during the academic year; no summer service is offered.

•

Route 79, the Menomonee Falls Flyer, provides express service between downtown Milwaukee and Menomonee Falls in Waukesha County. With the exception of revenue from fares, the route is funded entirely by Waukesha County. Currently, there is only one trip offered from downtown Milwaukee to the Pilgrim Road park-and-ride lot in Menomonee Falls each morning, and one trip returning from the Good Hope Road park-and-ride lot in Menomonee Falls to downtown Milwaukee each evening. No weekend service is offered.

•

Route 143, the Ozaukee County Express, provides express service between downtown Milwaukee and several communities in Ozaukee County. It is funded by Ozaukee County and operated through a contract with Milwaukee County. While the route primarily serves Ozaukee County residents who

5

MCTS operates a system of 11 freeway flyer routes that provide express bus service between suburban areas and downtown Milwaukee. http://www.ridemcts.com/routes-schedules/freeway-flyers 6 MCTS bus routes and schedules: http://www.ridemcts.com/routes-schedules

Page 7

work in downtown Milwaukee, there are currently two trips offered each morning from downtown Milwaukee to Mequon, Cedarburg, Grafton, Saukville, and Port Washington, and two returning trips in the evening. No weekend service is offered. The route was modified several years ago to no longer serve areas south of downtown Milwaukee due to low ridership in that area. •

Route 223, the Park Place–Bradley Woods shuttle, serves the Calumet Industrial Park and Bradley Woods Business Center on Milwaukee’s northwest side and the Westbrook Corporate Center in Menomonee Falls. Route 223 connects with the MCTS BlueLine at the Park Place Tower bus stop and with route 23 at 91st and Granville. In 2007, MCTS worked with Actuant Corporation, which is located in the Westbrook Corporate Center, to modify Route 223 to meet the company’s needs. According to MCTS officials, Actuant had enough workers to justify the extension, and employer surveys also were used to measure demand.

Waukesha Metro Transit routes primarily serve the city of Waukesha, but also connect to Pewaukee. In addition to the bus routes operating within Waukesha County that are shown in Figure 1, Waukesha Metro Transit contracts with Wisconsin Coach Lines, a private transit operator, to operate several express bus routes for residents of many Waukesha County communities who commute to work in downtown Milwaukee. 7 Those services are not configured, however, to serve Milwaukee County residents traveling to work in Waukesha County. Washington County is the least accessible by transit of the four counties in the Milwaukee metropolitan statistical area. While Washington County offers a commuter bus service to downtown Milwaukee and the Regional Medical Center through a contract with GoRiteway Bus Service, it primarily serves Washington County residents who work in Milwaukee County. 8 The Washington County Commuter Express operates on weekdays only, and there is no morning service traveling from Milwaukee County to Washington County.

7 8

Waukesha Metro bus routes: http://www.ci.waukesha.wi.us/web/guest/waukeshametro/bus_routes_main Washington County Commuter Express brochure: http://www.ridewcce.com/uploads/wcce-2013-brochure.pdf

Page 8

Selecting job hubs for transit improvements The preceding analysis confirms that there is only limited transit service available for Milwaukee residents who wish to commute to several of the region’s job centers. While it was beyond our capacity to explore enhanced transportation options for each of those job centers, we were interested in honing in on those job centers that logically would be best suited for new or improved fixed-route bus service. Identifying those job centers then would allow us to explore the possible costs associated with providing such access and the potential effectiveness of new or improved fixed-route service. Because long-distance routes generally are more costly, we decided to focus our consideration on seven job centers near the county’s periphery (zip codes 53005, 53022, 53051, 53092, 53132, 53151, and 53154). Those job centers represent all or part of Brookfield, Mequon, Franklin, New Berlin, Oak Creek, Germantown, and Menomonee Falls, and they are inclusive of all four counties in the Milwaukee metro area. Manufacturing and retail trade are the predominant industries in those seven areas. 9 We also found that the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission’s most recent transportation plan targets all seven of those areas for expanded transit services. 10 The plan recommends developing new bus rapid transit (BRT) services and expanding express bus services throughout the region by 2035, including BRT routes serving all seven zip codes and express bus routes connecting Milwaukee with Brookfield and Waukesha.

BRT and express bus service Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a service that attempts to achieve the speed and convenience of rail service with buses, which are less expensive and offer greater flexibility. BRT systems typically operate in dedicated bus lanes, and buses are equipped with advanced technology that allows for traffic signal prioritization. The time it takes to collect fares is reduced through the use of fare boxes located at bus stops rather than on board. These and other enhancements combine to make BRT service significantly faster than typical local bus service at a lower level of investment than light rail.

Express bus routes also are designed to offer faster We next consulted with MCTS, the service, and like BRT, bus stops on express routes Waukesha County Department of Public typically are spaced at least ½ mile apart. But express bus Works, Waukesha Metro Transit, the service typically lacks dedicated bus lanes and many of region’s workforce investment boards, the other features that make BRT systems rapid. and local city planners to gather additional data and to identify specific “hubs” within the job centers identified above that may best be served by enhanced bus services. This process allowed us to identify 10 specific areas within our target job centers where employers are concentrated enough to form a hub for possible bus service, as shown in Figure 2. 11

9

See Appendix for a breakdown of jobs by industry in the seven target zip codes. SEWRPC 2035 Regional Transportation Plan: http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/Transportation/2035RegionalTransportationPlan.htm 11 See Appendix for Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington Workforce Development Board’s active employer locations. 10

Page 9

Figure 2: Job hubs and current public transit routes in metropolian Milwaukee

While the job hubs we identified are located throughout the metro area and vary in size and industry makeup, each represents a major concentration of jobs within a job-heavy zip code. It is notable, however, that job centers in the Milwaukee area no longer are as concentrated as they were in the past, which complicates efforts to develop fixed-route transit solutions to serve them. Upon closer inspection, we found that these job hubs exhibit several different types of transit-related challenges, thus presenting an opportunity to investigate a range of possible solutions that might include fixed bus routes, or that instead might require consideration of other transportation alternatives. Those challenges generally can be grouped into the following categories:

Last mile challenge (Oak Creek, Mequon) This challenge, which is exemplified in Oak Creek and Mequon, involves an inability to effectively serve bus riders with centralized bus stops that are within walking distance of the job center’s main employment locations. Transporting such riders the “last mile” from their stop to their specific place of employment – without slowing down the service for other riders – is the primary problem. For example, several MCTS bus routes offer service to destinations in Oak Creek, but as previously discussed, most of those routes either end near Oak Creek’s northern border or are designed for Oak Creek residents commuting to jobs in downtown Milwaukee. MCTS does offer a shuttle route that provides limited service to the Northbranch Industrial Park, but many employers in Oak Creek’s Northbranch and Southbranch industrial parks are not within walking distance of current bus services at many times of the day and on weekends. Another example is MCTS route 42U, which provides limited service from downtown Milwaukee to Mequon, and route 12, which extends to a location near the border between Brown Deer and Mequon. Both routes leave passengers at least two miles from the Mequon Industrial Park. In addition, route 42U operates at limited times and during MATC’s academic year only.

Bus service was attempted before but eliminated (New Berlin, Menomonee Falls, Franklin) Several potential suburban bus routes that would appear logical based on the suburb’s availability of jobs and need for workers have been tried before, and their prior elimination makes it difficult for transit planners to financially justify their reinstatement to elected officials. A prominent example is the New Berlin Industrial Park, which was served by at least one bus route until 2010 and has been served by both MCTS and Waukesha Metro Transit bus routes in the past. Despite a high concentration of jobs in both the New Berlin Industrial Park and the Westridge Business Park to the south, a recent proposal to extend service to New Berlin did not come to fruition and both job centers remain inaccessible by public transit.

Page 11

A second example involves MCTS route 9, which connected the north side of Milwaukee with Butler and Menomonee Falls, serving the Falls Business Park. The route was operated under contract for Waukesha County from 1994 to 2007, when Waukesha County stopped funding the route. Finally, the Franklin Business Park was served by shuttle route 227, the Franklin Shuttle, which also served Oak Creek’s Southbranch Industrial Park. That route was eliminated in 2003 due to low ridership. As a result, Franklin currently is almost completely inaccessible by transit.

Trip time on transit is prohibitive (Brookfield) While some suburban job centers in the Milwaukee metro area are served by fixed bus routes, the nature of those routes often makes them unrealistic as a means of daily commuting for many potential riders. For example, Milwaukee County residents currently can commute to retail jobs at Brookfield Square Mall on MCTS route 10, but no express service is offered and travel times from most areas of the county are lengthy. Estimated travel times to Brookfield Square from four zip codes in Milwaukee County with high unemployment rates are shown below. 12 All travel times were calculated based on arriving by 8:00 a.m. on a Monday morning.    

N. 20th St. and W. Burleigh St. (53206-Milwaukee): 82 minutes via routes 12 and 10 S. 16th St. and W. Greenfield Ave. (53204-Milwaukee): 70 minutes via routes 14 and 10 N. Teutonia Ave. and W. Bradley Rd. (53209-Brown Deer): 105 minutes via routes 12 and 10 S. 84th St. and W. Greenfield Ave. (53214-West Allis): 57 minutes via routes 67 and 10

Transit exists, but service is not designed for reverse commuters (Menomonee Falls) As discussed above, several existing suburban “freeway flyer” routes are designed primarily to bring suburban workers from park-and-ride lots to downtown Milwaukee, as opposed to transporting city residents to suburban job centers (also known as “reverse commuters”). For example, MCTS’ route 79, the Menomonee Falls Flyer, primarily serves suburban residents who work in downtown Milwaukee. Only one round trip is offered each weekday for Milwaukee residents commuting to the northeastern portion of Menomonee Falls, including the Menomonee Falls Industrial Park, while five round trips transport suburban residents from Menomonee Falls to downtown Milwaukee each weekday. Changing the characteristics of freeway flyer routes to better serve reverse commuters may make it less convenient or infeasible for suburban residents. In addition, because jobs and other destinations tend to be scattered across suburban areas, transporting city residents to a park-and-ride lot or centralized location in the suburbs may not address their transportation needs (see “last mile” discussion above). It is also the case that suburban industrial parks are likely to have diverse shift times among employers (e.g., some businesses might be on a 6-2 first shift schedule and others on a 7:30 – 3:30 schedule), making it difficult to reach a critical mass of users for a “reverse flyer.” 12

Selected zip codes with high unemployment are based on 2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Page 12

MCTS considerations and obstacles related to new transit routes The factors considered by MCTS in planning and implementing suburban bus routes also need to be taken into account when considering where fixed-route bus service may be successful. Indeed, while new or expanded bus routes may look attractive on a map, numerous operational, fiscal, and political factors come into play when designing and implementing new or modified transit routes that may make those routes unrealistic or cost prohibitive.

Route productivity First and foremost, per existing transit industry practice, bus routes must be able to generate enough passengers and revenue to meet productivity standards in order to be considered worthy of creation or preservation. The statistic MCTS typically uses to gauge the productivity of existing bus routes is passengers per bus hour (PBH), which is calculated by dividing the total number of passengers who board buses on a given route by the aggregate number of hours buses are in operation on that route. The general standard used by MCTS is that a bus route must produce at least 22 PBH to be considered productive enough to be maintained. Several factors can affect route productivity, including the following: •

The development density and land use mix along a route impact the demand for travel at various times of the day and week. Areas with a mix of land uses (commercial, residential, industrial, etc.) at a relatively high development density create demand for travel both day and night, seven days a week; conversely, an isolated business park may only generate demand for travel at the beginning and end of each work shift on weekdays only. Also, there may be little development density along the route between some suburban job centers and Milwaukee.

•

Transit routes experience ebbs and flows of ridership impacted by economic conditions and other factors. Workers may use transit for a period but then opt for a private automobile for convenience or as a job becomes more permanent and the worker can better afford to buy and maintain an automobile. During periods of economic decline, ridership on routes to suburban job centers often has suffered, and routes have been eliminated. When routes are eliminated, it is difficult to bring them back.

MCTS’ ongoing budget challenges have forced service reductions on an almost annual basis in recent years (see sidebar on the following page), with decisions regarding where to make cuts guided in large measure by the transit system’s route productivity standards. While service reductions largely have involved reduced trip frequencies and shorter hours of service, several bus routes that once connected Milwaukee County residents with suburban job centers have been eliminated altogether. For example:

Page 13

•

•

•

Route 6 connected Milwaukee with West Allis and New Berlin, serving the Quad/Graphics plant in West Allis and the New Berlin Industrial Park. Funding for the route was provided by Quad/Graphics, Waukesha County, and Milwaukee County. In 2004, both Quad/Graphics and Waukesha County decided to discontinue funding for the route because of declining ridership. At that point, Milwaukee County no longer could justify funding the route on its own, so the route was eliminated. 13 Route 8 started on Milwaukee’s near south side, traveled north through the city’s northwest side, and continued into Waukesha County, with stops at the Quad/Graphics facilities in Pewaukee and Sussex. The route was initiated in 1995, ran seven days per week, and offered two round trips each day. The trips were specifically planned to serve Quad/Graphics shift changes. Initially, Quad/Graphics paid for 40% of the route’s costs, with Milwaukee County and Waukesha County dividing the remainder evenly. In 2006, Waukesha County discontinued funding for route 8 and Quad/Graphics increased its share to 70%. In 2010, Quad/Graphics stopped funding the route, at which point MCTS discontinued it due to budget constraints. 14 Route 121 provided shuttle service to the Franklin Industrial Park from the Greenfield Fashion Center in 1993 and 1994 and was eliminated due to low ridership.

Overview of MCTS’ fiscal challenges In May 2008, the Public Policy Forum published a report examining the financial problems facing MCTS. The report found that the funding sources supporting MCTS had been unable to keep pace with growth in fixed operating costs, necessitating a series of shortterm solutions – including service cuts and fare increases – that were not addressing the structural problem and in some respects were making it worse. Since that time, MCTS has continued to find shortterm solutions to prevent a fiscal crisis, but services have declined further and a long-term solution has not materialized.

Over the last 10 years, MCTS has spent down reserves that were built up in the late 1990s, deferred bus purchases and other needed capital expenditures, and used temporary funding sources to fill holes in its operating budget. During the same period, diesel fuel prices and expenses related to employee benefits have increased substantially. At the same time, MCTS routinely is cited as the most cost-effective transit system among its national peers, indicating that further system efficiency may be difficult to achieve.

With federal and state funding for transit still tenuous – and local appropriations from Milwaukee County still subject to fierce competition with other competing needs – MCTS’ overall fiscal challenges remain extremely difficult. Source: “Milwaukee County’s Transit Crisis: How did we get here and what do we do now?” Public Policy Forum. May 2008. http://publicpolicyforum.org/sites/default/files/MilwaukeeTra nsitCrisis.pdf

13

Information on discontinued routes was provided by MCTS unless otherwise noted. Biz Times Milwaukee. June 21, 2010: http://www.biztimes.com/article/20100621/ENEWSLETTERS02/306219991/ 14

Page 14

•

Route 227, as previously discussed, served both the Franklin Business Park and Southbranch Industrial Park in Oak Creek from 1998 to 2002, at which point ridership was considered too low to justify continuation.

•

Route 280 provided shuttle service to the Oak Creek Industrial Park from MATC’s south campus and Puetz Road in Oak Creek. The service operated in 1993 and 1994 and was discontinued due to low ridership, which averaged seven passengers per bus hour.

While MCTS’ budget challenges were a major factor in the elimination of many of these less productive routes, the condition of the local economy also can play a role. For example, according to MCTS officials, several bus routes extending to job centers outside of Milwaukee County were created during the 1990s and early 2000s, when the economy was strong and employers needed workers. The weak economy of the late 2000s created a reduced demand for workers, and consequently reduced ridership, thus leading to service reductions or the elimination of routes. A critical question is how to maintain steady transit services that both area employers and workers can rely upon despite natural cyclical fluctuations in the economy.

Funding limitations The stability of MCTS’ funding sources is another major challenge affecting the potential to develop and maintain new transit services. For example, MCTS has used special federal and state funding sources to implement a handful of service enhancements designed to improve transportation connections to suburban jobs sites. Currently, there are five MCTS bus routes supported by the federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program and the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance program (WETAP). (See text box on the following page for further description of these programs.) Two of those route enhancements improve connections to suburban job centers within Milwaukee County: an extension of route 27 from Hampton Avenue and Green Bay Road to the Glendale Industrial Park; and increased trip frequencies on route 28, which connects Milwaukee’s northwest side with job hubs in Wauwatosa and Greendale. The JARC program recently was eliminated by the federal government, which means that Milwaukee County will need to find other ways to continue to operate those routes. MCTS received $523,000 in federal JARC funding in 2012, which was budgeted specifically to support those routes. In addition, while JARC-supported routes are now eligible for funding under the federal government’s largest transit program – the Urbanized Area Formula program – Milwaukee County is expected to receive roughly $1 million less in 2014 than it has received from that program in the past, according to the WETAP program manager at the Wisconsin DOT. The budget holes created by these federal funding reductions may add additional pressure to the transit system’s financial challenges, which in turn may affect both JARCsupported bus routes and other MCTS services.

Page 15

JARC, WETAP, and the Urbanized Area Formula program The Job Access and Reverse Commute program (JARC) was a federal program created in the aftermath of welfare reform in the mid 1990s. The purpose of the program was to support transportation projects designed to assist former welfare recipients and other low-income individuals in their efforts to seek and maintain employment. The program often was used to fund bus routes connecting urban areas with suburban job centers. JARC funded up to 80% of a qualifying project’s total costs and could be used for capital, operating, and/or planning-related expenses. Project types eligible for JARC funding included employment-focused: • • • • • •

public transportation projects; vehicle purchase, repair, and loan programs; van pools and shuttle services; guaranteed ride home programs; mobility management services; and bicycle purchase, repair, and loan programs.

Under the most recent federal surface transportation bill – MAP-21 – the JARC program was repealed, with funding transferred to the Urbanized Area Formula program, a general public transit fund, beginning in 2013. Many JARC-supported projects will continue to receive funding through fiscal year 2014, but new projects that formerly would have qualified for JARC funding now must compete for Urbanized Area Formula program funds (also referred to as 5307 funds). Whereas JARC funds were apportioned to states using a formula based on the size of the low-income population, the Urbanized Area Formula program distributes funds directly to transit systems.

In Wisconsin, JARC funds have been pooled with state Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Workforce Development (DWD) funds and distributed by the DOT through the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program (WETAP). In 2012, a total of $1.5 million in federal and state funding supported projects within Milwaukee County, including $1.1 in federal JARC funding. Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/wetap-2012.pdf

Another federal funding source used by MCTS to support new bus routes is the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. (See sidebar on page 17 for more information.) For example, the recently developed GreenLine, BlueLine, and RedLine express bus routes were supported by CMAQ funding. While the CMAQ program can be helpful in starting new transit routes, it provides support for a maximum of three years. After that – assuming the new service is productive and deemed worthy of preservation – MCTS must find other funding sources.

Page 16

Planning and implementation challenges In addition to route productivity and funding stability issues, there are operational challenges posed by prospective new bus routes or route extensions that must be considered before changes can be made. From a system standpoint, for example, changes to one route may impact existing connections or services for passengers on many other routes. MCTS transit planners carefully coordinate routes and frequencies of all bus lines in order to maximize geographic coverage while minimizing wait times, walking distances, the need for transfers, and other transit burdens. Any contemplated change will affect other routes, and impacts on the system as a whole must be considered. Another consideration is pent-up demand for expanding the capacity of existing routes. According to MCTS planners, that is why they often consider adding capacity to those routes, as opposed to adding new routes to areas that currently are not served. MCTS’ difficulty in acquiring accurate information on employer locations and work schedules poses another operational challenge. MCTS needs accurate employment data to develop routes and schedules that serve job centers effectively and efficiently, but it does not have access to such data. It also is important to note that MCTS is only able to make major changes to routes and schedules every three months as required by its contract with the bus drivers union, so requests from employers for changes to route schedules cannot be accommodated immediately.

CMAQ program The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ) is a federallyfunded program designed to support surface transportation projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality in places that do not meet federal air quality standards (nonattainment areas). All seven counties in southeast Wisconsin qualify for CMAQ funding, as do four other counties in the state. The program is administered in Wisconsin by the state’s Department of Transportation (DOT). Local governments in nonattainment areas can apply for CMAQ funding to support eligible transportation projects such as public transportation improvements, commuter parking facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. In southeastern Wisconsin, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) evaluates projects for recommendation to DOT.

While CMAQ funds often are used to support the start of new transit routes, the program is not meant to serve as a permanent funding stream for transit route operations. The goal of funding new transit services is to open up new markets for transit, which will make the services financially viable over the long term. CMAQ covers up to 80% of the cost of eligible projects. For new transit routes, the program provides support for up to three years. Consequently, local governments not only must provide a 20% local match, but also must determine alternative ways to fund successful new services after the initial years of operation. Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/aid/cmaq.htm

Paratransit services (i.e. specialized transit services for persons with disabilities) also must be considered in making any changes to the transit system. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that at a minimum, paratransit services must be provided in all areas within ¾ mile of a fixedPage 17

route bus line. Paratransit services are expensive to operate; consideration of those costs and who would bear them must occur when transit officials contemplate a potential new route that extends beyond the county’s borders. Finally, it is important to recognize that once a new bus route or route modification has been proposed, it then must go through a lengthy approval and implementation process. MCTS must inform all affected local municipalities of the path of the new route and obtain their approval regarding bus stop sign locations. In addition, MCTS must prepare cost estimates and ridership projections and present them to policymakers. Ultimately, the Milwaukee County Department of Transportation (DOT) and Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors need to approve the new route and/or changes to existing routes. After all approvals have been obtained, major route changes take months to prepare before they can be implemented, as bus drivers need to be trained, new signage must be prepared and installed, and materials must be prepared for riders and the public to inform them of the change.

Summary Although the primary challenge to effectively serving suburban industrial parks, business parks, and retail centers in the Milwaukee area with new transit services relates to funding, important operational issues and other factors must be considered. For example, a route is more likely to be successful in meeting MCTS’ ridership and revenue standards if it serves areas that have a medium to high density of residential and commercial developments. In the next section, we further explore the dynamics behind the creation of new bus routes by modeling some potential new or expanded routes that would serve suburban job centers. We then explore other options, besides fixed-route transit, to address some of the region’s workforce mobility challenges.

Page 18

Route modeling Using the information we had gathered on job concentrations, current transit services, and route planning considerations, along with the feedback we had received from agencies that work with both employers and job seekers throughout the metro area, we next sought to analyze some tangible examples of new or modified bus routes that would seemingly have potential to serve suburban job hubs in a cost-effective and efficient manner. In formulating these examples, we received considerable assistance from MCTS planners, including insight and information on routes that already had been considered. Ultimately, we considered three routes that exemplify multiple transit-related problems discussed above and illustrate how many of the challenges inherent in developing new transit routes play out in practice.

Route 80X from Oak Creek to Mequon via downtown Milwaukee We first addressed the “last mile” and “takes too long” challenges by asking MCTS to model a route that would serve two new suburban job hubs with faster and more frequent service than existing MCTS routes. MCTS planners modeled two “route 80X” options for restructuring existing routes along the general path of the existing route 80, including a base option and a less expensive service efficiency option. Under the base option, route 80X would replace existing routes 42U and 219 and the segment of route 80 that extends south of Oklahoma Avenue. The stretch of route 80 from Locust to Oklahoma currently is the most utilized and would be preserved in order to overlap with the new 80X. Figure 3 (page 21) shows a map of the existing routes that would be affected. The new route 80X – and its overlap with what would remain of route 80 – is shown in Figure 4 (page 22). As noted above, one of the central motivations is to enhance travel times by providing express bus service where possible. While most MCTS bus routes provide local service that stops approximately every 1/8 mile, the 80X would provide express service by only stopping at transfer corners or major destinations where it overlaps with route 80. The stops then would be spaced every 1/4 mile for the segments of the route north of Locust Street and south of Oklahoma Avenue. The route would traverse nearly the entire length of Milwaukee County from north to south, as well as a portion of Ozaukee County. Its north-south trajectory would facilitate connections with several existing bus routes while minimizing the need for passengers to make multiple transfers—thus also saving time. The 80X would pass through Oak Creek’s largest business center, the Northbranch Industrial Park (shown in Figure 2 on page 10), and Oak Creek’s Drexel Town Square, which is envisioned as the city’s new mixed-use downtown, every 30 minutes from 6am to 11pm. The new service would address the “last mile” problem in that area. The 80X also would serve relatively dense residential areas south of the Northbranch Industrial Park along Puetz Road. An advantage to serving dense residential areas is that they add diversity to the land use mix along a bus route and drive demand for other types of travel at

Page 19

different times of the day throughout the week. In addition, the 80X would provide new transit opportunities for people with disabilities who live in the area and would be less expensive than paratransit services currently provided. Commuters traveling from a downtown Milwaukee stop at 6th and Wisconsin on route 80X would be able to reach the center of the Northbranch Industrial Park (6th and Rawson) in 35-40 minutes. This contrasts with today’s bus commute, under which most commuters traveling from downtown Milwaukee to Northbranch must take existing route 80 or 40U to MATC’s south campus and then walk at least a mile to their jobsite in the industrial park. Some weekday commuters also have the option of taking route 19 to the northwest corner of Oak Creek and then transferring to route 219, a shuttle route that circulates through Northbranch on a limited basis. 15 With any of these route options, the trip from downtown Milwaukee to the center of the Northbranch Industrial Park currently takes roughly 55-65 minutes and involves transferring buses and/or walking a significant distance. Thus, the 80X has the potential to save workers about 20 minutes of commute time both to and from work. On the north end, the new route 80X would improve accessibility to the North Shore and Mequon. In particular, it would serve some employers located along the I-43 corridor north of Bayshore Town Center in the North Shore communities and in Mequon with express service every hour from 7am to 11pm on weekdays. The new route also would connect with Concordia University and MATC’s north campus in Mequon. (In fact, the 80X would connect MATC’s campuses in Mequon, downtown Milwaukee, and Oak Creek.) On weekends, the northern terminus of the route would be Port Washington Road and Brown Deer Road in Bayside. The 42U currently provides limited service from downtown Milwaukee to MATC’s north campus on weekdays only and only during the academic year (160 total days per year). The service efficiency option for the new 80X envisions all of the route changes from the base option (existing routes 80, 42U, and 219) but incorporates changes to existing routes 15 and 63 so that coverage overlap with the 80X would be reduced. Existing routes that would be impacted are shown in Figure 5 (page 23), while the modified 80X route itself is shown in Figure 6 (page 24). The additional changes would make the service efficiency option less expensive to operate than the base option, but would require more passengers to make transfers to the 80X to get to their final destination, and in the case of route 15, would require a lengthy walk (½ mile) to transfer to the 80X.

15

Because of low ridership, route 219 has been targeted for elimination in previous budgets and therefore may not represent a sustainable option for commuters traveling to Oak Creek. Currently, about 45 passengers use the shuttle route each day.

Page 20

Figure 3: Current bus routes that would be affected by a new route 80X – under BASE OPTION

Page 21

Figure 4: Potential design of restructured route 80 and new route 80X – under BASE OPTION

Page 22

Figure 5: Routes that would be affected by a new route 80X – under SERVICE EFFICIENCY OPTION

Page 23

Figure 6: Potential design of routes 15, 63, 80, and new route 80X – SERVICE EFFICIENCY OPTION

Page 24

Annual costs associated with the two options for route 80X are shown in Tables 2 and 3. 16 The net annual cost of the base option would be about $1.2 million ($1.8 million of additional expenditures offset by $600,000 in increased revenue raised from the farebox). This option would restructure fewer existing routes than the service efficiency option but would require placing approximately five additional buses in service, compared with just two additional buses that would be needed under the service efficiency option. The service efficiency option would produce a net additional cost of only $540,000 ($700,000 in additional expenditures offset by $160,000 in increased farebox revenue) because of reductions to two additional routes. It should be noted that these are just two possible options for restructuring existing routes if the 80X were implemented; additional route options could be considered as well. Table 2: Change in hours of service for route 80X and restructured routes - base option Proposed Annual Annualized Route Days of Service Change Hours Days Hours 80X Weekday New route 111.3 255 28,369 Saturday New route 90 52 4,680 Sunday/holiday New route 90 58 5,220 80 Weekday Shortened route 170 255 43,354 Saturday Shortened route 104 52 5,406 Sunday/holiday Shortened route 104.5 58 6,063 42U Weekday Eliminated route 0 160 0 219 Weekday Eliminated route 0 255 0 Total proposed bus hours 93,092 Annual increase in bus hours Approximate increase in hours per day Approximate increase in buses needed Gross cost increase compared with current system Estimated increase in farebox revenue Net cost increase compared with current system

16

Change from Present 28,369 4,680 5,220 -7,650 0 0 -4,824 -1,547 24,248 80.8 5 $1.8 million $600,000 $1.2 million

MCTS planners made the calculations in Tables 2 and 3. They are based on 2013 levels of service and cost per hour. Estimates for increased farebox revenue for each route 80X option were calculated by comparing the new system’s estimated revenue – based on the overall increase in bus hours and a conservative estimate of ridership – with the existing revenue of routes that would be affected.

Page 25

Table 3: Change in hours of service for route 80X and restructured routes – service efficiency option Proposed Annual Annualized Change from Route Days of Service Change Hours Days Hours Present 80X Weekday New route 111.3 255 28,369 28,369 Saturday New route 90 52 4,680 4,680 Sunday/holiday New route 90 58 5,220 5,220 80 Weekday Shortened route 170 255 43,354 -7,650 Saturday Shortened route 104 52 5,406 0 Sunday/holiday Shortened route 104.5 58 6,063 0 15 Weekday Shortened route 139.5 255 35,577 -5,100 Saturday Shortened route 74.6 52 3,881 -1,040 Sunday/holiday Shortened route 57.5 58 3,332 -1,160 63 Weekday Shortened route 51.9 255 13,239 -5,100 Saturday Shortened route 44.4 52 2,311 -1,040 Sunday/holiday Shortened route 36.4 58 2,110 -1,160 42U Weekday Eliminated route 0 160 0 -4,824 219 Weekday Eliminated route 0 255 0 -1,547 Total proposed bus hours 153,542 Annual increase in bus hours 9,648 Approximate increase in hours/day 32.2 Approximate increase in buses needed 2 Gross cost increase compared with current system $700,000 Estimated increase in farebox revenue $160,000 Net cost increase compared with current system $540,000

If MCTS and county policymakers were interested in pursuing either option for route 80X, then the likely source of funding would need to be increased property tax levy support. Temporary CMAQ funding to help start the new route likely would not be an option until at least 2019, as Milwaukee County already has completed its application for 2014-2018 CMAQ funding. Ozaukee County also might be asked to contribute a share given the extension of the route into Mequon. According to MCTS planners, there may be no additional capital costs involved, as additional buses that would be required to implement the route would not necessarily need to be purchased. The county currently is receiving new buses purchased in previous years while retiring other buses, and it may have sufficient flexibility in its fleet size to accommodate the new route. Ideally, MCTS would not hold buses past their planned replacement dates in order to accommodate the new route 80X; as buses age their reliability declines and their maintenance costs increase. If it is determined that additional buses are in fact needed, those costs would need to be factored into these calculations. It is important to note that while the 80X would significantly improve service to the Northbranch Industrial Park in Oak Creek and thereby address the current “last mile” issue for that location, it would

Page 26

not address the problem for the Mequon Industrial Park, located on the south side of Mequon west of Cedarburg Road. The industrial park is surrounded by low-density, primarily residential development, which makes it difficult to support fixed-route bus service to the area. Consequently, the 80X as envisioned here would not directly serve the industrial park. A potential option for doing so would be to establish an MCTS shuttle route that could align with shift change times at the industrial park, perhaps on weekdays during the rush hours only. A shuttle route could be designed to connect the industrial park with the route 80X stop at Port Washington Road and Towne Square Road and with the northern terminus of route 12 at Green Bay Road and Cherrywood Lane, allowing multiple sets of commuters with an option to access the industrial park. Of course, the shuttle route would come with a cost, and consideration would need to be given to whether MCTS, Ozaukee County, industrial park employers, or a combination of those entities would pick up that cost. The “last mile” problem also would still exist for Oak Creek’s smaller Southbranch Industrial Park. Southbranch is surrounded by low-density development, so extending the 80X there from its southern terminus likely would not produce many more riders, even during rush hour. According to MCTS planners, such an extension also would require adding another bus to the schedule each day to maintain the frequency of service along the rest of the route. Because Southbranch Industrial Park currently is connected with limited service by route 40 – a freeway flyer route that makes four trips on weekday mornings from downtown Milwaukee to the park-and-ride lot at I-94 and Ryan Road and three trips back to downtown Milwaukee on weekday afternoons – an alternative would be to add additional capacity to that route to serve additional job shifts, or to establish a shuttle route or employer van service from the Ryan Road park-and-ride. It is worth noting that a previous shuttle route – the route 227 that served both Southbranch and the Franklin Business Park – was discontinued in 2002 because of low ridership. Since 2002, however, there has been new industrial and residential growth in Oak Creek and Franklin. Overall, the route 80X appears to constitute a sound approach for improving travel times for city residents seeking access to employment in Oak Creek and Mequon, and for establishing an express north-south “spine” that could enhance connections for riders throughout the system. This route also shows that it is possible to address the “last mile” issue effectively with its extended service to the Northbranch Industrial Park in Oak Creek. On the other hand, the route’s inability to address the last mile problem for the Mequon and Southbranch industrial parks also shows the difficulties involved with solving that problem for many of the region’s suburban job centers, largely due to the lack of development density along potential routes. Solving the “last mile” problem for those industrial parks likely would require shuttle routes at suburban locations that either would add to the cost of public transit service or require a commitment from employers to pay more to bring workers to jobs. As we have seen, those suburban shuttle routes have been difficult to sustain in the past.

Page 27

Route 10X from UWM to Brookfield Square via downtown Milwaukee To explore how the problem of prohibitively lengthy travel times between Milwaukee and suburban job hubs might be addressed, we next considered an express route that would provide the Brookfield Square Mall retail job hub with faster and more frequent service. Conveniently, such a route already was being modeled by MCTS as a part of its 2014-2018 CMAQ application, so we were able to access cost and route data from the system’s existing modeling. The route 10X would serve the busiest transit corridor in the region – from UWM’s main campus on the east side of Milwaukee to 35th and Wisconsin via downtown Milwaukee – and would extend all the way to Brookfield Square, serving both workers at that location and those who would wish to transfer to Waukesha Metro Transit services. This route also would complement a potential new 80X route by offering opportunities to transfer between the two routes in downtown Milwaukee. By providing faster and more frequent service, the new route would seek to substantially shorten the length of time it currently takes to travel through the east-west corridor by public transit. The new 10X would replace the local service provided by existing route 10, which stops every 1/8 mile, with express service stopping every ½ mile for some portions of the route. Service on the 10X would operate seven days a week from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m., with frequencies ranging from as low as 10 minutes on weekdays during peak periods, compared with roughly 19 minutes on the current route 10. MCTS began initial planning for the route 10X as it was seeking federal CMAQ funding to initiate both that route and a new 30X express route, which would serve the same UWM-to-35th Street corridor and would extend north along Sherman Boulevard to Florist Avenue. If the application is approved, it is hoped that both routes will begin service in 2015. Figures 7 shows the existing routes that currently serve the areas to be served by the 10X and 30X, while Figure 8 maps out the new routes and a restructured route 14. MCTS has selected these routes for new express service primarily because routes 10 and 30 currently are among those with the highest ridership, and existing capacity on those routes is insufficient during peak hours. The routes also were identified by the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) in its most recent regional transportation plan as a corridor that should have express service. Plans for the 10X and 30X also call for extending the existing route 14 from downtown Milwaukee to Bayshore Town Center to make up for the fact that the 10X would end at UWM. (Route 10 currently ends at Bayshore and does not serve the UWM campus.) It is important to note that MCTS created the plans for the 10X, 30X, and revised route 14 as one comprehensive proposal to improve service in the east-west corridor, and that the 10X would not have come about in isolation. In fact, between the 10X and the 30X, service along Wisconsin Avenue would be available every five minutes on average during peak periods, compared with every 10 minutes currently, which would represent a substantial improvement for east-west corridor commuters.

Page 28

Figure 7: Current configuration of MCTS routes 10, 30, and 14 17

17

Route maps provided by MCTS.

Page 29

Figure 8: Proposed design of MCTS express routes 10X and 30X and restructured route 14

Because these routes are viewed as one proposal, the cost estimate provided by MCTS takes into account the entire package. That estimate shows that the package would cost approximately $1.5 million more per year than the current cost of operating routes 10, 30 and 14, and that the changes would generate an estimated $250,000 in increased revenue from fares, for a net cost increase of $1.25 million over current services. The package was estimated to increase overall ridership by 890 rides per weekday. MCTS hopes that federal CMAQ funding would cover 80% of the cost of the routes for three years, and local funds would pick up the remainder. Beginning in 2018, MCTS likely would need to find another way to finance the routes.

Page 30

While the new express routes would produce increased frequency of service along the corridor, MCTS projects that the 10X would not produce a substantial travel time savings for commuters traveling to jobs in Waukesha County. West of 35th Street, the 10X would be the only route in operation on Wisconsin Avenue and would need to stop every 1/8 - 1/4 mile to maintain existing service levels. Thus, the existing 44- to 50-minute travel time to Brookfield Square from downtown Milwaukee (6th and Wisconsin) via route 10 only would be reduced to 41 to 47 minutes on route 10X. The major beneficiaries of this new configuration would be those traveling in the 35th and Wisconsin-downtownUWM sub-corridor, and even that improvement would be linked more to the increased frequency of service than to substantially faster service. The plan for route 10X illustrates, therefore, the challenges involved in using express bus routes to improve travel times to suburban job hubs. Unless the express service greatly extends the distance between stops – which might limit convenience and ridership in dense corridors – or unless it employs some of the strategies or technologies used for BRT (e.g. dedicated lanes), then it is difficult to achieve dramatic improvement in travel times. That does not mean that express routes like the 10X and 30X are not worth pursuing, but it does mean that the benefits of such routes may not extend to long-distance reverse commuters.

Route 351 from West Allis to the Westridge Business Park in New Berlin For our final illustration of the potential benefits and challenges of creating new or enhanced fixed-route service to suburban job centers, we explored a seemingly simple new route proposed several years ago to serve a prominent Waukesha County job center that has been the subject of several previous transit experiments. The route exemplifies challenges relating to previous service discontinuation as well as the “last mile” problem. In 2008, Waukesha County proposed creating a new bus route – route 351 – to connect a West Allis location already served by multiple MCTS bus routes with the Westridge Business Park in New Berlin (the configuration of the route is shown in Figure 9). While the Westridge Business Park had not previously been connected by transit, New Berlin’s larger job hub, the New Berlin Industrial Park, had seen multiple transit routes come and go, including the MCTS routes described earlier and Waukesha Metro Transit route 312. 18 Route 351 would have followed part of the path of the former Waukesha Metro Transit route 312, traveling southwest from 108th and Cleveland in West Allis to the intersection of National Avenue and Moorland Road, and then continuing south on Moorland to the Westridge Business Park, which is the home of Buy Seasons and several other large employers.

18

Waukesha Metro Transit route 312 operated from May 2000 to December 2002. The route traveled south from Brookfield Square on Moorland Road, wound through the New Berlin Industrial Park, and then turned east, ending th at 108 and Cleveland in West Allis.

Page 31

The annual cost of operating route 351 was estimated to be $584,000 ($635,000 in 2013 dollars) minus revenue from new ridership in its first year of service. While ridership estimates were not made at the time of the proposal, MCTS planners note that new bus routes may only generate between five and 10 passengers per bus hour during the initial months of operation. Ideally, ridership then would have increased over time as more people became familiar with the route. Figure 9: Proposed design for route 351 National-Westridge 19

19

City of Waukesha Transit Commission. Request for Proposals to Operate Waukesha County Transit Route 351 (National-Westridge). 2008.

Page 32

Both MCTS and Wisconsin Coach Lines submitted proposals to Waukesha County to operate route 351. Despite the fact that the new route ostensibly could have provided an important service enhancement for Milwaukee County residents seeking to reach jobs in New Berlin, MCTS’ proposal assumed that Waukesha County would pay the full cost of the portion of the route operating within New Berlin per Milwaukee County’s general policy that requires reimbursement from an adjacent county for any MCTS service that operates in that county. Ultimately, both proposals were rejected because they failed to meet Waukesha County’s cost expectations, and route 351 never materialized. More recently, Waukesha County officials met with the business association at Westridge Business Park in 2010 to discuss the association’s interest in seeking new transit service to the park. The county offered to seek the short-term support of CMAQ funding to start a new route to the area, but also asked for a small contribution from the employers to ensure that they had some “skin in the game.” (It is now Waukesha County’s informal policy that employers requesting new transit services must make a small contribution to the route’s annual operating costs for the new service to be considered.) The route to the Westridge Business Park would have cost around $300,000 per year to operate as a seasonal route in the fall and winter. Businesses were asked to contribute around 1% of the cost, but according to county officials, they were unwilling to do so and that route also never came to be. The inability to secure new transit service to the Westridge Business Park – a job hub that seemingly would benefit from such service and one that would be relatively easy to accommodate in light of its proximity to other existing service – raises important questions about transit funding policy. In the case of route 351, it is unclear whether additional financial support from Milwaukee County could have made the route work financially, and it may be that MCTS had higher priorities for new service and that its reluctance to fund the extension had little to do with Milwaukee County’s funding policy. There also is no debating that Milwaukee County already faces considerable difficulty maintaining funding for transit service within its borders. Nevertheless, given the urgency of central city unemployment and its impacts on the county’s economic health, this example does call into question whether Milwaukee County should insist on full funding for new service outside of its borders from the adjacent county if its job seekers are major beneficiaries of such service. It also reinforces the need to reconsider the concept of a regional transit system that might place a higher priority on developing long-distance routes that cross county boundaries without having to contemplate the contentious issue of which county should pay. Even without a regional transit system, greater cost sharing between counties may be warranted for inter-county routes, particularly given that more than half of transit operating revenue for MCTS and Waukesha Metro Transit comes from state and federal sources, rather than from local sources and fares. 20

20

According to MCTS officials, actual revenues for fixed-route transit operations totaled $141.5 million in 2012. State funds represented 38.4% of the total and federal funds accounted for 16.9%. The remaining revenue came from fares (29%), Milwaukee County (12.7%), and “Other” (3%).

Page 33

Similarly, Waukesha County’s practice of demanding a financial contribution from employers for new public transit services may be logical in light of funding constraints and a desire to weed out proposals from uncommitted employers, but it also raises questions about the public sector’s role in providing mass transit services. Mass transit can be a critical component of workforce development policy and of the region’s ability to compete for jobs with other parts of the country. Consequently, whether it is appropriate to require employers to contribute for transit service that is shown to benefit businesses and workers – as opposed to having this be solely a public sector responsibility – is a question that state and local policymakers may wish to review.

Summary The modeling of three new bus routes to serve suburban job centers shows that potential benefits could be generated from each of the routes, but also illustrates some of the primary challenges associated with the use of fixed-route bus service as a workforce mobility tool. Those challenges include the following: •

Many suburban industrial parks are difficult to serve because they are isolated from other land uses that generate transit riders and thus are unable to meet typical measures of transit service productivity.

•

Funding for trial routes is available through special federal programs, but those routes are difficult to sustain after initial funding runs out.

•

Express routes can produce added convenience and minor travel time savings, but significant time savings are difficult to achieve within the confines of existing service requirements, existing technologies, and variable work hours/shifts for proximate employers.

•

Current local transit funding policies – while sensible in light of the funding constraints facing local transit systems – pose an additional barrier to the implementation of new or expanded fixed-route service that may benefit employers and workers.

While these challenges are not insurmountable, they do help explain why this region lacks a meaningful array of fixed-route transit services that effectively connect Milwaukee job seekers with suburban jobs, despite years of discussion and documentation regarding the severity of this problem. In the next section, we review alternatives to traditional fixed-route service as potential solutions.

Page 34

Alternatives to fixed-route transit As we have demonstrated, bus service is not always the most practical and efficient way for all workers to get to all job locations, nor is transit every worker’s preferred mode of travel. As a result, alternative options to improve workforce mobility have been developed over the past 20 years in the Milwaukee area, with varied results. The most prominent of such efforts have been commuter vanpools, shuttle services, and car purchasing programs.

Vanpools Both Milwaukee County and Waukesha County have experimented with vanpools as an alternative to fixed-route bus lines. Vanpools, like carpools, allow groups of people to commute to work together, providing door-to-door service that in some cases can be more cost-effective and fuel efficient than fullsized buses or personal vehicles. Milwaukee County’s program began in 1994 with funding support from the state’s Transportation Demand Management Program and the federal CMAQ program. 21 The program was discontinued at the end of 2011, at which time the county owned 14 passenger vans that all were being utilized by area businesses and agencies. The rationale for discontinuing the program was that it no longer was financially sustainable without county property tax levy support. The vehicle fleet was aging and there was no capital funding available for replacements. In addition, the associated costs for operations and maintenance had increased to the point where the program’s overall costs were greater than the revenues it was generating from users. Milwaukee County also cited reduced transit operating aid from the State of Wisconsin as another factor in its decision to discontinue the program. While the vanpool program in Milwaukee County was well utilized but difficult to sustain financially, the vanpool program in Waukesha County was much less successful and shorter-lived. The program was initiated in 2010 when the county applied for and was awarded $200,000 in federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 22 The county purchased eight vans and carried out an extensive marketing campaign to generate interest in the program. The program became operational in January 2012, but interest was limited and only one van ever was utilized. The service was discontinued in August 2012.

21

Milwaukee County interoffice communication. July 6, 2011. http://county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntySupervisors/cntybrdstandingcommittees/TPWT/2011/TP WT071311Packet1.pdf 22 Walker, Laurel. “Waukesha County ends commuter van service.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. August 10, 2012. http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/waukesha-county-ends-commuter-van-service-4e6epos165815096.html

Page 35

Waukesha County officials cited several factors as contributors to the program’s failure. The program required employers to pay a monthly fee to Waukesha County for use of a van and to take responsibility for maintaining the vehicles on behalf of their vanpool, though costs could be passed on to participating employees or provided as a benefit by the employer. While there was significant interest in Waukesha County’s program as it was forming, it proved difficult to attract participants who were willing to take on the responsibility of managing their own programs and vans. In addition, many prospective participants had difficulty meeting the program’s standards for drivers. Other factors that were attributed to the program’s failure included the following: 1. It was more difficult than expected to find enough individuals who were interested in participating in the program and who had the same work schedules to fill a van. 2. The program was designed exclusively for individuals who live and/or work in Waukesha County. Some successful vanpool programs in other parts of the country – such as the program provided by Pace, the Chicago metro area’s suburban transit provider – are operated under regional transit authorities, which offer both a dedicated funding source and the benefit of serving a larger regional population. 3. The weak economy may have made it less essential for employers to provide transportation, as they could attract plenty of job applicants with personal vehicles. 4. According to Waukesha County officials, new federal regulations that would have required Waukesha County to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act also were a factor in terminating the program, as retrofitting the one van that was in operation would have been costprohibitive.

Shuttle services In 2007, the Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment Board (MAWIB), Esperanza Unida, and Milwaukee Careers Cooperative formed the Milwaukee Area JobRide Collaborative (MAJC), a service offering employment-related transportation for low-income individuals to locations not served by the transit system. 23 MAWIB originally managed the MAJC, but coordination since has shifted primarily to Milwaukee Careers Cooperative, a local nonprofit that has been providing employment-related transportation and other services since the late 1980s. MAJC’s fleet of 14-passenger vans provide rides seven days per week for all shifts, connecting workers with employers located within 45 miles of the City of Milwaukee, including Buy Seasons in New Berlin. The service operates shuttle routes with designated pick-up locations, with some routes serving multiple employers. Shuttle routes are designed to connect areas where workers live directly to the suburban 23

Milwaukee Careers Cooperative: http://www.mccjobs.org/milwaukeeJobTransportation.asp

Page 36

locations of participating employers. This “front door” service contrasts with traditional fixed-route transit service, which often delivers riders relatively close – but not within walking distance – of many job sites. The MAJC also has ties to publicly funded Job Center and Transitional Jobs programs and provides rides to job interviews and job fairs for participants. In 2012, the MAJC provided a total of 48,991 one-way job trips, which translates into about 134 per day. Participating workers cover a large portion of the service’s cost by paying a fare of $2-$2.50 for each one-way ride, while participating employers with at least five employees pay a fee of $100 per month per shift for MAJC to transport workers directly to their door at designated times. According to the MAJC coordinator, employers do not cover the fare for their employees because it would not be appropriate for them to pay only for some workers – and not all workers – to get to and from work. The vast majority of the workers who use the MAJC shuttle service take MCTS bus routes to get to a designated pick-up point along the shuttle route, according to the MAJC program coordinator. For workers, therefore, the cost of using both the transit system and the MAJC can add up. Many workers likely pay $64 per month for an MCTS transit pass and $4-$5 per day for round-trip travel with the MAJC. The largest source of support for MAJC has been the federal JARC program, which is now being eliminated (as discussed in an earlier section of this report). All additional funding for services designed for job access and reverse commute in Milwaukee County – including $170,910 through WETAP 24 – soon will go directly to the county, putting the ongoing operation of the MAJC up in the air beginning in 2014. In 2012, JARC provided $425,389 to the Milwaukee Careers Cooperative to operate the program, and additional state funding, local match funding, and service fees likely are not sufficient to maintain the program without support from federal transit aids. While the MAJC could not succeed without the transit system as a foundation, it provides a complementary service that the transit system cannot easily provide with regular fixed-route buses. The MAJC also has the flexibility to start new routes and redesign existing routes as needed. Milwaukee County may wish to consider ways to preserve this service, though it would need to balance the potential cost of $400,000 or more with the comparative benefits of a similar investment in fixed-route service. Aside from the MAJC, some staffing services provide shuttle services for their temporary employees to employers located in suburban areas not served by public transit, but those services are not available for the general public. According to a representative from one local staffing service (StaffWorks), many area employers want staffing services to provide transportation for their workers to ensure they arrive on time. If the company hires those workers permanently, however, workers have to provide their own transportation, which can be a problem for many workers with jobs in outlying areas.

24

Wisconsin Department of Transportation: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/wetap-2012.pdf

Page 37

Car purchasing programs With public transit services non-existent in many parts of the Milwaukee metro area, and shuttle services only serving a limited number of employers in the region, many jobs are accessible only by automobile. Purchasing a reliable vehicle can be expensive, however, and people with poor credit histories often cannot obtain auto loans. Consequently, several programs have been created in Milwaukee to provide low-interest loans for prospective vehicle buyers. In fact, Milwaukee is home to a national community development financial institution (CDFI) called Ways to Work, which provides low-interest loans to low-income individuals and families to purchase used vehicles or to pay for needed repairs on existing vehicles. Ways to Work provides loans of up to $8,000 at 6-8% interest for up to 36 months. (According to a program leader, the typical Ways to Work borrower would qualify for a 30% interest rate through a traditional loan.) The program currently is offered through 44 loan offices in 19 states. The YWCA on Milwaukee’s near north side is the only office in southeast Wisconsin. 25 In order to qualify for a Ways to Work loan, individuals must have a job, a valid driver’s license, and at least one dependent child. Applicants are not eliminated due to poor credit, as the program is geared primarily toward credit-challenged individuals. After attending a program orientation focused on financial education, applicants meet with a Ways to Work staff person to work through a budgeting process, and then are screened by an independent loan committee made up of community volunteers. The committee is trained to approve or deny applicants based on whether they have demonstrated the character needed to follow through on their loan repayment. About 60 families in the four-county Milwaukee area have received Ways to Work loans annually in recent years, but agency leaders expect that number to increase to at least 120 families in 2014. The likely increase in loan activity is due to the recent launch of a mobile Ways to Work office serving Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties, coupled with greater stability in the program serving Milwaukee County. 26 Nationally, the total cost per borrower to administer the Ways to Work program between 2007 and 2010 was $4,863. (Total program cost was about $23.2 million and 4,771 borrowers received loans during that period.27) According to estimates by ICF International, Ways to Work produces approximately $2.48 in total benefits to borrowers, employers, and taxpayers for every dollar that is invested in the program.

25

Ways to Work office locations: http://www.waystowork.org/office_locations.php Gores, Paul. Ways to Work expands services in three counties. July 11, 2012. http://www.jsonline.com/business/ways-to-work-to-open-loan-offices-in-three-counties-7c636cj-162071045.html 27 ICF International. “2011 Evaluation of the National Ways to Work Program.” December 2011. http://www.waystowork.org/docs/evaluations/2011EvalReport.pdf 26

Page 38

Ways to Work receives funding from two federal programs: JARC and the Community Development Financial Institution program, which helps CDFIs “build their capacity to serve low-income people and communities that lack access to affordable financial products and services.” 28 The program also receives private funding from several national and local sources. With the elimination of the JARC program, Ways to Work hopes to continue to receive funding from the Urbanized Area Formula program, but also is preparing its local programs to identify strategies for diversifying their funding streams.

Driver’s license recovery programs For many individuals, it is not the lack of a vehicle, but rather the lack of a valid driver’s license that poses a barrier to accessing jobs. According to research conducted by UWM’s Employment and Training Institute (UWM-ETI), 5,607 Milwaukee County residents had their licenses revoked and 48,207 Milwaukee County residents had their licenses suspended in 2011. 29 A majority of license suspensions resulted from failure to pay forfeitures, and those cases were disproportionately concentrated in Milwaukee’s near north side and near south side. 30 Driver’s license suspensions and revocations were actually down significantly from previous years, which UWM-ETI credits largely to efforts of the Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability (CDLRE). The CDLRE – which was founded in 2007 and is located in downtown Milwaukee – offers legal assistance to help people retain and recover driver’s licenses. The center also advocates for state policy changes to reduce the use of license suspensions and increase the use of alternatives to suspension. 31 The center is a public-private partnership between Wisconsin Community Services, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Area Technical College, and the City of Milwaukee Municipal Court, with funding coming from many additional sources. Partially as a result of legislative reforms proposed by the CDLRE, driver’s license revocations issued to Milwaukee County residents declined by approximately 62% between 2009 and 2011 (from 14,736 to 5,607). Driver’s license suspensions decreased by 10% during the same period, from 53,504 to 48,207. Policy changes have included giving discretion to judges to deviate from two major requirements: that drug-related offenses result in mandatory six-month license suspensions; and that a fourth Operating While Suspended (OWS) conviction results in an automatic license revocation.

Private fixed-route bus services Finally, private fixed-route bus services are available to serve some commuters in metro Milwaukee. In addition to operating express bus routes for Waukesha Metro Transit, Wisconsin Coach Lines offers 28

U.S. Department of the Treasury: http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=7 UW-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute. “Driver’s license status report for Milwaukee County.” June 13, 2012. http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/2012/LicenseStatusPPTReport.pdf 30 UW-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute. http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/2012/FPFSuspensions.pdf 31 Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability: http://licenserecovery.org/ 29

Page 39

commuter bus service between the Milwaukee Intermodal Station in downtown Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha, making one stop in Oak Creek on Howell Avenue at Ryan Road.32 That route makes only seven round trips on weekdays, five on Saturdays, and four on Sundays. No local transit service exists from Howell and Ryan that would allow workers to reach job sites in Oak Creek. Badger Bus, another private bus company, makes eight trips daily from downtown Milwaukee to Goerkes Corners in Brookfield, where transfers can be made to Waukesha Metro Transit buses, and six trips from Goerkes Corners to downtown Milwaukee. 33 The cost is $17 per round trip, however.

Summary During the past two decades, several alternative transportation services have been developed in the Milwaukee area to address the limitations of fixed-route transit, including commuter vanpools, shuttle services, and car-purchasing programs. Each of these has complemented local transit systems with options that can transport workers to suburban job locations in a manner that is more flexible and individualized than fixed-route bus service. To date, however, these services have operated on a relatively small scale and have had mixed results. A commuter vanpool program in Milwaukee County had some success, but not enough to be preserved when budget challenges forced cuts to transit system services. Waukesha County’s vanpool program, meanwhile, was discontinued soon after it got off the ground. The shuttle service provided by the MAJC has been more stable, but changes to federal funding for transit services have made the program’s future uncertain. Under better economic conditions – and with greater financial stability for local transit systems – these program models could continue to play a role in diversifying transportation options for transit-dependent workers, but they are unlikely to constitute a large-scale transportation solution for those workers. Car purchasing programs provide flexibility to users, but currently serve a relatively small number of low-income families in the Milwaukee area each year. For many individuals, the cost of maintaining a used vehicle can be prohibitive, and for many others, driver’s license suspensions and revocations prevent these programs from being viable options. Additional work is needed to understand the extent to which car-purchasing programs could be expanded to serve more individuals and families in the Milwaukee area.

32 33

Wisconsin Coach Lines commuter routes: http://www.coachusa.com/wisconsincoach/ss.commuter.asp Badger Bus schedule: https://www.badgerbus.com/images/BadgerBusSchedule.pdf

Page 40

Observations and policy considerations Every worker needs to get to his or her job, regardless of income level or occupation. For a vast majority of Americans (86%), that means using a private automobile on public roads. The transportation solution is more complex, however, for those workers without access to a car, as most metro areas in the U.S. – including metro Milwaukee – have experienced significant job sprawl, and public transportation systems do not effectively serve many suburban job sites. The research presented here confirms the long-held notion that public transportation services are limited or non-existent in many suburban job centers in the four-county Milwaukee metropolitan statistical area. While job hubs within the city of Milwaukee and many of its first-ring suburbs generally are connected by public transit services, many job hubs in outer suburbs are inaccessible for transitdependent workers. Some outer-ring suburban areas have no transit services at all; others have service only at limited times or that is not designed for reverse commuters; and others have service that either does not take workers within walking distance of their job sites, or that takes too long to offer a practical transportation solution. In this report, we sought to examine and illuminate the challenges associated with implementing public transit solutions that would provide Milwaukee residents with better access to suburban jobs. In doing so, we raise two important and related questions: •

To what extent is it realistic to consider new or extended fixed-route bus service to many suburban job centers in light of the isolated nature of those centers and the challenges that implementing such service would entail?

•

Might it instead be more beneficial and cost-effective for MCTS to focus on improving service to areas within Milwaukee County that already have the development density to support new transit services?

While there is no conclusive answer to those questions, we would offer the following observations and policy considerations to help those who wish to contemplate them:  Route extensions to suburban job hubs – as opposed to new routes – are most likely to meet MCTS’ cost-benefit criteria. Some suburban job hubs in metro Milwaukee could be served effectively with simple route extensions, and that is the first option that should be considered for those seeking to improve reverse commute service. Many other job centers are relatively isolated and likely would not produce sufficient ridership to sustain a regular bus route. Even in cases where route extensions may be viable, specialized connecting shuttle services still may be necessary. Such specialized services would be beyond the capacity of the current MCTS fleet.

Page 41

 Converting local bus routes to express routes may yield several benefits for reverse commuters, but vastly improved travel times may not be one of them. Shifts to express service – such as that envisioned for route 10X – would yield modest travel time improvements for longer-distance commuters and may improve connections and convenience. But to truly address the prohibitive travel times faced by many reverse commuters, more advanced and expensive strategies (in terms of up-front capital) will be required, such as true bus rapid transit with dedicated lanes or light rail services.  Using fixed-route bus service to improve workers’ access to suburban jobs will require corollary strategies to address the “last mile” problem. Simply sending more buses out to the suburbs will not make such service viable and attractive to potential riders in many parts of the region. What might make that service viable in those areas are MCTS shuttle connections, other publicly supported shuttle services (such as those provided by the Milwaukee Area JobRide Collaborative), or employer-sponsored shuttle services to directly connect riders to their jobsites. It is important to note, however, that such strategies bring added costs (to the transit provider and/or riders) and additional travel time. Such efforts also have been difficult to scale up and sustain in the past. Last mile strategies that involve MCTS also may require MCTS to relax its standard route productivity standard of 22 passengers per bus hour (PBH).  Reverse commute routes could become more efficient if employers in suburban industrial parks coordinated shift schedules. More workers on the same shift schedule means demand for bus service can be focused at particular times, rather than spread throughout the day. This could allow routes that previously were deemed inefficient based on existing or projected ridership to come closer to meeting MCTS’ route productivity standard.  Land use policies that foster higher-density, mixed-used development patterns, are the optimal solution. The potential to connect suburban job hubs in the Milwaukee area with new transit services varies based on their location relative to existing transit and the land use patterns in the area. It is often very difficult to serve job centers in outer suburbs with fixed bus routes because of the lack of both development density and mixed land uses along potential routes, which are needed to produce ridership throughout the day. From a workforce and economic development perspective, therefore, it should be an imperative for governments to encourage businesses with workforce challenges to locate in or near higher-density areas where public transit services already exist or where new transit connections could be sustained.  Policymakers may need to create flexible criteria, such as effectiveness in meeting economic and workforce development objectives, when evaluating suburban bus routes. If the issues discussed above cannot be resolved and policymakers still wish to consider new transit routes to suburban job centers, then they may need to modify the criteria with which they evaluate such routes. Suburban routes often struggle to meet MCTS’ productivity standard of 22 PBH, which is a key factor influencing whether bus routes are sustained when budgets are tight, and which is particularly

Page 42

difficult for those routes to meet during economic recessions. Consideration of other criteria tied to economic prosperity also may be necessary to justify the existence of those routes.  Suburban routes may need to be accompanied by multi-year funding commitments in order to allow time to ride out cyclical economic fluctuations and establish ridership. Several failed suburban bus routes enjoyed substantial ridership after implementation, only to see ridership fizzle with the loss of jobs at the suburban terminus during times of economic recession. Consequently, policymakers who wish to implement new or extended suburban routes should resolve to sustain them for multiple years.  New approaches for funding public transit will need to be considered. Federal and state transit funding has decreased in recent years and a special funding source that once supported employment-focused transit services has been discontinued. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to maintain existing transit services, let alone finance new bus route extensions to suburbs. Clearly, creation of a regional transit authority would help, not only by creating the opportunity for a new source of regional funding, but also by reducing contentiousness over funding for multi-county routes. Barring that solution, there may need to be greater inter-county cost sharing for such routes, and greater private sector participation in supporting shuttles and other employmentspecific transit.

Page 43

Appendix Percentage of jobs by industry in seven target ZIP codes 34 Franklin

Oak Creek

New Berlin

Mequon

Germantown

Men. Falls

Brookfield

53132

53154

53151

53092

53022

53051

53005

26%

26%

24%

18%

29%

29%

2%

Retail trade

20%

13%

11%

10%

13%

11%

17%

Health care and social assistance

14%

4%

6%

10%

6%

13%

12%

Wholesale trade

4%

10%

13%

5%

14%

8%

3%

Admin, support, waste and remediation

3%

1%

8%

17%

5%

5%

7%

Professional, scientific, & tech services

3%

3%

6%

7%

5%

3%

11%

Transportation and warehousing

6%

17%

4%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Finance and insurance

1%

2%

4%

8%

2%

3%

16%

City Industry Manufacturing

ZIP

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 ZIP Code Business Patterns

34

Only industries accounting for at least 10% of jobs in at least one target ZIP code are included in this table.

Page 44

Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington Workforce Development Board’s (WOW-WDB) active employer locations