Get a daily rundown of the top stories on Urban Milwaukee

No city has an exact twin. But I may have found as near a twin as Milwaukee is likely to get in the city of Auckland, New Zealand. I’ve lived in metro Milwaukee since 1990 and have had extended stays in New Zealand since 2013. In looking at a “twin,” we in Milwaukee might draw a lesson or two about ourselves, including where we’ve come from and where we might want to head, especially vis-à-vis streetcar service.

Auckland was founded in 1840, Milwaukee in 1846. Auckland’s metro population is more than 1.52 million, while metro Milwaukee’s four-county population is about 1.57 million. Auckland isn’t the capital of New Zealand (Wellington is) but it’s New Zealand’s financial and commercial capital, just as Milwaukee is Wisconsin’s. Milwaukee faces Lake Michigan; Auckland faces the Pacific to the east and the Tasman Sea to the west. Streetcar service was discontinued in Auckland in 1956 and in Milwaukee in 1951. After 1956 Auckland until about 2000 followed pro-automobile policies. Even now investment in urban freeways is occurring in Auckland. Milwaukee’s situation is comparable, with heavy recent and current investment – the rebuilds of the Marquette, Mitchell, and Zoo interchanges come to mind – in freeways.

The topic of streetcars entered public discussion in Auckland just since mid-January when Auckland Transport (the transport enterprise arm of Auckland government) proposed considering a ‘tram’ (i.e. a streetcar) service on Auckland’s main thoroughfare, Queen Street. This proposal, while it came like a bolt out of the blue, was in no sense foreign to New Zealand, not the way Mr. Barrett’s streetcar proposal may seem foreign to Milwaukee.

That’s because New Zealand – at least at the national level — never went whole hog for motor transport the way we did in the U.S. after WWII. New Zealand is petroleum poor and thin in population (though Auckland is slated to more than double its population by 2030). Only 2 percent of the State Highway System – New Zealand’s national highway system – comprises freeways and those are mostly in and around Auckland. In the U.S., by contrast, we not only embraced the Interstate Highway System, we introduced that system and, more generally, the idea that freeways are the virtual end-all-answer to almost every urban transport question in almost every American city.

Kiwis hedged their bets under both National (conservative) and Labour (liberal) governments. The Nationalists sponsored the electrification of the North Island Main Trunk Railway as part of a “Think Big” effort to reduce dependence on imported petroleum. Apparently transcending partisan lines, about 15 years ago the powers-that-be in Auckland decided that public transport needed an infusion of new investment, not least to cope with prospective population growth. A multi-modal strategy supplanted Auckland’s previous auto-focused strategy.

Among other things, a decision was made to relocate the head station of Auckland’s metropolitan (mainline) rail network to the abandoned central post office on Queen Street, right in the Central Business District (CBD). The Britomart Transport Centre, as it’s called, opened in 2003. In the following 10 years annual ridership on the metro rail network went from 2 million to 10 million. Subsequently that network has been undergoing electrification (to permit faster, quieter, cleaner train operations). Moreover Auckland’s current mayor is committed to building a so-called ‘City Rail Link’ (beyond Britomart) to better serve Auckland’s CBD and to enable the metro rail system to carry 20 to 30 million passengers annually.

Auckland politicians and the national politicians disagree on who should pick up the tab for the Link (Auckland’s population is a third of New Zealand’s population). But the Link is likely to be built, given the city’s growth prospects and its constricted, isthmus geography. Pro-highway interests are unlikely to derail the momentum, anymore than pro-streetcar forces in Milwaukee could thwart, say, the rebuilding of the Zoo Interchange. There’s only so much money available for big projects and in Auckland the greater momentum is now with metropolitan rail service.

In Milwaukee, and in the States, the momentum has been toward roadway-centered projects in most places most of the time. The tragedy in Milwaukee is that back in the 50s and 60s the powers-that-be placed all bets on roadway-centered transport. We’re living with a situation that’s hard to turn around, not least because so many costs of public roadways aren’t readily apparent and aren’t covered by road users.

My sense is that Mayor Barrett’s current efforts will bear some fruit, as opposed to prior, Sisyphean efforts. Milwaukee will finally get at least some rail-technology urban transport: namely, a streetcar service in the CBD. It will be very difficult to build on the streetcar core outside the CBD, because the predominant institutionalized interests and funding structures are geared for non-rail-technology projects.

But going forward perhaps Milwaukee can learn a thing or two from its near twin in New Zealand. Auckland Transport, an arm of Auckland’s government, functions as an enterprise, which in turn contracts with operators of bus services, the metro rail service, ferry services, as well as overseeing all Auckland roadways outside the State Highway network. In some ways Auckland Transport functions as a regional transport authority (RTA), an authority that Southeastern Wisconsin has been unable to form. In some ways it’s like a business enterprise.

With or without an RTA in metro Milwaukee, every effort should be made for the streetcar service to be run like an enterprise, rather than as a department within, say, Milwaukee city government. As an enterprise, especially as a legally incorporated (non-profit) enterprise, a streetcar service can be or is more likely able to be:

Focused on acquiring and satisfying customers regardless of whether or not they’re Milwaukee citizens.

Agile because less bureaucratic, able to enter contracts without the constraints of a governmental department.

Less enmeshed in political issues having no relevance to its service (and therefore less likely to be held hostage to political horse-trading).

More transparent because better defined, with financial results reportable through well-established (non-profit) business accounting practices.

Able to engage “outsiders” on its board, a plus in any event, but even more so if there’s any hope of the streetcar service reaching beyond Milwaukee’s municipal boundaries.

Creating an enterprise structure is as important as identifying initial streetcar routes in founding a fruitful streetcar service.

Time will tell and others must now decide whether any of this will happen. Auckland has decided to give itself robust transportation options. Will Milwaukee begin to do likewise?

Tim Jorgenson is a former passenger-and-freight railway executive. He has kept a New Zealand blog while living there periodically in 2013, ’14, and ’15.