Wisconsin to Get Federal Tax Money for High Speed Rail

Yippee.

A fact sheet issued by the White House lists the $810 million for the stations and track improvements necessary for the high-speed line connecting the state’s two largest cities, along with improvements to the Amtrak Hiawatha line between Milwaukee and Chicago that will serve as the building blocks for a 110-mph service along that route.

Let me be clear (sorry, I’m channeling Obama), this will result in work for people and be a nice infusion into Wisconsin’s economy, but the long term isn’t so promising.  At some point the federal money will run out and the taxpayers of Wisconsin will have to pay to operate and maintain the line.  And for what?  So a few people can have their trip between Milwaukee and Madison subsidized?  No thanks. 

As I’ve said in the past, I have to go to Madison on a fairly regular basis.  I would LOVE to pay a couple of bucks to sit on a train and read, work, or nap as I get there.  But given that the train would not drop me off where I actually need to go, requiring me to rent a car or cab it (plus parking, waiting for the train, etc.), the whole experience would be more hassle and expense than just jumping in my car and driving over there.  But even if I rode the train, do y’all really want to subsidize my ride?  I can certainly afford it, but why pay my own way of some suckers with float the bill?

The comparison with the Hiawatha line isn’t accurate.  I’ve ridden that line many times.  The drive to downtown Chicago is longer and traffic worse that makes the train more reliable.  There are no such concerns between Milwaukee and Madison.  Also, the concentration of likely destinations in downtown Chicago and ready access to cabs and the Metra make it convenient.  But even in that case, 90% of the people on that train can afford to make their way to Chicago on their own and the rest of us are subsidizing their commute. 

Here again we are facing the prospect of trading short term economic activity for a long term white elephant. 

1. Feingold and Kohl tout 13,000 jobs created?  I have written Senator Feingold (at least he replys) and asked for the proof of the jobs.  A canned Stimulus letter returns in it’s normal fashion. 

   We need this rail like we need a hole in our head.  It will end up costing us big dollars in the long run.  Traffic is not an issue to go to Madison.  Who wants to take longer to get there, end up at the airport and have to pay more than it would if you drove?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0930 hrs




2. Who is going to ride this train?
   1st you need to drive to the sta in milw. Then wait for the train. How often will the train run ? Then get on the “hi speed” rail 100 mps. About 30 mph faster than driving. It is gong to stop in Brookfield and Oconimwauk. It won’t be going 100 mph thru town. Then off to Madison airport. I could see this trip taking 3 hrs from my house, Vs 1 1/2 to drive to madison when I want to go, Where I want to go and when I want to come back. This makes no sence from the start

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1035 hrs




3. I will not enjoy the commercials…Like the bus commercial that I have to change the channel on. “So what you are saying is that it is cheaper to take the bus than drive a car?” Why yes you lousy, stupid, moronic, piece of crap, waste of oxygen, of course it is cheaper than taking a car. How about we stop charging the folks that drive the cars for your fare on the bus and revisit the question. When the majority of your cost is covered by someone else then of course it is cheaper for you. But of course the folks that either A)complain that the bus fare is too expensive or B) think that the bus is really cheaper than taking their own car are almost to dumb to breath the same air as my children. Harsh? Yup pretty harsh…but true. Just like the folks waiting to pick up their share of the big O’s stash. No concept of how things work and sadly they get to vote…

   Posted by fishaddict on January 28, 2010 at 1106 hrs




4. In my UW-Madison days many years ago, I took Badger Buses filled with other students from the Milwaukee area. On the way back to campus after holiday weekends you had to board downtown unless you wanted to waste time waiting at a stop further west—even one as close as West Allis, watching the full buses roll by.  High-capacity, high-speed rail would have been a great option then.

   As for the subsidies, ALL transportation is subsidized. Roads, buses, trains, planes, you name it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1123 hrs




5. So 2-3 times a year we have to make it convienient for you to go back and forth to school in Madison.  How are you going to get from the airport to campus?  Ride the bus.  you will get there quicker.  We subsidize enough.  Draw the line in the sand already.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1140 hrs




6. Throw in the trains and other minor costs and we are looking at 1 billion dollars, imagine the costs to keep this up and running properly yearly. It would make more sense and be cheaper to just give students cab fare.
   Its great for them but at what cost, the rest of us it will be a one time novelty trip just to check it out.
   On the bright side 10 years from now we can rip out the tracks and pave it for a bike path, the passenger cars would make great diners along the trail.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1142 hrs




7. The same short sighted crap ‘We the People’ seem doomed to engage in. If we had been truly thinking about the future, we’d have been drilling for our own oil, built more nuclear plants, and convinced people that government is not responsible for your needs in life. Instead, we get….... a useless train. Train, thy name is Amtrak lite.

   Posted by Billiam on January 28, 2010 at 1216 hrs




8. Well Pauly, how do you think students get from the bus depot to campus? Right—local transit options, public or commercial, supporting the city’s economy. And many students commute weekly or even daily. So what I’m saying is, there’s some built-in ridership that hasn’t been mentioned here.

   You all can complain about subsidizing that ridership all you want, but it seems disingenuous unless you also complain about subsidizing roads you seldom or never drive on. If you do, I applaud your consistency.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1311 hrs




9. Roads are subsidized? I don’t think they would be if diamond jim could keep his hand out of the money that goes into the road fund.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1312 hrs




10. Roads are subsidized? I don’t think they would be if diamond jim could keep his hand out of the money that goes into the road fund.

    And you base that thought on what Bill?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1325 hrs




11. Kwilli - but you don’t need a train when you have Badger Bus.  I used the Van Galder from Janesville to Madison for law school (and I loved it).  The buses can go on (just about) any street, can alter routes and pick-up points as needed and dictated, and is run by a private company who has an incentive to provide low cost and good service.  As for the roads - they are already there.  No new infastructure is needed, just repairs from time to time. 

    Do you really think we can make it all work even better (i.e. better service at a lower cost), buy building a new “high speed” train and all the new infastructure that comes with it?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1328 hrs




12. Badger Bus drops you off a close walk to the UW campus, not the Madison Airport miles from downtown and from campus.

    This train will not be high speed considering the stops and where the stations are going to be located.  It will be high cost.

    The 800 Billion would be better spent adding one or two extra lanes and better on/off ramps to the Milwaukee-Madison freeway.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1439 hrs




13. Lets not mention that it will take longer than driving, and the tickets are likely to be $25+ one way. This thing is a joke, it will have zero ridership, but it will be the foot in the door. After two years when there are no riders that will be used as the reason to add sidings and stops and routes… It’s the never ending cycle that we are still dealing with in regards to the buses in Milwaukee County.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1523 hrs




14. I use a lot more of the subsidized roads in this state than I will use some train going nowhere.  Roads have multiple functions.  Recreation.  Education.  Goods and services use our roads.  Food gets to my store via the road.  What good or service is going to move from Milw to Madison that can be sold in a store, or put food on your table by this train?  NOTHING.  I don’t mind subsidizing roads, as it creates commerce.  Russ and Herb wanted a legacy for Jim.  Russ says he’s about cutting the deficit, curbing wasteful spending, cutting earmarks and pet projects.  He is a liar.  He wants this to go through, his pet project.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1612 hrs




15. Moving people moves capital.

    Madison has already looked at adding necessary transportation links from the airport to campus & downtown. Also, there was an article in the Business Journal a couple weeks ago that said Madison was looking at 4 or 5 possible sites including the airport and hadn’t decided. Whether that has changed I don’t know.

    Joe, you make very fair points on needs/wants/costs/convenience, etc. Obviously, it costs far less to run a bus on roads already there than it does to build a railroad. I support the project because it’s something I will use, just as I use the Hiawatha. And if the full plan is realized I will gladly use it to on regular trips to Indianpolis and the Twin Cities instead of driving there. Heck, if I’m paying for it anyway, I might as well use it.

    As flying becomes more and more inconvenient and uncomfortable, upgrading the passenger rail links to cities around the Great Lakes gives travelers a decent option. I have a feeling it’s on longer trips that the system might prove itself as an asset.

    I know nothing I say here is going to change someone’s mind if he or she thinks this is too expensive or risky (as if any of us have any say in the matter). Just saying that there might be better ridership than people think.

    If it becomes a bike path, I’ll use that too. 

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1651 hrs




16. How many homes and farm fields are they going to have to buy up to make this ridiculous thing happen?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1749 hrs




17. Pretty expensive bike path.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1752 hrs




18. Roads are usually paid for in large part by a gas tax that our gov and his cronies can’t keep their hands off of.  High speed rail will be subsidized by your tax money and there will not be the riders needed to justify it.  This money is best not being spent.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1759 hrs




19. Roads are usually paid for in large part by a gas tax

    Nope.

    http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/03-13High lights.pdf

    http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/03-13full.pdf

    And that was in 2003. And it certainly has not gotten any better.

    http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/01/28/gop-candida tes-for-governor-take-on-transportation-spending/

    And that is just on the state level, the Fed funding system is in even worse shape

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1847 hrs




20. Fact or opinion, what those reports aren’t telling you is that money that is supposed to be dedicated for transportation was siphoned off to balance the budget elsewhere. That money is not paid back. If the taxes were actually used for what they were meant for, the problem wouldn’t be as bad.
    When the money runs out for the trains, where are they going to get the money to keep it up and running? If it is the transportation fund, then that would be taking more money from the roads.
    Personally, I don’t really care anymore. The country is going to hell in a handbasket. All the special interests and taxes upon fees upon taxes is just going to kill this country. All the jobs are leaving the private sector and going to the government. There are more government jobs in this state than there are manufacturing jobs and that is a problem.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2026 hrs




21. A 40-50mph passenger train from Kewaskum to the Milw. airport and on to Chicago would be nice.  Use the current bike path.  I don’t need 100mph, and I could read on the way.

    Popular Science has a great article on new rail transportation this month: Expensive but inspiring.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2054 hrs




22. Fact or opinion, what those reports aren’t telling you is that money that is supposed to be dedicated for transportation was siphoned off to balance the budget elsewhere. That money is not paid back. If the taxes were actually used for what they were meant for, the problem wouldn’t be as bad.

    Agreed the tranfer was not a very bright idea. When you take a look at this you will see the money was “paid back”, sort of, by the govna & legies authorizing borrowing/bonding to fill the hole which is even a dimmer idea.

    http://www.tdawisconsin.org/data/publications/bgt.pdf

    In the grand scheme of things that the LAB lays out you can see that even the total to date of $1.3 billion in tranfers is about 5% +/_ of the need projected by their 2003 report.

    And like I said it has even gotten worse.

    There are some LFB reports and a excellent report by the Legis’s Road to the Future committee that you might enjoy and will show you how both the govna and the legies have basically tried to ignore this problem for most of the last decade.

    I’ll try to post the links later.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2055 hrs




23. Instead of wasting money on high speed rail, you could invest in luxury buses with wide seats, beverage service, and meal service.  You’d still come out cheaper and have a far more efficient, and dare I say more often used, mass transporation system.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2233 hrs




24. I don’t understand the fascination with getting passengers off the roads.  If this were about efficiency of transport you should put people on the roads and get more freight off the roads and onto rail, not vice versa.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2236 hrs




25. Wasn’t it in the late 1970s rail transport collapsed in WI? Why was that?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2309 hrs




26. The Model T, and the loss of mail contracts and express freight, is what killed killed private passenger rail service in the USA.

    Rail freight was damaged by overbuilding rail in certain areas, subsidized highways and excessively regulated rates that prevented rail from competing with trucks for certain freight prior to rail deregulation in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 2323 hrs




27. BV, shall I tell you tales of freight shipped by rail containers that never made it to their destination? Never made it because of the cars being put on sidings for repair and forgotten about? Containers simply lost? Containers lost due to derailment? I could go on, but you get the picture. Rail can work with trucks. It can’t beat them. I, for one, would like to see fewer people on the roads. It’d make my job less stressfull. Yet, if Amtrak loses money, how can this turn out any different? I’m truly curious.

    Posted by Billiam on January 29, 2010 at 0933 hrs




28. My commute would be less stressful with fewer trucks on the road… I say move the freight to rail.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0937 hrs




29. Hope you liove by a rail head..

    Posted by Billiam on January 29, 2010 at 0940 hrs




30. Given the relative cost of air travel and how sparsely most of America is populated, rail is probably not a cost-effective option except in certain urban corridors (e.g. Boston to D.C., DFW-Austin-San Antonio-Houston, San Diego to San Francisco).  And even there, it will probably require some subsidy.  What Doug suggested would make far more sense in terms of reducing repair costs on highways - use more carrots (or sticks) to get medium and long-haul trucks off the roads and their loads onto freight cars.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 29, 2010 at 1017 hrs




31. We’ve gotten rid of all sorts of rail to various cities, Billiam, which makes a return to rail either impractical or expensive, but it does not alter the basic equations of efficiency in transport.

    I deal with shipping containers all the time and find them highly efficient and highly trackable.  The reality is shipping containers are a priority item on rail and ship very predictably.

    I can give you an equally long list of trucked shipments that never made their destination, got dropped off at the wrong place, were returned because the driver arrived after hours and decided to leave, etc…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1049 hrs




32. This choo choo is going to be the biggest drain on the State budget and when we can’t continue, a bigger drain on the Federal budget.  A gigantic waste of resources.  Passenger rail failed because of the increased cost and the demand that people get to their destination on time.  Freight doesn’t as of big of time factor as people.  Today, Amtrak is heavily subsidized by the fed and state gov.  A new high speed rail will: need new track and right of way separate from freight traffic; not go 100 mph for very long, it takes time to build up speed and to slow down; passengers will need to factor in time to wait for the train and to travel to their destination once they arrive; subsidize ticket, especially after a bus or taxi ride to and from the station will cost more than it would to just drive;  people are rational and will not take the train when they find that their reason for traveling will cause them to go home before the next train leaves.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1123 hrs




33. people are rational and will not take the train when they find that their reason for traveling will cause them to go home before the next train leaves.

    Please explain.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1159 hrs




34. I would assume that this speed passenger train will run on the same track as freight.  I oppose this, train, but there’s no reason it wouldn’t run on freight rail.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1238 hrs




35. #33 Let me help explain. The train schedule is not going to coinicde with when you want or need to to come and go. I assume they are only going to have 1 train. So I leave milwaukee At 7:00 am get to mad 9:30 am The train goes back to milwaukee 12:00 noon. The union engineer has lunch till 2:00 and back to mad at 5:30 pm I get back on the train back in milwaukee @ 8:00 pm. Not to practical for daily commutes. And coming from madison would be worse.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1413 hrs




36. BV, no system is perfect. My point was that rail and trucks work together. Neither could do it stand alone. The company I drive for uses rail extensively. Just not for anything that’s real rush-rush.

    Posted by Billiam on January 29, 2010 at 1549 hrs




37. The total project will connect Chicago, Milwaukee,Madison, Minneappolis. But no money has been found for Madison, Minneapolis spur. Fear not Gwen Moore said she is looking at cap and trade and other emission regulations as additional revenue streams.
    The midwest high speed rail association says the midwest alone will need get this, 15 billion alone yearly to get a true high speed rail system that matches those in other countries.

    The 800 million in grants is not even a pimple on a very large butt of what will be needed to complete this project.

    What kind of strings are attached to this money if we dont complete the deluxe version, will the feds come back in 5 years and want this paid back because we didnt proceed with phase 2 of the project. Look what fine print they added to the banks that excepted cash.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1632 hrs




38. Sorry, this choo choo doesn’t run on regular freight rail, but rather need special gradings roadbed and rails.  Overpasses will have to be built so that the choo choo doesn’t have to stop at a blocked crossing.  All this so it can get up to 100 mph for a short period of time.  Also, if someone needs to go to say Madison from Mil by 9:00 am, but is done at noon, but the choo choo doesn’t leave until an hour or so after that, that person is going to drive.  Or if they have several places to go to in Madison, driving is it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1824 hrs




39. Talgo was supposed to be the manufacturer of the train sets and their equipment is quite capable of running on conventional rail.  Trains were able to run over 100 mph on regular rail 75 years ago and there is no reason they can’t do so now.  All sorts of crossings and signals would have to be upgraded, and the route between MAdison and Milwaukee is in poor shape and would need all new rail and ties, but the routes selected are in fact the existing freight routes.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1954 hrs




40. That route is single-track mainline.  There are designated sidings so that opposing traffic can move.  Real high-speed rail is designated track with no grade crossings and no intersections with other track.  It may run parallel with current frieght/Amtrak, but it needs its own track.  Secondly, the freight railroads now already hate hosting Amtrak.  Amtrak screws up their operations even with its limited movements.  The money that the railroads get from Amtrak for track rights doesn’t cover the cost of handling the traffic because the tracks have to be maintained to passenger standards as opposed to freight standards.  And the freight traffic must take siding to allow Amtrak to proceed.

    I just don’t see why we can’t, for a fraction of the money, run luxury busses with engines that have clean burning technology.  They can be flexed to schedule, cost per bus is cheaper, run them practically to a person’s front door.  Cripes, for far less than $1.5 billion we could install a special lane and let the buses run 90 MPH!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1003 hrs




41. Yes, I know that’s all true, Jim but at a maximum speed of 115 mph I can’t see this train as being “real” high speed rail and having elevated crossings and such.  It would be an even bigger waste than going to some full blown maglev. 

    The route shown in the papers between Madison and Milwaukee is the old CMSTP&P line which is used very little between Watertown and Madison.  I assume at Watertown it would join up with the CP main.  There was an old electric line that ran between Watertown, Waukesha and Milwaukee, but I don’t know if the ROW even exists anymore.  Between Madison and Portage the route was shown as the exisitng CP line and I can’t see any way that’s going double track.

    CP might go for it if that $810 million winds up upgrading their main.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1641 hrs




42. This month’s Popular Science…
    http://www.popsci.com

    Trackless Elevated Trains

    Task: Add urban railways for a third the cost of conventional light rail
    Status: Texas A&M University’s Texas Transportation Institute has offered free land for a two-mile test track

    To save the multibillion-dollar cost of clearing 24-foot-wide swaths for new track, trainmaker Tubular Rail wants to shoot trains up to 150 mph over existing infrastructure through a series of elevated rings 100 feet apart. As it passes through each ring, the 400-foot-long carbon-fiber car is pushed along by electrically powered steel rollers. To save juice, the motors gear up only as a train approaches; up to 90 percent of the kinetic energy of the train can be recaptured as the rollers wind down.

    Yea, it’s $$$ and far out, but, it’s still beautiful to dream.  I’ve love the energy recapture.  And if it’s like the Superman ride and Marriot’s Great America, the start-up and slow-down would be a rush.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1705 hrs