# "Stop The Train!"



## WhoozOn1st

Scott Walker, a Republican running to be governor of Wisconsin, is airing a TV commercial in which he vows that if elected he'll prevent high(er) speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison. The plan was awarded an $810 million federal grant, but on the commercial's website Walker says - in an "Open Letter to President Obama" - that he will "put a stop to this boondoggle the day I take office."

Wisconsin candidate's new TV ad: "We'll stop this train"

The commercial: Stop the Train! (NoTrain.com)

"'Wisconsin's hardworking families who are going to have to pick up the tab,' Walker says in the ad, decrying the projected operating subsidies. 'They are going to have to spend up to $10 million a year just to keep a train running they may never ride.'"

A natural extension of this logic would be that the citizens of Wisconsin should not have to contribute the many millions of dollars more required to build and maintain highways, roads, streets, and bridges they may never drive on.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

All these people should be put on a ship and sunk.


----------



## GG-1

amtrakwolverine said:


> All these people should be put on a ship and sunk.


Ah why make the fish sick :unsure: Just don't vote for them. 

Aloha


----------



## Shawn Ryu

GG-1 said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these people should be put on a ship and sunk.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah why make the fish sick :unsure: Just don't vote for them.
> 
> Aloha
Click to expand...

I dunno, Madison doesnt seem like a city that can be justified in being a terminus for a high spped trains. High speed trains should only be placed in areas where it will be in higher demand, 99 percent of the times that places are all big cities.


----------



## WICT106

It has been frustrating, working on returning passenger service to Madison, while improving it between Chicago and Saint Paul. The opponents, who seem to come out of the woodwork ( and were never around when Republican Tommy Thompson originally proposed something similar ) when this topic comes up, have characterized this Chicago to Saint Paul via Madison and Milwaukee service, as rail just between Madison and Milwaukee. It is quite the inaccurate representation. See the link, and read some of the comments:

"Train money should be rejected, Walker says"

Why are some conservatives so adamantly opposed to investments in passenger rail ? Could it be that the opposition exists only because it has been proposed by the Obama Administration, in one of his smarter moves ?


----------



## Trogdor

As I've said many times in the past, both here and elsewhere, anti-rail is a religion in Wisconsin, and many politicians are members of that church. This predates Obama's election. These same idiots have fought against light rail in Milwaukee for decades.


----------



## AlanB

Shawn Ryu said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these people should be put on a ship and sunk.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah why make the fish sick :unsure: Just don't vote for them.
> 
> Aloha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno, Madison doesnt seem like a city that can be justified in being a terminus for a high spped trains. High speed trains should only be placed in areas where it will be in higher demand, 99 percent of the times that places are all big cities.
Click to expand...

Currently one of the most successful new services that Amtrak has is the Downeaster. It terminates in Portland, Maine population of 63,011. Of course the other end of the line is Boston with a population of 590,763.

Compare that to Madison with a population of 223,389 and at the other end of the line we have Chicago with a population of 2,833,321. And stuck in the middle of the run, is the rather large city of Milwaukee with 573,358 souls living there. The Downeaster has no large cities in the middle of its run.

So I can't imagine how it is that the Downeaster can be so successful with so few people and this service would fail with so many more people able to ride.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Shawn Ryu said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these people should be put on a ship and sunk.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah why make the fish sick :unsure: Just don't vote for them.
> 
> Aloha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno, Madison doesnt seem like a city that can be justified in being a terminus for a high spped trains. High speed trains should only be placed in areas where it will be in higher demand, 99 percent of the times that places are all big cities.
Click to expand...

Let see, Madison is the state capitol and home to the largest university in the state. The line will connect to the largest city in the state and then go on to the third largest city in the country. How can it not be successful?


----------



## amtrakwolverine

GG-1 said:


> Ah why make the fish sick :unsure:
> 
> Aloha


Good point there sick enough from the oil. All the NIMBYS will vote for him though.


----------



## Eric S

Shawn Ryu said:


> I dunno, Madison doesnt seem like a city that can be justified in being a terminus for a high spped trains. High speed trains should only be placed in areas where it will be in higher demand, 99 percent of the times that places are all big cities.


I'd say this is an ideal extension of higher speed rail. Extend a popular line (Chicago-Milwaukee _Hiawatha_) to a mid-size city (Madison: city 236,000; metro 570,000) as a first phase of an eventual extension on to the Twin Cities (metro 3.27 million). We're not talking about building a 220mph dedicated high speed line between Milwaukee and Madison, but rather extending 79-110mph higher speed line on to the next significant city (state capital and home to a very large university) along the eventual route to the Twin Cities.


----------



## Eric S

WhoozOn1st said:


> Scott Walker, a Republican running to be governor of Wisconsin, is airing a TV commercial in which he vows that if elected he'll prevent high(er) speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison. The plan was awarded an $810 million federal grant, but on the commercial's website Walker says - in an "Open Letter to President Obama" - that he will "put a stop to this boondoggle the day I take office."
> 
> Wisconsin candidate's new TV ad: "We'll stop this train"
> 
> The commercial: Stop the Train! (NoTrain.com)
> 
> "'Wisconsin's hardworking families who are going to have to pick up the tab,' Walker says in the ad, decrying the projected operating subsidies. 'They are going to have to spend up to $10 million a year just to keep a train running they may never ride.'"
> 
> A natural extension of this logic would be that the citizens of Wisconsin should not have to contribute the many millions of dollars more required to build and maintain highways, roads, streets, and bridges they may never drive on.


Scott Walker has been horrible for Milwaukee County (he is currently county executive) and I am all too worried that he will soon be horrible for the entire state of Wisconsin. It is especially frustrating as Wisconsin has generally been one of the most supportive states for passenger rail in the Midwest over the last couple decades, under both Democratic and Republican governors. Tommy Thompson, a former Republican governor, strongly supported this very proposal in the 1990s.


----------



## George Harris

Eric S said:


> Scott Walker has been horrible for Milwaukee County (he is currently county executive) and I am all too worried that he will soon be horrible for the entire state of Wisconsin. It is especially frustrating as Wisconsin has generally been one of the most supportive states for passenger rail in the Midwest over the last couple decades, under both Democratic and Republican governors. Tommy Thompson, a former Republican governor, strongly supported this very proposal in the 1990s.


What has got to be undrstood here, is that the major players in neither party really care anything at all about railroad passenger transportation of any kind. It is seen by both sides fo the aisle as somewhat of a make work jobs program that has most of the front line employees unionized. It is that aspect of the issue that they get hung up on. IF you or your party likes make-work programs, then you are for Amtrak, if you or your party are against make-work programs, then you are against it. Further thought is neither required, expected, or encouraged..

Remember, with the possible exception of Joe Biden when he was in congress, these people do not ride trains either to get from point A to point B or for the fun of it. That is why you get such idiotic sstatements as came from one of the California congress critters (I don't remember which one, and in my estimation it would be within the understanding levels or far more than one) stated, after the Metrolink collision that they were shocked to learn that passenger trains and freight trains ran in opposite directions on the same track.

When thought processes lead toward the idea that Democrats are pro-Amtrak and Republicans are anti-Amtrak, turn off the sound and watch the action. The biggest reverses that Amtrak has had in its history have been under Democratic administrations.


----------



## mfastx

The people that say that trains are "bondoggles" (or something like that) are just ignorant. Do they not know that we pour much more money into other modes of transportation? Do they not know that highways are "bondoggles?"


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Currently one of the most successful new services that Amtrak has is the Downeaster. It terminates in Portland, Maine population of 63,011. Of course the other end of the line is Boston with a population of 590,763.


These numbers are misleading. There are plenty of people who live within walking distance of the MBTA subway system who do not live within the Boston city limits and thus are not included in your 590,763.

Moreover, this claims the Boston population in 2009 is estimated at 645,169.


----------



## Ryan

That doesn't change the fact that Madison is a heck of a lot bigger than Portland, there are no Milwaukee-sized towns in the middle of the Downeaster run, and Chicago is bigger than Boston.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently one of the most successful new services that Amtrak has is the Downeaster. It terminates in Portland, Maine population of 63,011. Of course the other end of the line is Boston with a population of 590,763.
> 
> 
> 
> These numbers are misleading. There are plenty of people who live within walking distance of the MBTA subway system who do not live within the Boston city limits and thus are not included in your 590,763.
> 
> Moreover, this claims the Boston population in 2009 is estimated at 645,169.
Click to expand...

In addition to what Ryan added, while I do agree that there are more people who live within range of a T subway, it's still less than Chicago. In fact, if I total up Suffolk and Middlesex Counties, it's about 1/2 the population of Chicago.

As for the number that I quoted, I note upon revisiting the page that it is the 2006 estimate. That said, my source is the US Census Bureau, a far more reliable source than Wike, which anyone can edit.


----------



## birdy

Why put rail where its not wanted? Pull the funding from Wisconsin pronto and give it to Oklahoma for Tulso to OKC. I can pretty much guarantee that they would be quite grateful for the bucks.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

mfastx said:


> The people that say that trains are "bondoggles" (or something like that) are just ignorant. Do they not know that we pour much more money into other modes of transportation? Do they not know that highways are "bondoggles?"


They are all programed to say rail is not the answer. They are like robots. They say what they are programed to say.Just like a parrot. We should take all these Anti-Rail idots and strap them to the hood of a acela train in the rain and hail.


----------



## George Harris

birdy said:


> Why put rail where its not wanted? Pull the funding from Wisconsin pronto and give it to Oklahoma for Tulso to OKC. I can pretty much guarantee that they would be quite grateful for the bucks.


The only problem with this is that almost nothing would be built if the noisey anti-s had their way. This is not winning the fight it is surrender. If carried to California, the California High Speed would probably end up going from Merced to Bakersfield and not go to the major population centers on either end. The worst of the noisey anti's are within the first 50 miles out of San Francisco. Yet, once opened this same area will be a major source of ridership. Give them 5 years, and if they are at all honest, these same antis will be wondering how they lived without it.


----------



## Eric S

birdy said:


> Why put rail where its not wanted? Pull the funding from Wisconsin pronto and give it to Oklahoma for Tulso to OKC. I can pretty much guarantee that they would be quite grateful for the bucks.


Somehow, I think there would also be plenty of people in Oklahoma complaining about the ongoing subsidies that your Oklahoma City - Tulsa trains would require. It is those subsidies that much of the hubbub in Wisconsin (and, I gather, Ohio as well) is all about.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

This seems to be saying Wisconsin's population is well over 5 million. Even if we want to assume for the moment that the Amtrak service will have no value, are these politicians saying that saving less than $2 per year per Wisconsin resident is the one of the biggest things they hope to accomplish while in office? (And if a voter has a choice between taking the time to vote to save $2 per year, or skipping the trip to the polls and just spending the money, is it even worth their time to vote, even if they think that $2/year is a waste of money?)


----------



## Monon81

I have to agree with Eric S, both on his assessment of Scott Walker as Milwaukee County Exec. and on the visceral attitude many people have about subsidies.

There is a widespread mistaken assumption that roads pay for themselves out of user fees, such as gas taxes, registration and tolls. There's outrage that mass transit and passenger rail require subsidy.

Although Walker is Milwaukee County Exec., I think he's playing more to the surrounding suburban counties, which tend to be very conservative Republican and very antipathetic to the City of Milwaukee and the needs of the urban center. Jobs have moved out to the suburbs, but suburban municipalities don't want the kind of mass transit that would bring workers out to jobs. In the 1990's, former governor Tommy Thompson, a famous backer of passenger rail, backed off supporting a light rail system, reading the politics of the area. In recent years, Walker has let Milwaukee County's bus system deteriorate.

The Wisconsin DOT has recently held workshops Oconomowoc and Brookfield to solicit public input on stations to be developed there. These meetings typically draw NIMBY's in the best of circumstances, and the DOT's staff handles them courteously and professionally. The Oconomowoc workshop must have been a doozy, for WI DOT soon dropped its plans for a station there. The mayor was "stunned" at the announcement after several months of political posturing.

Journal Sentinal story

Scott Walker held a rally underneath the crumbling Hoan Bridge, proclaiming that he'd use the ARRA money to fix highways. Did anyone realize the $800 Million can't be used for anything else, or that the estimated $10 Mil. operating subsidy is chump change that wouldn't even scratch the surface of repairs? Common wisdom says he'll move to the center once he wins the primary, but that would be so uncharacteristic of him.


----------



## Trogdor

http://www.wisn.com/video/24718612/index.html

A point-counterpoint video regarding the subject in SE Wisconsin.

Sounds like the Republicans say they will stop it, but really haven't figured out yet how they will.


----------



## Monon81

Wisconsin DOT head Frank Busalacchi said that $300 Million of the $810 Million ARRA grant will be committed by the end of the year. Looks like they want to make it impossible to go back on this project, should Walker or Neumann become governor. Scott Walker says it's a bluff.

Journal Sentinel story

The nice people in Wisconsin government are learning how to get things done, bare-knuckle, Chicago style. I'd love to see what sort of poison pill provisions get written into the contracts. If I were a contractor looking at this, I'd make sure there were some before I'd schedule my workers, supplies and equipment.

EDIT: Trogdor's link in the previous post is the interview where Busalacchi made this announcement.


----------



## George Harris

Monon81 said:


> The Wisconsin DOT has recently held workshops Oconomowoc and Brookfield to solicit public input on stations to be developed there. These meetings typically draw NIMBY's in the best of circumstances, and the DOT's staff handles them courteously and professionally. The Oconomowoc workshop must have been a doozy, for WI DOT soon dropped its plans for a station there. The mayor was "stunned" at the announcement after several months of political posturing.


Anybody who has ever dealt with this stuff knows that public meetings, workshops, or whatever you want to call them *ALWAYS* draw NIMBY's, and that many times their positions and attitudes are completely fact-free zones.


----------



## WICT106

Wait, there's more ! "State speeds rail funding."  from the Milwaukee Journal on-line. This project is proving to be very controversial, and the opponents are out in force. Many thanks and gratitude go to our AlanB for posting rebuttal arguments there.


----------



## DET63

_All these people should be put on a ship and sunk. _

This kind of rhetoric doesn't help matters much.

Here's the problem with high-speed rail or any other project that takes years to complete: the people who will pay for it will probably not be the ones to benefit. Sure, it may be only a couple of bucks a year per person to build the Wisconsin high-speed line, but once you get past the inevitable cost overruns (often a scale of 2 or 3 times the original projected cost, if not much more), those few bucks start to add up. Now it is true that the construction project itself will create hundreds if not thousands of jobs, each guaranteed to last 5 to 10 years (depending on the construction timeline, which is also often presented to the public with far too much optimism), but promoting this as a "stimulus package" is probably not a good idea (no matter how tempting it may seem), given the mixed results federal "stimulus" spending has gotten.

Comparing the Wisconsin service, which would presumably be new and high-tech, with the _Downeaster_, which basically uses conventional tracks and rolling stock—as some have done here—is like comparing apples and oranges. The _Downeaster_ requires little more than maintenance of track that's already used for other rail services (I assume freight trains also use the track), not an annual infusion of tens of millions of dollars to acquire rights-of-way, lay down new track, and/or purchase state-of-the-art rolling stock suitable for a high-speed operation. Each railway corridor, whether Amtrak, commuter rail, or something else, has unique characteristics that make comparisons with other existing or proposed services difficult at best.


----------



## AlanB

DET63 said:


> Here's the problem with high-speed rail or any other project that takes years to complete: the people who will pay for it will probably not be the ones to benefit. Sure, it may be only a couple of bucks a year per person to build the Wisconsin high-speed line, but once you get past the inevitable cost overruns (often a scale of 2 or 3 times the original projected cost, if not much more), those few bucks start to add up. Now it is true that the construction project itself will create hundreds if not thousands of jobs, each guaranteed to last 5 to 10 years (depending on the construction timeline, which is also often presented to the public with far too much optimism), but promoting this as a "stimulus package" is probably not a good idea (no matter how tempting it may seem), given the mixed results federal "stimulus" spending has gotten.


Initially this will be conventional speed; not high speed. Eventually, speeds may be increased into the high speed range. And since the bulk of the funding, save any cost overruns, is coming from the Fed, the cost per taxpayer in Wisconsin it extremly low and pretty much fixed.

Depending on how things go in the future, in terms of adding more speed, that could indeed burden the Wisconsn taxpayers.

In the meantime, it will cost the average Wisconsinite less than 2 bucks a year to support the service's operating costs.



DET63 said:


> Comparing the Wisconsin service, which would presumably be new and high-tech, with the _Downeaster_, which basically uses conventional tracks and rolling stock—as some have done here—is like comparing apples and oranges. The _Downeaster_ requires little more than maintenance of track that's already used for other rail services (I assume freight trains also use the track), not an annual infusion of tens of millions of dollars to acquire rights-of-way, lay down new track, and/or purchase state-of-the-art rolling stock suitable for a high-speed operation. Each railway corridor, whether Amtrak, commuter rail, or something else, has unique characteristics that make comparisons with other existing or proposed services difficult at best.


The only comparison that I made was population sizes. However since we're comparing conventional speed trains at least initially, it isn't apples and oranges.

That said, even if I was comparing conventional to high speed, that would only make my comparison even stronger. If a small city like Portland can muster that many riders for conventional rail, and we all know that high speed rail attracts more passenger than conventional, then a city like Madison with a bigger population and high speed service would attract more passengers.

And one doesn't keep aquiring new rights of way annually. The $10 Million annually being talked about is operating costs, not capital costs. That number is based upon projected ridership and by looking at what other states spend on their rail lines where Amtrak runs state supported services; including Amtrak's high speed Michigan line.


----------



## Monon81

AlanB said:


> And one doesn't keep aquiring new rights of way annually. The $10 Million annually being talked about is operating costs, not capital costs. That number is based upon projected ridership and by looking at what other states spend on their rail lines where Amtrak runs state supported services; including Amtrak's high speed Michigan line.


The only right-of-way acquisition was the Watertown-Madison segment, roughly half the distance between Milwaukee and Madison, and that already happened, way back in 2003. WSOR services a handful of freight customers on the line.

Also separate from this project was the ordering of Talgo trainsets, which happened a few months ago. The initial order replaces the Horizon equipment currently used on the CHI-MKE corridor. It's not as if this project were dreamed up yesterday.

Madison station is a re-purposing of a state-owned office building. Watertown station is likely to be a redevelopment of a grocery store site; land acquisition yet to be worked out. Who knows about Brookfield, and Oconomowoc is on the shelf.

Regarding DET's remark about cost overruns, its clear in the grant application that WI DOT had to show itself as a credible administrator of construction programs. Having the preliminary engineering already done goes a long way toward doing that. In its application WI DOT also stressed that it has a track record of working with CP Rail, the host road for half of the project.


----------



## George Harris

DET63 said:


> Comparing the Wisconsin service, which would presumably be new and high-tech, with the _Downeaster_, which basically uses conventional tracks and rolling stock—as some have done here—is like comparing apples and oranges. The _Downeaster_ requires little more than maintenance of track that's already used for other rail services (I assume freight trains also use the track), not an annual infusion of tens of millions of dollars to acquire rights-of-way, lay down new track, and/or purchase state-of-the-art rolling stock suitable for a high-speed operation. Each railway corridor, whether Amtrak, commuter rail, or something else, has unique characteristics that make comparisons with other existing or proposed services difficult at best.


There was a considerable amount of work required to make the Downeaster possible. While the line in question had several passenger trains into the mid to late 1950's, of which teh fastest took 2 hours 10 minutes to cover the distance, but the time of the Downeaster the line was in very bad condition due to years of a policy of near non-maintenance. Funded primarily by the state of Maine with some contribution by Massachusets and none by New Hampshire, 59 track mile of new rail was installed, plus a lot of new ties and other work just to bring it up to be able to operate at 60 mph. Yes, there are some freight trains on the track, but I have no idea how many. Probably not a lot.


----------



## saxman

I know that Doyle is trying to get a shovel in the ground before his term ends. Will that happen? Has a contract been signed yet? I know a couple people in Wisconsin and I'll be making sure they don't vote for these guys.


----------



## Monon81

saxman said:


> I know that Doyle is trying to get a shovel in the ground before his term ends. Will that happen? Has a contract been signed yet? I know a couple people in Wisconsin and I'll be making sure they don't vote for these guys.


It's a complicated project, so there's more than one contract, and release of the ARRA funds happens in stages. I believe CP does the work on CP's property. On the segment from Watertown to Madison, it's WI DOT's project.

One of the first shovels in the ground would likely be the two land bridges replacing unstable roadbed through wetlands. WI DOT is hoping to get started on that in October. (Sorry, don't recall source of that info.)

Next public information meeting is being held in Madison 31 August. Presenting information on preliminary costs, design and platform configurations for the Madison station. At least two tracks through station area. Design options: (1.) two platforms on the outsides of the two tracks (2.) larger island platform (3.) smaller island platform with a third storage track.

Lots of information on the WI DOT's HSR page.


----------



## DET63

State speeds train spending



> *$300 million in contracts projected this year, far above $50 million announced earlier*
> _By __Jason Stein__ and __Patrick Marley__ of the Journal Sentinel_
> 
> Madison The state is steaming ahead with establishing a federal high-speed rail line, projecting it will commit $300 million this year - far more than the roughly $50 million in spending previously announced.
> 
> The project's price tag isn't changing. Instead, Gov. Jim Doyle's administration is hustling to move forward with the planned passenger rail line between Milwaukee and Madison, which Republicans say is an attempt to make it harder for the next governor to cancel.


Click on the link above for more.


----------



## WICT106

Some ideas for how to reply to critics and opponents of Wisconsin rail service improvements:

Answering the Scott Walker campaign's criticisms of rail service improvements.

Courtesy of the Western Wisconsin Rail coalition.


----------



## WICT106

From the _Milwaukee BizTimes_ website: "Wisconsin Republicans should get aboard with high speed rail."


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

WICT106 said:


> Some ideas for how to reply to critics and opponents of Wisconsin rail service improvements:
> 
> Answering the Scott Walker campaign's criticisms of rail service improvements.
> 
> Courtesy of the Western Wisconsin Rail coalition.


They claim user fees only cover 51% of road/highway costs, but if you want to account for the whole cost of driving, it makes sense to think about the vehicles, too. Even a Californian buying a Nissan Leaf in early 2011 is going to be directly paying for significantly more than 51% of the cost of the automobile they are buying. (It does look like the Leaf will be about $32k without subsidy, and about $20k with the $7.5k federal subsidy plus $5k California subsidy. And if we're discussing transportation in Wisconsin, California's $5k really doesn't factor into the picture at all.)


----------



## Trogdor

Joel N. Weber II said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some ideas for how to reply to critics and opponents of Wisconsin rail service improvements:
> 
> Answering the Scott Walker campaign's criticisms of rail service improvements.
> 
> Courtesy of the Western Wisconsin Rail coalition.
> 
> 
> 
> They claim user fees only cover 51% of road/highway costs, but if you want to account for the whole cost of driving, it makes sense to think about the vehicles, too. Even a Californian buying a Nissan Leaf in early 2011 is going to be directly paying for significantly more than 51% of the cost of the automobile they are buying. (It does look like the Leaf will be about $32k without subsidy, and about $20k with the $7.5k federal subsidy plus $5k California subsidy. And if we're discussing transportation in Wisconsin, California's $5k really doesn't factor into the picture at all.)
Click to expand...

And while we're at it, let's throw in the potential property tax revenue that is lost through the amount of land highways take up (most privately owned railroads pay property taxes on their right of way).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Trogdor said:


> And while we're at it, let's throw in the potential property tax revenue that is lost through the amount of land highways take up (most privately owned railroads pay property taxes on their right of way).


If you follow that argument too far, you might start thinking that abandoned railroad rights of way should be converted into residential real estate, which a few decades later you might not be so thrilled about when you find yourself wishing there was a cost effective place to build track.

Also, the taxpayer ends up paying for a certain amount of highway maintenance or reconstruction because certain freight appears to be cheaper to ship by highway than by rail because of the property tax and railroad maintenance burdens being paid for entirely by the shippers using the rails. We'd be better off leveling the playing field, and I think the only politically feasible way to do that is going to be with property tax exemptions for private freight railroads (though perhaps there is a reasonable way to attach some passenger rail strings to those exemptions).

Also, to clarify, the point I was trying to make is that the real subsidy to automobile travel may be less than the 51% spent on just the roads/highways, because the cost of the vehicles also needs to be factored in. On the other hand, percentage subsidy may be the wrong metric; a better question may be how many taxpayer dollars are used per passenger/traveler for each mode.

Have any of the Madison train opponents provided a credible explanation for why they believe Milwaukee to Madison service will be less successful than Milwaukee to Chicago service? Can anyone explain why the Madison train will obviously be less successful than the Northeast Regional service to Lynchburg?

Also, is any of this track in Wisconsin likely to see commuter rail service in the future?


----------



## WICT106

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And while we're at it, let's throw in the potential property tax revenue that is lost through the amount of land highways take up (most privately owned railroads pay property taxes on their right of way).
> 
> 
> 
> If you follow that argument too far, you might start thinking that abandoned railroad rights of way should be converted into residential real estate, which a few decades later you might not be so thrilled about when you find yourself wishing there was a cost effective place to build track.
> 
> Also, the taxpayer ends up paying for a certain amount of highway maintenance or reconstruction because certain freight appears to be cheaper to ship by highway than by rail because of the property tax and railroad maintenance burdens being paid for entirely by the shippers using the rails. We'd be better off leveling the playing field, and I think the only politically feasible way to do that is going to be with property tax exemptions for private freight railroads (though perhaps there is a reasonable way to attach some passenger rail strings to those exemptions).
> 
> Also, to clarify, the point I was trying to make is that the real subsidy to automobile travel may be less than the 51% spent on just the roads/highways, because the cost of the vehicles also needs to be factored in. On the other hand, percentage subsidy may be the wrong metric; a better question may be how many taxpayer dollars are used per passenger/traveler for each mode.
> 
> Have any of the Madison train opponents provided a credible explanation for why they believe Milwaukee to Madison service will be less successful than Milwaukee to Chicago service? Can anyone explain why the Madison train will obviously be less successful than the Northeast Regional service to Lynchburg?
> 
> Also, is any of this track in Wisconsin likely to see commuter rail service in the future?
Click to expand...

1. No. If anything, they have provided no comparisons between those services and the proposed Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison service. All they have compared the proposed service to is their own personal observations to the effect that "everyone uses roads (and these are the number of people using highways in WI)."

2. I have no answer for this. It seems as though the opponents are saying that because the train would be impractical for trips _*they*_ would make, then it would be impractical for _*all*_ the trips being made. The opponents are ignoring any comparisons to successful rail services. Opponents are also ignoring the fact that this is a *Chicago* to Madison service, not just Milwaukee-Madison.

3. The route segments from Sun Prairie to Madison would see overlapping service between a commuter rail proposal, and the Wisconsin passenger service improvements.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Also, the taxpayer ends up paying for a certain amount of highway maintenance or reconstruction because certain freight appears to be cheaper to ship by highway than by rail because of the property tax and railroad maintenance burdens being paid for entirely by the shippers using the rails.


No, the taxpayer ends up paying a certain amount of highway maintenance or reconstruction costs because of those who drive cars.

Anyone who doesn't own a car, yet still takes advantage of the roads by getting somethng delivered, pays something called a shipping charge. For some things like say a new sofa, you see that charge on your bill as the shipping charge. This is the money you pay to a trucker to deliver your new sofa. Part of that money the trucker then pays in the form of fuel taxes and licensing fees to support the roads.

Go to the supermarket and that "shipping fee" is built into the price of everything you buy.

Furthermore, "the trucks" don't require anything more than a 4 lane Interstate Highway. If our roads only catered to trucks, the maximum width of any highway would never need to be more than 4 lanes. It's all those car drivers that require us to build 6, 8, 10, & 12 lane freeways. And that's where the $112 every man, women, and child paid to the Fed last year for our nation's highways went.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Anyone who doesn't own a car, yet still takes advantage of the roads by getting somethng delivered, pays something called a shipping charge. For some things like say a new sofa, you see that charge on your bill as the shipping charge. This is the money you pay to a trucker to deliver your new sofa. Part of that money the trucker then pays in the form of fuel taxes and licensing fees to support the roads.
> 
> Go to the supermarket and that "shipping fee" is built into the price of everything you buy.


Sure, but do those fuel taxes on that shipping cover 100% of the cost of the wear and tear on the roads? Or is it something less than 100%?

The other thing that will be very interesting to watch over the next few years is whether battery powered cars prompt a shift away from user fees to fund roads. I've seen articles talking about state legislatures considering some sort of odometer tax to prevent this shift, but I have not heard of any such laws passing, and with the effort that California is putting into subsiding the purchase of battery powered cars in spite of their budget challenges, it wouldn't surprise me if they decide at least for now not to charge battery cars for highway maintenance in order to encourage people to pollute less. And once they start not charging, will it ever be politically possible to charge those user fees in the future?



AlanB said:


> Furthermore, "the trucks" don't require anything more than a 4 lane Interstate Highway. If our roads only catered to trucks, the maximum width of any highway would never need to be more than 4 lanes. It's all those car drivers that require us to build 6, 8, 10, & 12 lane freeways. And that's where the $112 every man, women, and child paid to the Fed last year for our nation's highways went.


I'm sure the width of the highways comes from the lack of adequate commuter rail service, but I had thought I had read or heard long ago that trunks might be doing more to wear out the pavement than all the single occupancy commuter automobiles.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

WICT106 said:


> Opponents are also ignoring the fact that this is a *Chicago* to Madison service, not just Milwaukee-Madison.


How time competitive is Chicago - Madison going to be with flying?

(On the other hand, at least in the first few months of Lynchburg Northeast Regional service, three of its top 5 city pairs were WAS - Virginia, and the other two were NYP - Virginia. NYP - Virginia is significantly more than the alleged magic 3 hour cutoff for trains replacing airplanes.)


----------



## Eric S

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Have any of the Madison train opponents provided a credible explanation for why they believe Milwaukee to Madison service will be less successful than Milwaukee to Chicago service? Can anyone explain why the Madison train will obviously be less successful than the Northeast Regional service to Lynchburg?


Facts have not played a major role in the opponents case against the MKE-MSN rail project. Much of it has revolved around "choo-choo train bad, cars good" and similar arguments. Those few fact-based arguments have focused on the ongoing yearly subsidies that the _Hiawatha_ extension will require.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who doesn't own a car, yet still takes advantage of the roads by getting somethng delivered, pays something called a shipping charge. For some things like say a new sofa, you see that charge on your bill as the shipping charge. This is the money you pay to a trucker to deliver your new sofa. Part of that money the trucker then pays in the form of fuel taxes and licensing fees to support the roads.
> 
> Go to the supermarket and that "shipping fee" is built into the price of everything you buy.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but do those fuel taxes on that shipping cover 100% of the cost of the wear and tear on the roads? Or is it something less than 100%?
Click to expand...

That's something that has long been debated. The best guess is, no, they probably do not. By just how much is the where the real guessing game comes in. But either way, you raise the fuel taxes to deal with that, you don't apply a global tax to fix that issue.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> The other thing that will be very interesting to watch over the next few years is whether battery powered cars prompt a shift away from user fees to fund roads. I've seen articles talking about state legislatures considering some sort of odometer tax to prevent this shift, but I have not heard of any such laws passing, and with the effort that California is putting into subsiding the purchase of battery powered cars in spite of their budget challenges, it wouldn't surprise me if they decide at least for now not to charge battery cars for highway maintenance in order to encourage people to pollute less. And once they start not charging, will it ever be politically possible to charge those user fees in the future?


This is going to be a real problem that is going to have be addressed, sooner, rather than later. Even though most politicians would like to keep kicking this can further down the road because they know that dealing with it will result in voter anger and their losing the next election.

This, coupled with Republican Congress simply not listening to the Bush White House, is why the Highway Trust Fund has been running a deficit for the past 3 years now.

Higher gas prices meant less driving, more fuel efficient cars mean less gas brought, and years of highway neglect mean that the perfect storm is brewing. We spent $69.616 Billion last year at the Federal level on highways. Despite that record spending, some of which was Stimulus, there is still more than $200 Billion in needed bridge work in this country just to return all bridges to a state of good repair.  That say nothing about all the other highway issues, like pavement and what not.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, "the trucks" don't require anything more than a 4 lane Interstate Highway. If our roads only catered to trucks, the maximum width of any highway would never need to be more than 4 lanes. It's all those car drivers that require us to build 6, 8, 10, & 12 lane freeways. And that's where the $112 every man, women, and child paid to the Fed last year for our nation's highways went.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the width of the highways comes from the lack of adequate commuter rail service, but I had thought I had read or heard long ago that trunks might be doing more to wear out the pavement than all the single occupancy commuter automobiles.
Click to expand...

No, the free cheap highways are what led to the decrease in commuter rail, which of course then led to the increase in driving and the need to increase highway capacity.

And IIRC, it takes about 20,000 cars to do the same damage to a highway as one truck. I don't know that cars outnumber trucks by 20,000 to 1, but it sure wouldn't surprise me to learn that they do.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opponents are also ignoring the fact that this is a *Chicago* to Madison service, not just Milwaukee-Madison.
> 
> 
> 
> How time competitive is Chicago - Madison going to be with flying?
> 
> (On the other hand, at least in the first few months of Lynchburg Northeast Regional service, three of its top 5 city pairs were WAS - Virginia, and the other two were NYP - Virginia. NYP - Virginia is significantly more than the alleged magic 3 hour cutoff for trains replacing airplanes.)
Click to expand...

In the first stage, flying will still be slightly faster if you're going Madison-CHI, even with screening and other times factored in. Once the trains are running at 110 MPH, they will be faster than flying. In fact, running at 90 MPH might even equal flying.

And again, remember that this will serve many more places that you cannot fly to and you'll be downtown and traveling with far more personal space.


----------



## Monon81

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opponents are also ignoring the fact that this is a *Chicago* to Madison service, not just Milwaukee-Madison.
> 
> 
> 
> How time competitive is Chicago - Madison going to be with flying?
> 
> (On the other hand, at least in the first few months of Lynchburg Northeast Regional service, three of its top 5 city pairs were WAS - Virginia, and the other two were NYP - Virginia. NYP - Virginia is significantly more than the alleged magic 3 hour cutoff for trains replacing airplanes.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the first stage, flying will still be slightly faster if you're going Madison-CHI, even with screening and other times factored in. Once the trains are running at 110 MPH, they will be faster than flying. In fact, running at 90 MPH might even equal flying.
> 
> And again, remember that this will serve many more places that you cannot fly to and you'll be downtown and traveling with far more personal space.
Click to expand...

Driving distance from Madison to ORD approximately 130 miles. Approx. 150 miles to downtown Chicago. Primary mode of travel is driving. For air passengers from Madison, ORD is primarily a transfer point, seldom a destination.

The CHI-MKE-MSN corridor goes nowhere near ORD, but there is a stop at the MKE airport. That stop has been hugely successful. The plentiful parking draws passengers from Milwaukee's south side and southern suburbs. Not sure how much the airport connection is used. With more frequencies between CHI and MKE, the Hiawatha connection might make MKE airport an attractive alternative for Chicago north-siders.


----------



## WICT106

"On the benefits of high speed rail":from the 9/2 MILW Biz Times.


----------



## saxman

Monon81 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opponents are also ignoring the fact that this is a *Chicago* to Madison service, not just Milwaukee-Madison.
> 
> 
> 
> How time competitive is Chicago - Madison going to be with flying?
> 
> (On the other hand, at least in the first few months of Lynchburg Northeast Regional service, three of its top 5 city pairs were WAS - Virginia, and the other two were NYP - Virginia. NYP - Virginia is significantly more than the alleged magic 3 hour cutoff for trains replacing airplanes.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the first stage, flying will still be slightly faster if you're going Madison-CHI, even with screening and other times factored in. Once the trains are running at 110 MPH, they will be faster than flying. In fact, running at 90 MPH might even equal flying.
> 
> And again, remember that this will serve many more places that you cannot fly to and you'll be downtown and traveling with far more personal space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Driving distance from Madison to ORD approximately 130 miles. Approx. 150 miles to downtown Chicago. Primary mode of travel is driving. For air passengers from Madison, ORD is primarily a transfer point, seldom a destination.
> 
> The CHI-MKE-MSN corridor goes nowhere near ORD, but there is a stop at the MKE airport. That stop has been hugely successful. The plentiful parking draws passengers from Milwaukee's south side and southern suburbs. Not sure how much the airport connection is used. With more frequencies between CHI and MKE, the Hiawatha connection might make MKE airport an attractive alternative for Chicago north-siders.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to guess at numbers here, but I've been on the ORD to MSN flight a number of times, and its often full. And I'll bet that nearly 95% of those passengers are making connections elsewhere. I know there are some proposals to make the lines near ORD future HSR, so that might change in the future.


----------



## Monon81

Tommy Thompson former Wisconsin governor, Amtrak board member and the guy who got the ball rolling on the MSN-MKE HSR corridor over a decade ago, weighed in on the "stop the train" mania. This came in the context of his endorsement of Brett Davis, an Assembly Representative who is running for Lieutenant Governor. Davis, a Thompson protoge, has been one of the noisier opponents of HSR in Wisconsin.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story

Thompson gives himself credit for building the road infrastructure during his governorship and claims it has been "decimated" in the years since. Funny, I didn't notice that driving through the newly rebuilt Marquette Interchange. I didn't notice that driving the 6-lane I-39/90/94 between Madison and Portage.

No acknowledgment that the HSR project is a drop in the budgetary bucket, relatively speaking. I hesitate to get political, but it seems that Republicans in both Wisconsin and Ohio are reading off the same play book.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Amtrak has dodged a great number of bullets along the way, but so long as pro-Amtrak voters hesitate to "get political" it's just a matter of time before Amtrak is finally killed off by the anti-Amtrak voters who have no problem getting political at every opportunity.


----------



## Eric S

Monon81 said:


> Tommy Thompson former Wisconsin governor, Amtrak board member and the guy who got the ball rolling on the MSN-MKE HSR corridor over a decade ago, weighed in on the "stop the train" mania. This came in the context of his endorsement of Brett Davis, an Assembly Representative who is running for Lieutenant Governor. Davis, a Thompson protoge, has been one of the noisier opponents of HSR in Wisconsin.
> 
> Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story
> 
> Thompson gives himself credit for building the road infrastructure during his governorship and claims it has been "decimated" in the years since. Funny, I didn't notice that driving through the newly rebuilt Marquette Interchange. I didn't notice that driving the 6-lane I-39/90/94 between Madison and Portage.
> 
> No acknowledgment that the HSR project is a drop in the budgetary bucket, relatively speaking. I hesitate to get political, but it seems that Republicans in both Wisconsin and Ohio are reading off the same play book.


I saw that in the paper as well. I was extremely disappointed to see Thompson essentially mimic the anti-rail hysteria that has become rampant in the Wisconsin GOP in the last couple years, particularly since this project/proposal is precisely what he worked to put into place when he was governor about a decade ago or so.


----------



## Trogdor

I guess we can finally put to bed any illusions that Tommy Thompson was in any way pro-rail.


----------



## Ryan

Oh, he still pro-rail, when it doesn't conflict with his being pro-Republican.


----------



## Trogdor

If Tommy Thompson was really "pro-rail," you'd be riding light rail or streetcars in Milwaukee today. In fact, you'd have been riding them 15 years ago.


----------



## Eric S

Trogdor said:


> If Tommy Thompson was really "pro-rail," you'd be riding light rail or streetcars in Milwaukee today. In fact, you'd have been riding them 15 years ago.


I suppose I shouldn't be quite as surprised at his now anti-rail views, given the about-face he did regarding rail transit in Milwaukee about 15 years ago or so, when there was an emerging consensus in favor of a "grand plan" for transportation along the I-94 East-West Freeway corridor involving light rail and HOV lanes, and went from being at least moderately supportive of light rail to completely opposed to any state funding of it. However, until today, it was unclear whether he was going to completely repudiate his previous support for intercity passenger rail.


----------



## WICT106

More from Scott Walker, a conservative who I think is seriously misinformed regarding the Chicago - MKE - MSN - STP passenger rail improvements : "Walker appointee was rail promoter"

I'm getting more and more worried about ever seeing rail service to Madison, WI. All I can do is get involved, and write more to my Elected Representatives.

Oh, and AlanB: have at it. The antis as per usual, are out in force.

The Western Wisconsin Rail Coalition has a list of rebuttals to Mr. Walkers', and rail opponents', criticisms:

From the Western WI rail Coalition, some rebuttal points to use when discussing the train with the opponents:

HSR: Answering The Critics

To sum it up:

1. Wisconsin has been planning this for the better part of two decades. Numerous studies have been published and rail service is part of the State Rail Plan.

2. The federal government has been involved in transportation spending for almost a century now, including funding the Interstate System. While objecting to the funds for the improvement of rail service, does Mr. Walker also suggest that all federal funding for all programs -- including highways -- be refused ?

3. The $ 7.5 million operating cost is less than 2/10ths of one percent of the entire WI DOT budget.

4. HSR is a transportation investment, not a jobs program. Note that nobody is measuring highways by how many permanent jobs their maintenance creates.

5. For every one dollar invested, the return is estimated to be $ 1.80.

6. Highways do not cover their costs, and, lately, the gas tax has covered only 51 percent of highway maintenance costs. This route is estimated to cover 65 percent of its costs, possibly more.

7. This is an extension of an already popular Hiawatha service. it is estimated that the service will have over 300,000 riders in its first year of operation alone. Dane County ( of which Madison is the seat ) has a population of 491,357 ( 2009 est. ) ( source: US Census Bureau ) .

8. Just because one person wouldn't take the train doesn't mean that nobody will. Driving has costs that are not limited to gas money alone. "Wear and Tear," and insurance, and even costs of lost wages due to collision-related injuries and deaths, are all costs associated with driving. Currently ( 2009 and 2010 ), the IRS allows for driving costs to be calculated at $ 0.50 per mile. That would make driving between Madison and MKE one-way ( 79 miles ) cost $ 39.50, or $ 79 per round trip.

9. The use of transportation funds for non-transportation purposes is of concern to all transportation advocates. This is an investment in the future, in anticipation of future transportation needs between Chicago, MKE, MSN, and Saint Paul, MN.

10. HSR is innovative, and an investment in the future. If Scott Walker wishes to emulate Tommy Thompson, Mr. Walker ought to invest in passenger rail service improvements, particularly investments that have been planned for two decades.


----------



## saxman

Trogdor said:


> I guess we can finally put to bed any illusions that Tommy Thompson was in any way pro-rail.


Does this also mean the Amtrak will change the name on it's one and only named locomotive, "Tommy G. Thompson"?


----------



## AlanB

saxman said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we can finally put to bed any illusions that Tommy Thompson was in any way pro-rail.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this also mean the Amtrak will change the name on it's one and only named locomotive, "Tommy G. Thompson"?
Click to expand...

Actually I believe that the name was already physically removed from the engine when it got a new paint job a few years back. I'm not sure if the "official" records still carry the name or not.


----------



## Monon81

A few more articles from Madison papers:

From the Capital Times: Walker wants to stop the train, but can he?

From Isthmus: What's wrong with high-speed rail An economist looks at the numbers and deems HSR not a good deal. The reader comments, including the author's reply, are longer and more in-depth than the article itself. Unlike the cesspool of most newspaper comments sections, Isthmus requires real names, so the discussion is thoughtful. Especially interesting is a refutation of the author by a writer who identifies himself as a transportation planner.


----------



## saxman

Here's a good video interview done with both Frank Busalacchi, of WisDOT, and Rep. Scott Fitzgerald. Busalacchi does a pretty good job of defending the project and admits they are pressing forward and will have spent $300 million by years end. Fitzgerald admits that if Walker is elected they will try any to stop it. When asked that, even it means throwing away $300 million of the taxpayers money, Fitzgerald says he has no problem with that. :angry2:

http://www.wisn.com/video/24718612/detail.html


----------



## WICT106

Here's an update, via the Wall Street Journal: Racing to build a Midwestern rail line.


----------



## Monon81

> Just days before an election that could decide the fate of a planned high-speed rail line, state and federal administrators quietly signed a deal to commit the state to spending all $810 million of the federal stimulus cash allocated to the Milwaukee-to-Madison route, transportation officials confirmed Monday.


Tonight from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel


----------



## amtrakwolverine

So with this deal The train can't be stopped?


----------



## Eric S

amtrakwolverine said:


> So with this deal The train can't be stopped?


No, it can still be stopped. Likely-governor-to-be Scott Walker can still cancel it once he takes office in January. This deal, as I understand it, just authorizes the state to spend all of the $800+ million they received. It is highly unlikely (probably impossible) that all will be spent by January, and even it it was, Walker could still back out of contracts.


----------



## AlanB

Eric S said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with this deal The train can't be stopped?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can still be stopped. Likely-governor-to-be Scott Walker can still cancel it once he takes office in January. This deal, as I understand it, just authorizes the state to spend all of the $800+ million they received. It is highly unlikely (probably impossible) that all will be spent by January, and even it it was, Walker could still back out of contracts.
Click to expand...

Well he can still cancel it, but at considerable cost to the taxpayers. Even though the entire $830 million won't be spent, some of it already it spent and it will cost him money and penalties to break the contracts. All told it wouldn't surprise me between what has already been spent, what will be spent by the time the new Gov takes over, plus the penalties and expenses to cancel things that the state would be on the hook for perhaps $300M to $400M that they would have to repay. Money the state doesn't have.

By that point I'm sure that some enterprising reporting will figure out that based upon the worst case subsidy of $7.5 Million that they could run the trains for 40 years before they would have spent $300 Million.

Additionally the article that was linked to also suggests that they are trying to get the Fed to consider picking up some of the annual subsidies at least for the first few years. That would remove Mr. Walker's biggest objection to this train if that happens. He'd now look like an idiot if he killed the train with the Fed picking up the subsidies for the first few years if he killed the train and forced Wisconsin to repay a few hundred million to the Fed.


----------



## Monon81

Eric S said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with this deal The train can't be stopped?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it can still be stopped. Likely-governor-to-be Scott Walker can still cancel it once he takes office in January. This deal, as I understand it, just authorizes the state to spend all of the $800+ million they received. It is highly unlikely (probably impossible) that all will be spent by January, and even it it was, Walker could still back out of contracts.
Click to expand...

Walker would like to use that money for highway projects. Something similar happened under the Thompson administration, where federal money for a Milwaukee light rail project was diverted to highways. A bunch of things need to fall into place:


Scott Walker becomes governor. (Almost certain)

Republican majority in Wisconsin Assembly and Senate. (My guess--one but not the other.)

Republican majority in U.S. House and Sanate. (One likely, the other maybe.)

Acquiesence of Administration. (Not likely.)



Without that, the most Walker could do is cancel the contracts and send the money back, including the money already spent, so it can be used in some other state.

I'm sure there will be a flurry of activity to hammer those contracts into place before the end of the year. It would be interesting to see what kind of payment structures and penalty clauses those contracts will have. Any component of the project that involves procuring supplies and scheduling equipment would naturally have some significant up-front cost.

One major construction company in the state, Kraemer & Sons, already has a contract for the land bridges between Watertown and Waterloo, based on last summer's authorization.

CP Rail would be the prime contractor for the Milwaukee-Watertown segment since it's their property, and they stand to benefit with added capacity and road improvements. WSOR, the freight operator on the Watertown-Madison segment, gets decent roadbed out of the project. (WSOR CEO Bill Gardner is a Walker supporter, by the way.) Watertown and Waterloo get industrial development potential with freight trackage that's visibly "here to stay." Talgo is setting up shop in Milwaukee with an initial order to replace current CHI-MKE fleet and more to be ordered with expansion of service. There are a bunch of business interests lined up to make life difficult for Walker. We'll see what happens.


----------



## WICT106

I would like to point out that Mr. Walker, should he win the election to governorship, will also have the authority to de-fund the train service. We are by no means out of the woods, here. Walker has also stated that he would reject the funds no matter what the cost. The only problem would be where the money for repayment would come from. Wisconsin, being one of the smaller States of the Union, doesn't have much on hand right now.

Walker would also have an electorate many of whom feel that the train has been shoved down their throats. This electorate is solidly convinced that the train service will be a drain on the taxpayer's wallet, no matter how much evidence I post otherwise. Hell, the most recent activities and estimates have come in *under* what the WI state DOT has estimated.


----------



## AlanB

WICT106 said:


> I would like to point out that Mr. Walker, should he win the election to governorship, will also have the authority to de-fund the train service. We are by no means out of the woods, here. Walker has also stated that he would reject the funds no matter what the cost. The only problem would be where the money for repayment would come from. Wisconsin, being one of the smaller States of the Union, doesn't have much on hand right now.


By de-fund I'm assuming that you mean that he won't release the monies to pay for the annual subsidies.

Yes, he can do that, however doing so triggers the repayment clause to the Fed. The state is obligated to run that train for a certain number of years by accepting the $800M. Failure to operate the train means repaying the entire $800+M.


----------



## WICT106

AlanB said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to point out that Mr. Walker, should he win the election to governorship, will also have the authority to de-fund the train service. We are by no means out of the woods, here. Walker has also stated that he would reject the funds no matter what the cost. The only problem would be where the money for repayment would come from. Wisconsin, being one of the smaller States of the Union, doesn't have much on hand right now.
> 
> 
> 
> By de-fund I'm assuming that you mean that he won't release the monies to pay for the annual subsidies.
> 
> Yes, he can do that, however doing so triggers the repayment clause to the Fed. The state is obligated to run that train for a certain number of years by accepting the $800M. Failure to operate the train means repaying the entire $800+M.
Click to expand...

that is what I meant by de-fund. He could refuse to authorize, or refuse to spend, the money. Again, take a look at the comments on the Milwaukee Journal's site on this act. It has made a lot of folks angry, and Barrett ( the train supporting Gubernatorial candidate) could suffer the consequences -- by losing votes. Not that I mind, however -- Walker ought to be forced to build the rail service. Also, I continue to notice just how many opponents refer to the service as Madison - Milwaukee, when in reality it is Chicago to Saint Paul ( and, possibly, Duluth, MN, or Winnipeg, MB, Canada ) *via* Madison & Milwaukee.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Well has Scott walker won any updates on that?


----------



## JayPea

amtrakwolverine said:


> Well has Scott walker won any updates on that?



It looks as if Scott Walker has indeed won.


----------



## afigg

WICT106 said:


> that is what I meant by de-fund. He could refuse to authorize, or refuse to spend, the money. Again, take a look at the comments on the Milwaukee Journal's site on this act. It has made a lot of folks angry, and Barrett ( the train supporting Gubernatorial candidate) could suffer the consequences -- by losing votes. Not that I mind, however -- Walker ought to be forced to build the rail service.


If I interpret the news article correctly, the deal means that the contracts will all be signed and the funds obligated before Walker takes office. Depending on the rules and laws, the new governor may be very restricted in his ability to stop the project. That a $800+ million project, totally funded by the federal government, to provide 110 mph rail service to connect two major cities in the state and to Chicago has become such a political football is hard to comprehend. The state could spend $800 million on a major highway bridge project with nary a public complaint.

However, the projection is that Kasich has won in Ohio. The 3C corridor project is almost certainly dead.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

This is why America can't have Japanese style bullet trains cause we can't elect people who will support it. We keep electing people who kill it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

amtrakwolverine said:


> This is why America can't have Japanese style bullet trains cause we can't elect people who will support it. We keep electing people who kill it.


Bingo.

Also, think back to the postwar period. Europe and Japan were decimated. They had lost a bit of their arrogance and in their slightly more humble state they decided to move in a different direction and provide new services like universal health care and to rebuild their infrastructure with efficient mass transit. But here in America the attitude was somewhat different. We were awash with new wealth and saw no problems leaving every working class family to fend for themselves so that they might exclusively reap the occasional reward or suffer any number of unfortunate situations alone. The personal vehicle was the perfect embodiment of that go-it-alone attitude. The upper crust eventually moved toward the growing airline industry that catered to them while the working class began acquiring automobiles en mass. Airlines were eventually deregulated and dropped their ticket prices to artificially low levels for decades in an attempt to secure a commanding market share. These below-cost tickets allowed even working class families to fly if they were flexible enough with dates and times. The current combination of near universal vehicle ownership along with quick and easy flights to almost anywhere ensures that killing passenger rail will continue to be an easy win for many American politicians for decades to come. If I were a politician I'd probably be anti-rail myself simply because it polls so well among likely voters of the conservative and independent persuasions. Now, as for how to fix this, I'm not really sure. Right now we seem to have one of the most anti-rail governments ever on the way and I'm not sure how we can counter that effectively.


----------



## Trogdor

daxomni said:


> Right now we seem to have one of the most anti-rail governments ever on the way and I'm not sure how we can counter that effectively.


Unfortunately, I don't see any new money for rail for the next few years. However, with a few exceptions (stubborn state governors), money that has been authorized will probably get spent.

Amtrak should, hopefully, be okay. Don't forget that we had an anti-rail administration and Republican control of both houses of Congress in the 2000s, and Amtrak is still here. Amtrak is probably even a bit stronger today than they were ten years ago.

So, will it be tough? Yes. Is it the end? Far from it.


----------



## DET63

Walker has been elected with about 52% of the vote and all but 1% of precincts in. The margin of victory doesn't give him an overwhelming mandate, but he won in all parts of the state except the far northwest and the large cities (Milwaukee and Madison).


----------

