# Wisconsin opposition could derail others' plans for high-speed tra



## mercedeslove (Nov 28, 2010)

http://www.southtown...om/news/2925898

MADISON, Wis. - A nine-state effort to create a network of fast, frequent trains could be derailed by Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker's vow to reject federal stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line between Milwaukee and Madison.

Walker has called the construction a waste of taxpayer money. But without rail between Milwaukee and Madison, it will be difficult for Midwestern leaders to fulfill their vision of having 110-mph trains linking Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison and Minneapolis-St. Paul.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 29, 2010)

Actually a serious question: Is there any way that Obama could just have the Federal DoT spend the money directly and cut Walker out of the equation? I think this is about as clear a case of directly affecting "interstate commerce" as you get.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 29, 2010)

Anderson said:


> Actually a serious question: Is there any way that Obama could just have the Federal DoT spend the money directly and cut Walker out of the equation? I think this is about as clear a case of directly affecting "interstate commerce" as you get.


Potentially. But the problem Walker claims to have with the MKE-Madison extension is not the construction of it, but rather with WI paying the operating subsidies. So, the only way to truly cut Walker out of the picture is for the feds to pick up the operating costs as well.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 29, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Actually a serious question: Is there any way that Obama could just have the Federal DoT spend the money directly and cut Walker out of the equation? I think this is about as clear a case of directly affecting "interstate commerce" as you get.
> ...


And that's something that the Fed doesn't want. One legacy of the Bush administration, in cooperation with Congress, is that the Fed no longer wants to be responsible for funding Amtrak all by itself. Just like happens with the highways, they want the states that gain service to partner up and pay for some of the expenses.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 29, 2010)

AlanB said:


> One legacy of the Bush administration, in cooperation with Congress, is that the Fed no longer wants to be responsible for funding Amtrak all by itself. Just like happens with the highways, they want the states that gain service to partner up and pay for some of the expenses.


The difference with the highways is that the GOP _is_ willing to pony up for cars and trucks. However, as red states turn increasingly hostile toward passenger rail won't the viability of the national network become more and more jeopardized? Imagine if I-10 was only properly upgraded and maintained in blue states. Would it still be as useful when you had to slow from 75MPH in one state to 30MPH in the next and maybe divert completely around another state that had refused to fund anything for an extended period? The idea of funding national networks one state at a time makes no sense if the intermediary states refuse to pay their own fair share. As that is becoming the new reality I think we may need to consider other options or possibly give up on the national network altogether.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 29, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > One legacy of the Bush administration, in cooperation with Congress, is that the Fed no longer wants to be responsible for funding Amtrak all by itself. Just like happens with the highways, they want the states that gain service to partner up and pay for some of the expenses.
> ...


Overall I wouldn't argue with any of what you've said.

The only thing that I'd point out is that, at least in Wisconsin, the hostile attitude towards rail isn't as wide spread as many think. There are some people in Wis claiming that a vote for the Republican Gov was a vote against rail. But there have been several prominent Republicans that have stepped up and said that while they voted for Mr. Walker for other reasons, they believe that he's wrong on the rail issue. But that one issue wasn't enough to flip their vote to the Democratic candidate.

Additionally, the real problem was the "get out the vote" effort. I'm winging it here from memory so please forgive me if my numbers are off, but I think that only something like 40% to 45% of those able to vote actually turned out to vote. And while the race wasn't decided on a razor thin margin, it wasn't a landslide victory either. Translation, it cannot be said that "a majority of Wisconsinites were against the train."

And if those in office now and those about to take office thought that times had changed and they'd get more votes by being pro-rail, trust me they'd flip in a heart beat.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 29, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Actually a serious question: Is there any way that Obama could just have the Federal DoT spend the money directly and cut Walker out of the equation? I think this is about as clear a case of directly affecting "interstate commerce" as you get.
> ...


How long will the upgrades take? My thought would be to jam through the track upgrades and to hell with Walker, and deal with operating subsidies later. By the way, not being familiar with the economics of the situation, how much of an operating subsidy is the line expected to need?


----------



## Eric S (Nov 29, 2010)

Anderson said:


> How long will the upgrades take? My thought would be to jam through the track upgrades and to hell with Walker, and deal with operating subsidies later. By the way, not being familiar with the economics of the situation, how much of an operating subsidy is the line expected to need?


The line is/was estimated to be operational in 2013, with some improvements to signal systems to be completed by 2015. By 2013, somebody (WisDOT, USDOT, Amtrak, whoever) needs to have the estimated $7.5 million/year to operate the six daily trains.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 29, 2010)

Anderson said:


> How long will the upgrades take? My thought would be to jam through the track upgrades and to hell with Walker, and deal with operating subsidies later.


The current Governor actually had that option, he could have put everything under contract making it harder to cancel. He got a Full Funding Agreement from the Fed just before the election and could have let more contracts based upon that. However there is no way that anything more than a fraction of the needed work could have been done before Mr. Walker would have taken office though.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 29, 2010)

It would be great to see some polling to get some media attention to the issue, but for the most part the media seems to not care about Amtrak or anything passenger rail related.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 29, 2010)

Only time media talks about passenger rail is when a passenger train derails and there are deaths involved then they talk about it. other then that they could care less. IM sick of these idiots who take office then get ride of things that will make jobs and bring money to this country but they don't care they all have $ for eyes. Why spend money on something USEFUL and GREEN oh no we can't have that now can we. Lets spend the money on more roads and highways since they are getting congested. Lets add to the traffic jams instead of finding other ways to move people.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 30, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > How long will the upgrades take? My thought would be to jam through the track upgrades and to hell with Walker, and deal with operating subsidies later.
> ...


Real shame he didn't do that. That said...what's the funding ratio on construction between the feds and the state?


----------



## jis (Nov 30, 2010)

The problem though is that a project like this is not something that you can easily compartmentalize away. There are myriads of ways of killing a project or at least neutering it to the point of uselessness, specially if you are willing to return the money spent and want it killed badly enough, even when no obvious huge cost overruns, way larger than the money you will have to return (computed in same year dollars), is involved.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 30, 2010)

Anderson said:


> Real shame he didn't do that. That said...what's the funding ratio on construction between the feds and the state?


The Fed was funding almost the entire project. IIRC, the estimates with cost overruns factored in came to about $830M and the Fed handed them $810M.

As for the current Gov not putting everything under contract, frankly in the greater scheme of things it was a smart move on his part. Now the Dems can't be blamed for the train. It's all on the Gov elect Mr. Walker. He's either got to actually kill the project on his own and take the heat for it or reverse his pledge and move forward on the project. Either way, he gets the blame.

And with the Fed essentially ready to send Wisconsin a bill for $100 Million, money that they don't have, if he cancels the project, he has a bit problem.


----------



## Monon81 (Nov 30, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> It would be great to see some polling to get some media attention to the issue, but for the most part the media seems to not care about Amtrak or anything passenger rail related.


In Wisconsin, local media have been covering this issue quite a lot. In the state's largest paper, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, hardly a day has gone by since election day that there hasn't been a story, an editorial or at least a letter to the editor.

The multi-city save the train rally organized by the Sierra Club got press coverage and made for good TV.

The Journal-Sentinel and the (Madison) Wisconsin State Journal both endorsed Walker for governor, but both added that his "Stop the Train" platform was foolishness.

Minnesota DOT is the lead agency for studies on HSR to the Twin Cities. Hearings are being held in several Wisconsin locations next week, and advocates for the CHI-MSN project plan on using these meetings as an opportunity to keep this issue in the public's mind.



AlanB said:


> As for the current Gov not putting everything under contract, frankly in the greater scheme of things it was a smart move on his part. Now the Dems can't be blamed for the train. It's all on the Gov elect Mr. Walker. He's either got to actually kill the project on his own and take the heat for it or reverse his pledge and move forward on the project. Either way, he gets the blame.
> And with the Fed essentially ready to send Wisconsin a bill for $100 Million, money that they don't have, if he cancels the project, he has a bit problem.


Wisconsin has run up enough of a tab to make things difficult for Walker. Ohio's 3C project is not very far along, so I suspect that Gov. Strickland made the right choice by _not_ stopping the work, which is primarily in the study and design stage.

I find it interesting that Iowa's once and future governor Terry Brandstad has remained quiet on the Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City project. As with Chicago-Twin Cities, this brings back the same issues of having states involved in multi-state projects.

In the longer run, several other Midwest corridors have similar characteristics. Chicago-Louisville, Chicago-Cincinnati, and Chicago-Toledo run primarily through Indiana but serve population centers just outside the state. IIRC, Michigan had to coax Indiana into applying for ARRA funds to improve the bottleneck in Portage, which affects primarily Michigan trains.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 30, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Real shame he didn't do that. That said...what's the funding ratio on construction between the feds and the state?
> ...


Why would the $86 million of the $100 million that is for Hiawatha Line improvements have to go back? These projects were approved prior to the Madison line project approval and were only lumped into the HSR Madison funding as an administrative and funding convenience. Will the feds now withdraw money provided for the purchase of the two Talgos for the Hiawatha line? The trainsets are purchased, and they have nothing to do with the Madison extension. Will they withdraw funding approved and provided for improvements to the Milwaukee and MKE airport stations? Will they now withdraw funding already provided for the Hiawatha Line maintenance facility? All of these projects were approved by DOT for funding prior to the Madison project being put into the High Speed Rail program.

Sounds to me like the DOT may have a date in court if they send Wisconsin a bill for $100 million and not $14 million.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 30, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


There have been a number of articles in the Milwaukee paper (Journal-Sentinel) discussing just how much the state will be on the hook for if/when the project is cancelled (probably closer to $14 million than $100 million). The two Talgo trainsets ordered were purchased with state money and will not be affected regardless what happens. The two trainsets that the state has an option for were to be purchased with federal money for the Madison extension. It is unclear so far what a cancellation of the Madison extension will mean for the projects between Chicago and Milwaukee on the existing _Hiawatha_ line.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 30, 2010)

What happens to the money if it's rejected? It's obviously speculation but does it go to another proposal?


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 30, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> What happens to the money if it's rejected? It's obviously speculation but does it go to another proposal?


Several states, including California, Illinois, and New York, have already asked for the money. No guarantees it will go to one of them, but they have certainly made it known publicly that they're willing to spend the cash as intended.


----------



## Eric S (Dec 1, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> What happens to the money if it's rejected? It's obviously speculation but does it go to another proposal?


As *Trogdor* mentioned, a number of states (CA, CT, IL, NY) have asked for all or a portion of the approx $1.2 billion (between Ohio & Wisconsin) if/when it is rejected/returned to the feds. Most likely USDOT will redirect it to other projects. The question unanswered so far is whether USDOT can just go back to proposals submitted in 2009 or 2010 but not funded (or not fully funded), or if new proposals will need to be submitted.

EDIT: Personally, I'd like to see a significant portion of the $1.2 billion redirected to the Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-St. Louis corridors, so that OH & WI can see in neighboring states what they (we) are missing.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 1, 2010)

I'll agree with the hope that, if the Madison route doesn't get built, some of the money goes to Illinois and Michigan. Michigan especially needs the cash to buy and upgrade the NS line from Kalamazoo to Dearborn, which just got downgraded further this week (part of it was downgraded in July).


----------



## Eric S (Dec 1, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> I'll agree with the hope that, if the Madison route doesn't get built, some of the money goes to Illinois and Michigan. Michigan especially needs the cash to buy and upgrade the NS line from Kalamazoo to Dearborn, which just got downgraded further this week (part of it was downgraded in July).


Michigan received enough money to buy the route with the October grants, right? But not enough to really do any upgrades, right? IINM, they essentially received half of what they asked for, but I don't recall a specific breakdown of what it would and would not cover.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 2, 2010)

It's not your money yet, Governor Strickland in Ohio made it clear the other day. Kasich asked him to stop funding studies on the 3C saying that since when he comes in it will be a moot point and these studies would have been a waste of taxpayer dollars. Strickland, in better worlds, basically told him off and made it clear to the Governor-Elect that until he is sworn in the 3C project is still alive.


----------



## DET63 (Dec 2, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> It's not your money yet, Governor Strickland in Ohio made it clear the other day. Kasich asked him to stop funding studies on the 3C saying that since when he comes in it will be a moot point and these studies would have been a waste of taxpayer dollars. Strickland, in better worlds, basically told him off and made it clear to the Governor-Elect that until he is sworn in the 3C project is still alive.


Other states clamoring for Ohio's 3C rail funds

It looks like if HSR is ever built in the U.S., it will be one project built with money rejected from other proposed HSR projects.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 2, 2010)

The Governator and Albany can cool their jets, at least for two months. I don't know if this is ood news or bad news for the 3C. It should be a big sign for Ohioans "you idiots are signing away gold"


----------



## Anderson (Dec 3, 2010)

I'm actually going to admit that, IMHO, the lines that should be getting the most focus are the various East Coast to Chicago lines. Now, that includes NY-Albany and Philly-Pittsburgh (and, frankly, I do wonder at the prospects of Boston-Albany). The reason is that whatever you can get in corridor lines, you can also beef up the Chicago-bound long distance lines.

The second (and less likely) area for improvement is the DC-Miami line (focus on DC-North Carolina for now)...the problem is that a lot of those states are highly Republican (the only Democrat on the line is in North Carolina, but Virginia is also receptive to rail projects...our Republicans are a little different than the national brand). Again, you get two benefits for one, and in these cases, I know the Silvers (and the Palmetto) are a relatively good investment for improving times on.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 4, 2010)

It isn't a strictly Republican/Democrat issue, at the state and local level issues can become less partisan. And yes, conservative platforms don't usually include rail, there are many conservatives who aren't hard line.


----------

