Wisconsin Scuttles HSR

For those who might have missed it, the State of Wisconsin has already suspended further development of its High Speed Rail project; clearly, the fiscal conservative groundswell in Tuesday's election has to be viewed as a major contributing factor.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/106705698.html

I will offer no apologies for my personal conservative beliefs. in college, however, I had a full minor in Transportation Economics, so I can understand why improvements such as improved rail sysyems, not necessarily HSR, cannot be financed via the private sector.

Unfortunately, while the both the number of markets for which passenger rail is suitable is growing and the relevant time horizons expanding, the seizure of the HSR issue as both a poster child and a panacea by a group identified with only one side of the current political and economic polarization rubbed salt in the wounds of the opposition, and the bill has now come due.

I recognize that the general tone of the discussions at this particular forum are much more enthusiastic (and unfortunately, shallow) than those which generally arise at the Amtrak forum, but most of the "regulars" at that venue have been dealing with the issue for much longer, and the progress made there was extracted only after a great deal of rancor and repetition.

The continuing issue of rising petroleum prices will force the emergence of alternative transportation strategies. But they can't be imposed from above by an exclusively young and self-righteous clique. Some of those strategies may not involve rail service in any form at the outset. But the most successful product and services in any sector of the economy have always originated from below, rater than been imposed from the top down.

It's time for the two (regrettably) distinct groups dealing with this issue at this site to seek more common ground.

Good. Wisconsin "HSR" was anything but, anyway- just Amtrak plus (same for Ohio 3C). Actually, I think Amtrak should be split up and sectorized, with the viable portions funded (or sold off) and the remaining either folded up or left to local authorities to fund. Maybe if they send the Wisconsin money back to DC, it will be diverted to true HSR projects.

Maybe if they send the Wisconsin money back to DC, it will be diverted to true HSR projects.

We are possibly more in agreement here than might be discerned at first glance.

Were the decision left entirely up to this writer, I would push hard for the already voter-approved California HSR project, but only between established feeder systems at Lancaster(Metrolink) and Concord (BART). The overindulged urban dreamers will whine, but they're going to be disappointed by anything that isn't door-to-door, so let them. Feeders worked for the San Joaquins far better than anyone expected, even after a three year 1971-74 hiatus.

And I would suggest using a right-of-way adjacent to the already-in-place (and already-controversial) canal(s) of the California Water Project. This approach short-changes Fresno and the other Central Valley cities, but it might serve to blunt NIMBY opposition that might otherwise tie things up in the courts for years. Perhaps a one-time "produce or get off the pot" ultimatum could be offered, but I doubt it.

The schlockmeisters of Madison Avenue and the electronic media have, unfortunately, turned us into a nation of spoiled brats, devoid of both the foresight to plan intelligently and the reasoning to choose between less-than-perfect alternatives. A push for "decisive action" upsets my libertarian sympathies, but taking the most flagrant "hot button" issues off the table might be one way to get something in place with minimal bloodletting.

kaitoku wrote:Good. Wisconsin "HSR" was anything but, anyway- just Amtrak plus (same for Ohio 3C). Actually, I think Amtrak should be split up and sectorized, with the viable portions funded (or sold off) and the remaining either folded up or left to local authorities to fund. Maybe if they send the Wisconsin money back to DC, it will be diverted to true HSR projects.

Amtrak isn't the problem. Actually, Amtrak is a model of accountability and only requires relatively modest annual subsidies - although it still isn't being adequately funded. It's worthwhile to maintain a nationwide network of long distance trains, as well as the vital corridor operations.

The current controversy stems from a number of state run HSR projects, most of which are very poorly planned and lacking in accountability. Unfortunately, Amtrak is being unfairly associated with HSR boondoggles. In Wisconsin, Amtrak is not in any way responsible for the very unpopular decisions of outgoing incumbent politicians.

I expect we will soon hear similar news coming from Ohio and perhaps other states, too, as our nation faces the task of getting our financial house in order. Notice that the first consequence of stopping this project will be the unemployment of consultants and project engineers, which will be the painful consequence of reduced government spending in other areas too.

The current controversy stems from a number of state run HSR projects, most of which are very poorly planned and lacking in accountability. Unfortunately, Amtrak is being unfairly associated with HSR boondoggles. In Wisconsin, Amtrak is not in any way responsible for the very unpopular decisions of outgoing incumbent politicians.

I honestly do not understand this criticism, which has been made several times by various people on this website. The Milwaukee-Madison route has been discussed for over twenty years. The route was recommended as the state's top priority by the (Republican appointed) Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Passenger Rail. An alternatives analysis was done to determine what level of service would have the best balance of costs and benefits; this is why it is 110mph rather than something faster. The environmental documentation was completed years ago. The state legislature approved $80M in matching funds before a federal funding program even existed. Most of the preliminary engineering was done before the ARRA grant proposal was submitted. The host freight railroad is supportive. So how, exactly, does this suggest a poorly planned proposal?

LOL- looks like Walker, now that he is governor-elect (and campaign hoodwinking can be set aside), may be for the HSR line after all...

A spokeswoman for Talgo, the U.S. unit of the Spanish firm Patentes Talgo, said that Walker told company officials that his decision to stop a proposed Madison-to-Milwaukee passenger rail line is "not final."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... 90123.html

mkellerm wrote:

The current controversy stems from a number of state run HSR projects, most of which are very poorly planned and lacking in accountability. Unfortunately, Amtrak is being unfairly associated with HSR boondoggles. In Wisconsin, Amtrak is not in any way responsible for the very unpopular decisions of outgoing incumbent politicians.

I honestly do not understand this criticism, which has been made several times by various people on this website. The Milwaukee-Madison route has been discussed for over twenty years. The route was recommended as the state's top priority by the (Republican appointed) Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Passenger Rail. An alternatives analysis was done to determine what level of service would have the best balance of costs and benefits; this is why it is 110mph rather than something faster. The environmental documentation was completed years ago. The state legislature approved $80M in matching funds before a federal funding program even existed. Most of the preliminary engineering was done before the ARRA grant proposal was submitted. The host freight railroad is supportive. So how, exactly, does this suggest a poorly planned proposal?

A "Blue Ribbon Task Force?" I hate to break it to you, but that's the sort of name that politicians give to rubber stamp committee of dull, dreary appointees.

The real problem is that a bad idea can be studied, engineered, environmentally cleared, planned, poked and prodded, and still emerge as a bad idea, altogether unworthy of full funding unless somebody else comes up with the money. After all, it wasn't worth $810 million to the taxpayers of Wisconsin, and apparently the voters of Wisconsin decided it wasn't worth the cost to the taxpayers of the other 49 states either.

The bottom line is that spending $810 million trying to bring 85 miles of shortline railroad up to 110 mph standards is a waste of money when you consider the limited number of passengers being served.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: A "Blue Ribbon Task Force?" I hate to break it to you, but that's the sort of name that politicians give to rubber stamp committee of dull, dreary appointees.

The real problem is that a bad idea can be studied, engineered, environmentally cleared, planned, poked and prodded, and still emerge as a bad idea, altogether unworthy of full funding unless somebody else comes up with the money. After all, it wasn't worth $810 million to the taxpayers of Wisconsin, and apparently the voters of Wisconsin decided it wasn't worth the cost to the taxpayers of the other 49 states either.

The point was that it was a Republican "Blue Ribbon Task Force" that recommended it. This was a project that had bipartisan support in Wisconsin for years - and which opponents had many opportunities to object to - and they failed to do so. You may not think it is worth it, the taxpayers of Wisconsin may not think it is worth it (although the idea that "the taxpayers" think anything is nonsensical), but to portray the proposal as something slapped together by a bunch of dilettantes or hacks is ludicrous.

mkellerm wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: A "Blue Ribbon Task Force?" I hate to break it to you, but that's the sort of name that politicians give to rubber stamp committee of dull, dreary appointees.

The real problem is that a bad idea can be studied, engineered, environmentally cleared, planned, poked and prodded, and still emerge as a bad idea, altogether unworthy of full funding unless somebody else comes up with the money. After all, it wasn't worth $810 million to the taxpayers of Wisconsin, and apparently the voters of Wisconsin decided it wasn't worth the cost to the taxpayers of the other 49 states either.

The point was that it was a Republican "Blue Ribbon Task Force" that recommended it. This was a project that had bipartisan support in Wisconsin for years - and which opponents had many opportunities to object to - and they failed to do so.

This year, it made sense to object. In the past, you could sneak a lot of proposals past a contented, uninformed and totally disengaged electorate. Then came the HSR hoopla and the public backlash.

mkellerm wrote: You may not think it is worth it, the taxpayers of Wisconsin may not think it is worth it (although the idea that "the taxpayers" think anything is nonsensical), but to portray the proposal as something slapped together by a bunch of dilettantes or hacks is ludicrous.

I never made it out to be a partisan issue, only a matter of tremendous political inertia, where neither party has the guts to make a tough call, a least during a normal year. 2010 was most certainly not a Once a project gets some momentum, it just keeps going, regardless of the merits.

It's a bit like someone offering you a brand new car for free, and you turning it down because you don't want to pay for the running costs. Silly and irresponsible posturing!

Chafford1 wrote:It's a bit like someone offering you a brand new car for free, and you turning it down because you don't want to pay for the running costs. Silly and irresponsible posturing!

Well, they have lost it now. A pity because I visit Madison occasionally and it is inconvenient to get there without flying or driving. I am sure there is unsatisfied demand to travel by train.

It's sad to see that, as being from Wisconsin, and still goes back every month, I would had used the train to Madison, because I don't like driving that much, if I don't have to.

I looked at this as that the Hiawatha has a very high ridership, and that it would had jumped up if the milwaukee, to madsion line was to be built, and not worrying about the people who says that they will never ride it.

I nodded my head in shame seeing how heavy politics was in play in this.

Oh well Wisconsin had the money, and it is now gone.

This was actually a good and bad thing. Bad because we lost the money but the amount of money in upkeep would have been tremendous because not enough people would have used it. The station in Madison would not have even went downtown. So you would pay for the train and then have to pay for a 15 minute cab ride to get downtown. Whats the point of the train then? Also, it had like 6 stops, not even along the 94 corridor, it went off course too much and ultimately would make an hour long car ride into a couple hour nightmare. The roads here needed that money not a wasted train system. Too bad we lost the money because the brutal winters take a toll on our roads.

amazingandre wrote:This was actually a good and bad thing. Bad because we lost the money but the amount of money in upkeep would have been tremendous because not enough people would have used it. The station in Madison would not have even went downtown. So you would pay for the train and then have to pay for a 15 minute cab ride to get downtown. Whats the point of the train then? Also, it had like 6 stops, not even along the 94 corridor, it went off course too much and ultimately would make an hour long car ride into a couple hour nightmare. The roads here needed that money not a wasted train system. Too bad we lost the money because the brutal winters take a toll on our roads.

The station will be (when this project is revived) in the centre of town. I have seen the site. I think it's called Monona Terrace. It's ideal.

You state that few will use it. How do you know that? At present to get to Madison by train involves getting off the Empire Builder at Columbus. Have you ever watched how many people get off there? If so many travel when it is difficult to use the train, I am sure many more will use it when they can board in the town centre. If the train can maintain 100 mph it will be faster than bus and car. There is too much negative thinking about this project which has been in the planning for at least a decade. I am sure it will be revived, when people are fed up with Tea.