"Stop The Train!"

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.)
 
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.)
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).
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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?

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.)
 
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.
 
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%?
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.

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. :eek: That say nothing about all the other highway issues, like pavement and what not.

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.
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.
 
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.)
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.
 
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.)
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.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.)
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top