Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[danzig6767]

People need to move away from the car mentality. I did (I take the train every day and drive about 1 time a week to get groceries) and have never looked back.

Why?

 

If you don't want to drive your car much, hey, more power to you. Nearly everyone i know likes the convenience of their car and have no plans on deviating from that. Trains run on rigid time frames and run in a rigid direction, cars offer the ability to adjust to changes in plans time wise or changes where you need/want to go.

[danzig6767]

Put me firmly in the "collosal waste of money" camp. Beyond perhaps some initial boom of novelty, I think ridership of this line will be laughably low. There is no real call for this from residents of Madison or Milwaukee -- no demand at all.

 

I don't know if laughably low will end up being the ridership numbers, but when i read about the numbers they project of about 22,000-23,000 riders a week, that just strikes me as very optimistic. If say anyone here was told they would get 25 grand if they guessed correctly on the over/under of the 22,500 ridership numbers the state projects, would anyone really take the over? Anyone? Would anyone take the over even if it was lowered to 20,000? I should as hell would take the under.

 

Sometimes talk of light rail or mass transit overall can end up becoming strictly just a conservative/liberal situation where nearly all conservatives tend to be against it while liberals for it. There instead should be only an evaluation of if there is a strong need/demand for more or new mass transit options like light rail to justify the cost of both building and maintaining it. Each city or state along with the potential plan for it is it's own entity and thus comes with it's own pluses or minuses. So as for the Milwaukee/Madison connection, i'm just not seeing any strong demand or need for it from the public and that's the main reason i'm extremely skeptical that ridership numbers will come close to matching projections. Not only isn't this a high speed train, we in Wisconsin don't face traffic congestion problems anywhere near like other places in the country. Parking can sometimes be a hassle in Milwaukee and Madison, but not to the massive headache degree some cities cause. It's relatively easy for most here in Wisconsin to just get in their car and drive to/from Milwaukee/Madison without hassle so the vast majority will stick to driving their cars.

 

I hope i'm wrong though about ridership numbers for the taxpayers sake so their yearly dollars for subsidizing it doesn't go way up. This is one issue where i'd glad to look back and be told, you were way off on that one. That's simply a lot of riders they are projecting though.

[thebruce44]

People need to move away from the car mentality. I did (I take the train every day and drive about 1 time a week to get groceries) and have never looked back.

Why?

 

If you don't want to drive your car much, hey, more power to you. Nearly everyone i know likes the convenience of their car and have no plans on deviating from that. Trains run on rigid time frames and run in a rigid direction, cars offer the ability to adjust to changes in plans time wise or changes where you need/want to go.

All of the inconveniences you spoke of are made up by the fact that I am never in traffic. In fact, I am posting this right now while I zoom into Chicago at 45 mph on a train. I have my feet up on a railing and my laptop on my lap. Tonight on the way home I will do the same and may enjoy a tall boy too.

[paul253]

Say gas is $3.50 a gallon ($28 round trip). Say gas gets up to $4.00 a gallon ($32 round trip)

 

With all due respect gasoline isn't even close to this price now. If it ever does get to this price, there are plenty of other ways to driver it back down should we choose to. And for all of those using Chicago to prove your point, you need to stop. I've said it before and I will say it again. Milwaukee traffic isn't even close to as bad as Chicago traffic. In fact Milwaukee's drive/traffic is supposedly one the best in the entire country. However, if you insist on bringing up Chicago, I will ask this. If you are on a train now that works well for you and accomplishes what you need.....then why do we need to build a whole new system? You can take the Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis. Why not just simply add an Amtrak route to Madison instead of spending $823 million dollars on a "high speed" line that is going to go probably no more than 10 mph faster than a car? Its just a big waste and its going to cost us millions of dollars every single year.

[homer]

Paul,

Who has mentioned traffic in Milwaukee? And no one has said travel from Chicago to Minneapolis accomplishes what they need. It's like a 7 hour trip as it stands.

 

Again, this is less about MKE to MSN and more about the overall project of improved service of Chicago to MKE to MSN to The Twin Cities.

[WV Brew]

Those who think they will go to Brewers/Badger games---I ride the MARC (Maryland Commuter Rail) into DC every day. When the Orioles built Camden Yards, they said MARC would provide a train to each Oriole game. It lasted one year. The conductors said the fares did not even cover the fuel costs. There will be no special trains to sports events. It's simply not feasible economically. Baltimore/Washington is much more densely populated than Wisconsin. It should be easier to work here than in Wisconsin. It still doesn't work. Trains don't run on weekends. Not enough demand. If you think you will do something in Chicago on the weekend forget it.

 

Bottom line. Trains are only economically efficient if there is very dense population. Doesn't exist in Wisconsin. If this service is necessary, they should put the money into improving bus service. The bus could even get it's own road, etc. Busses can carry a huge amount of people with far more flexibility than trains. Nobody likes them but they are far, far cheaper and more efficient.

[paul253]

Who has mentioned traffic in Milwaukee

 

Its not so much people mentioning traffic in Milwaukee, its people mentioning traffic in Chicago. And maybe the overall picture is a Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis line, but this thread is specifically about Milwaukee to Madison and it's cost. I only mention Chicago because people keep bringing up how much trains are needed there because of the traffic. For instance:

 

I assume this will be a part of the Chicago to Minn line the government gave funding for. As someone who works in the loop, the demand for this is definetly

there. People need to move away from the car mentality. I did (I take

the train every day and drive about 1 time a week to get groceries) and

have never looked back. Sure, when I take the train up to MKE my

parents have to drive down from Grafton to pick me up, but they don't

mind too much. It ends up saving a lot of time over how long it would

take me to drive from the loop to Grafton in the end.

 

And my reply to that is....traffic in Milwaukee is not like traffic in Chicago so the need here isn't the same. My other point in that post is we already have a line that can take you from Chicago to Minneapolis via Milwaukee so basically the only new route would be Milwaukee to Madison. So again, traffic from Milwaukee to Madison is not like Chicago where it can take you two hours just to get through the city. So while it IS needed in city of Chicago, it's not needed once you get out of the city.

[thebruce44]

Who has mentioned traffic in Milwaukee

 

Its not so much people mentioning traffic in Milwaukee, its people mentioning traffic in Chicago. And maybe the overall picture is a Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis line, but this thread is specifically about Milwaukee to Madison and it's cost. I only mention Chicago because people keep bringing up how much trains are needed there because of the traffic. For instance:

 

I assume this will be a part of the Chicago to Minn line the government gave funding for. As someone who works in the loop, the demand for this is definetly there. People need to move away from the car mentality. I did (I take the train every day and drive about 1 time a week to get groceries) and have never looked back. Sure, when I take the train up to MKE my parents have to drive down from Grafton to pick me up, but they don't mind too much. It ends up saving a lot of time over how long it would take me to drive from the loop to Grafton in the end.

 

And my reply to that is....traffic in Milwaukee is not like traffic in Chicago so the need here isn't the same. My other point in that post is we already have a line that can take you from Chicago to Minneapolis via Milwaukee so basically the only new route would be Milwaukee to Madison. So again, traffic from Milwaukee to Madison is not like Chicago where it can take you two hours just to get through the city. So while it IS needed in city of Chicago, it's not needed once you get out of the city.

 

Sorry if I was not clear enough. Chicago needs local rail service for the city. If you work in the loop, it is almost impossible to drive. Of course this isn't the case in MKE and certainly not in Madison. The twin cities do have a public transit system though I have never ridden it. The metro area there is roughly 3 times the size of MKE off the top of my head, so I am guessing it is important there.

 

Now you said there is already a line from Chicago to the Twin Cities via MKE. That is true, but this would drasticly cut down travel time. It would also be much cheaper than flying obviously. And that is where the real need for this line comes from.

 

I keep seeing people say how there just isn't demand for travel between Madison and MKE. Great. That section of the line will be subsidised by the travel between Chicago and the Twin Cities where there is a large demand. You are talking about connecting the 3rd largest Metro area to the 16th largest in the US. Milwaukee and Madison happen to be somewhat on the way and can take advantage of that.

 

If I traveled back and forth between Madison and Mke I would be pretty excited to have this option available. As I said before, if the state doesn't want the funding I am sure a more direct route can be found and Madison could be skipped. It would probably cut the total travel time between Chicago and Minn down 20-30 min, so I don't think anyone would be too upset.

 

If you want to keep this thread specifically about Milwaukee to Madison thats fine, but you are then missing the whole point of this project since nobody in the federal government is itching to get a high speed line between the 39th and 89th largest metro areas in the country.

[endaround]

Wisconsin needs certain things to attract business. And not lower taxes really aren't that important. They need a climate that fosters wanting young educated people to relocate to the upper midwest. Weather is unkind to Wisconsin so it will never compete with San Diego or San Fansico there. But connect it through infrastructure to the culture of Chicago? You can start a big business boom on the corridor between Chicago and Milwaukee. Now the corridor between Milwaukee and Madison isn't goign to cause such a thing, but if you got to to Minneapolis with the route anyway avoidin Madision is foolish and now you can tie in a lot more communities to the greter Chcago metro area. Yeah they won't commute to Chicago, but look at DC. Lots of people don't commute to DC proper, they commute to NoVa.

[paul253]

Now you said there is already a line from Chicago to the Twin Cities

via MKE. That is true, but this would drasticly cut down travel time.

It would also be much cheaper than flying obviously. And that is where

the real need for this line comes from.

Right now the Amtrak train ride from Chicago to Minneapolis takes about 8 hours and 15 minutes according the the timetable on their website, and that includes 9 stops in between. I couldn't find any info on how fast the Amtrak trains go but obviously the 9 stops takes up a good chunk of time. Distance wise Chicago to Milwaukee is about 83 miles, Milwaukee to Madison is about 72 miles and Madison to Minneapolis is about 241 miles, for a total about 396 miles. I am terrible at math and have no intention of figuring out how long exactly it would take to get there going at the estimated 75-80 mph the train will actually go, but lets just say somewhere around 5 hours. That doesn't include stops either. So really while there will be a reduction in travel time, its most likely not going to be that dramatic, maybe an hour or two, and certainly not dramatic enough to excuse the cost of the new service.

 

In general I am not against rail. I am all for anything that gets more cars off the interstates, especially in the bigger cities. But right now the demand just isn't there, and the system being built is a bad system. Milwaukee to Chicago and Milwaukee to Madison just aren't far enough apart, distance wise, for the 200 mph trains to be used, and the trains they are going to use aren't that much of an upgrade over the ones we already have (that most people don't use). I would love to hop on a train in downtown Milwaukee and get off in Minneapolis 2 hours later, but that's not going to happen with these trains. It would be a great system for the West, traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Portland to Seattle, where the distance in between the cities would allow for the real high speed trains and have a dramatic effect on travel time. Or it would be great for trains that cross the US, from Chicago to say, Denver or Houston. But when the stops are crammed together like they will be, and therefore speeds basically no faster than you would go in a car, I just don't see the point of spending so much money at a time when we have both the largest deficit and largest debt in the history of the country. For cities themselves, like Chicago, New York, LA, and so on, where traffic is at a standstill almost every day, trains can be a godsend. For travel between Milwaukee and Chicago, or Chicago and Madison via Milwaukee, not so much.

[JJHardy7]

So should Wisconsin just have said 'no' to the funding from the Feds?

[paul253]

So should Wisconsin just have said 'no' to the funding from the Feds?

 

Yes. It's not free money. The Federal government is not going to keep paying for upgrades and other costs that fares don't cover and eventually Wisconsin taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill. Even if they do, people act like federal money isn't taxpayer money. That money comes from us, one way or the other. Its that kind of attitude that led to a soon to be $15 trillion debt (no offense). Of course it never should have gotten to this point. The Federal government never should have forced this down our throats when there were much better ways for the money to be used and would have created the same amount of jobs. Some of it could have been used to create a Milwaukee to Madison Amtrak route, for instance. Or instead the government could have used the money to start buying down the debt. A billion dollars is a billion dollars.

[thebruce44]

So should Wisconsin just have said 'no' to the funding from the Feds?

 

Yes. It's not free money. The Federal government is not going to keep paying for upgrades and other costs that fares don't cover and eventually Wisconsin taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill. Even if they do, people act like federal money isn't taxpayer money. That money comes from us, one way or the other. Its that kind of attitude that led to a soon to be $15 trillion debt (no offense). Of course it never should have gotten to this point. The Federal government never should have forced this down our throats when there were much better ways for the money to be used and would have created the same amount of jobs. Some of it could have been used to create a Milwaukee to Madison Amtrak route, for instance. Or instead the government could have used the money to start buying down the debt. A billion dollars is a billion dollars.

Um, thats exactly what this is. The difference in cost between standard track and high speed rail will be extremely minimal.

[hart attack 2006]

My observation is that longer Amtrak routes get very low ridership beacuse business travelers will almost always opt to fly. It sounds like Chicago to MSP will take 5 or more hours. ORD-MSP (or MDW-MSP) is 1.5 hours, call it 2.5 with airport security, ect. Half the time. It's easy to make in in for a meeting and fly back the same day, while that would be difficult when taking the train.

 

It may not be that much cheaper to take the train either...if they say it's $40-60 for Mil-Mad, I would guess that it's around $150 Chi-MSP. I live near Chicago. When I have traveled ORD-MSP, I have found the average fares to be around $220 r/t. I have booked fares as cheap a $120 r/t when there has been fare sales. When you consider the extra time the train takes, potential overnight stay, meals, ect., I couldn't imagine many business travelers not flying.

[danzig6767]

People need to move away from the car mentality. I did (I take the train every day and drive about 1 time a week to get groceries) and have never looked back.

Why?

 

If you don't want to drive your car much, hey, more power to you. Nearly everyone i know likes the convenience of their car and have no plans on deviating from that. Trains run on rigid time frames and run in a rigid direction, cars offer the ability to adjust to changes in plans time wise or changes where you need/want to go.

All of the inconveniences you spoke of are made up by the fact that I am never in traffic. In fact, I am posting this right now while I zoom into Chicago at 45 mph on a train. I have my feet up on a railing and my laptop on my lap. Tonight on the way home I will do the same and may enjoy a tall boy too.

Outstanding for you. I honestly mean that. Not everyone though has the same life or job circumstances that you do either.

 

I'm not some hater of advanced forms of mass transit because no question there are places in America where it's not a luxury, it's a necessity. In other places it can be somewhat of a necessity and also as much something that might be able to help grow that area of the country.

 

I do have a beef though among some of the very pro-mass transit folks that like to harp on those who would just prefer driving their cars and thus that those people need to get out of their car liking "mentality" and instead start hopping on buses or trains. People can differ on what they feel is most convenient for them based on their life circumstances and/or whether they simply like driving their cars or not. To be fair though, no doubt there are some very strong anti-mass transit folks would treat pretty much any mention of light rail as nothing more than lighting money on fire regardless of the plan.

[paul253]

Um, thats exactly what this is. The difference in cost between standard track and high speed rail will be extremely minimal.

 

Are you saying that it would cost $810 million to add an Amtrak Route from Milwaukee to Madison? I can't imagine that to be the case.

[thebruce44]

I do have a beef though among some of the very pro-mass transit folks that like to harp on those who would just prefer driving their cars and thus that those people need to get out of their car liking "mentality" and instead start hopping on buses or trains.

 

Well said, I completely understand that there are many people who simply can't take mass transit for whatever reason. I was one of them for quite a while. I also know some people who will drive simply because they are too lazy to figure out how the bus works when transit may be a much easier option for them. In my mind there is a negative stigma against public transit in this country and I really don't get it.

 

Are you saying that it would cost $810 million to add an Amtrak Route from Milwaukee to Madison? I can't imagine that to be the case.

 

The basics of the line from Chicago to Minn will be the same high speed or not. I think what a lot of people are missing is that both high speed or regular speed lines would be Amtrak lines. Both will require similar land acquisition and materials to construct (rail, ballast, earth, and concrete). I don't know exactly how much each one would cost at this point and I haven't seen the studies, but if they are going to build a line they might as well build one that wont be obsolete in a couple of years so long as the funding is being provided. Politics aside, the money is available and WisDOT/IDOT have to take advantage of it when they can.

[paul253]

Bruce you might know this. Would this new track use the same exact railroad lines that the Amtrak use, or would an entirely new system be built?

The basics of the line from Chicago to Minn will be the same high speed

or not. I think what a lot of people are missing is that both high

speed or regular speed lines would be Amtrak lines

 

I don't quite understand what you are saying. My point was this though. We already have lines from Chicago to Minneapolis, obviously, which Amtrak uses. What is so wrong with those lines that an entirely new system, one that really won't cut down travel time all that much, needs to be built? Wouldn't it just be easier (and cheaper) to build an Amtrak line to Madison from Milwaukee? If people need to go from Chicago to Madison, they can switch trains in Milwaukee. If they need to go from Chicago to Minneapolis, they can just use the existing lines. If Amtrak is so out of date and worthless, then the government should end all subsidies to it and it should simply go away. In that case, the lines should be updated to allow for trains that really are "high speed" and will have a significant impact on travel time. I'm talking Milwaukee to Chicago in 45 minutes. Chicago to Minneapolis in 4 hours. Milwaukee to Madison in half an hour....etc. That would be worth $810 million and I would definitely use it if I ever had to go to Minneapolis or Madison and wouldn't need a car.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, that's my whole beef with it. I don't have any qualms about mass transit. But if they're going to do it, they should do it right. Don't just give us some half-you-know-what thing and pretend it's "high speed rail" when it really isn't, and doesn't seem to offer any substantially greater benefits than what we have currently.

[JJHardy7]

Yes. It's not free money. The Federal government is not going to keep paying for upgrades and other costs that fares don't cover and eventually Wisconsin taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill. Even if they do, people act like federal money isn't taxpayer money. That money comes from us, one way or the other. Its that kind of attitude that led to a soon to be $15 trillion debt (no offense). Of course it never should have gotten to this point. The Federal government never should have forced this down our throats when there were much better ways for the money to be used and would have created the same amount of jobs. Some of it could have been used to create a Milwaukee to Madison Amtrak route, for instance. Or instead the government could have used the money to start buying down the debt. A billion dollars is a billion dollars.

 

I really don't think it's that kind of attitude. It's clear you have a strong opinion about this...I'm just saying since the Feds are paying for it (I know it is taxpayer money) it's cheaper for the state to do this than on their own. We can argue all day about demand and such...and I have no clue about that.

 

I'm sure the people that will have jobs in Wisconsin because of this aren't going to be complaining...you have to admit there are some benefits. I think it'd be foolish in a way to pass up the money until I know all the details. We don't know what the operating costs will exactly be and such. You might be upset in general that they're doing this, but I think that's a different topic than this specific location.

[TabbertBB]

A better use of the money would be to add a third traffic lane from Milwaukee to Madison. Yet, because that is not the "cool" thing to do, it will never happen until they have wasted this money. Then they will need to spend more money to fix the real problem.

I will ask this, if it is such a great idea, why hasn't this been done by the private sector business. The answer-- it is a waste of money and will be a 'Money Pit".

[homer]

A better use of the money would be to add a third traffic lane from

Milwaukee to Madison. Yet, because that is not the "cool" thing to do,

it will never happen until they have wasted this money.

They're doing it from Milwaukee to the Illinois line.

[TabbertBB]

Sorry, Milwaukee to Illinois line is NOT Milwaukee to Madison.

Also, it is funny earlier that you bring up the issue of only saving 15 minutes to get to your place up North on Hwy 45 and such. The real issue of going to 4 lanes is not a time issue, it is a safety issue.

[MadScientist]

A better use of the money would be to add a third traffic lane from Milwaukee to Madison. Yet, because that is not the "cool" thing to do, it will never happen until they have wasted this money. Then they will need to spend more money to fix the real problem.

I will ask this, if it is such a great idea, why hasn't this been done by the private sector business. The answer-- it is a waste of money and will be a 'Money Pit".

What is the cost of adding this lane, what is the cost of road maintenance vs rail maintenance, and would the amount of passengers on the rail line be enough to eliminate the need for the 3rd lane? Maybe it will always be a money pit, but you've just pointed out that not running the rail line has costs as well.

 

[homer]

Sorry, Milwaukee to Illinois line is NOT Milwaukee to Madison.

Yes, I realize that.