Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[TabbertBB]

Again, the economics of spending $66 for a round trip ticket between Milwaukee and Madison is not going to make this project "money wise". Are you really willing to spend $330 a week on travel between Milwaukee and Madison for your job or pleasure?

And all this talk of having people go to Brewer and Badger games-- it is not going to happen. Are you really going to catch a train out of Milwaukee at 5pm for a Badger Basketball game at 7pm and then wait around Madison until the next day to return?

Again, $66 round trip. And as for someone like Hawing-- is she and her SO really going to shell out $132 extra to see that Brewer game compared to about $10 now?

Again, sounds all great until reality hits.

[thebruce44]

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?

 

With the caveat that I have never worked on a high speed rail line (for obvious reasons) I will try to add my two cents engineering wise.

 

Rail lines have speed limits on them just like roadways do. Roads and rail lines are both designed to a certain design speed (which often is higher than the posted speed limit). What does the design speed effect? On a road mainly traction and sight distance. This is why curves are super elevated and why a hill can only crest so sharply. Now when you are talking about high speed rail, or really any train traveling at a decent speed, the issues become not only traction (more like derailment) but also passenger comfort. At 150 mph, you can't have a very sharp horizontal or vertical curve. The main issue with building high speed rail lines has nothing to do with technology (it is easier to just slap more power on an engine) and everything to do with the route the track must take.

 

So would the new track use the same rail lines that Amtrak use? Well first, the new lines will still be used by Amtrak. The high speed rail cars will be owned and operated by Amtrak. Right now Amtrak actually uses a lot of line that is owned by other freight companies (often with very low speed limits). This new line being proposed would probably be a combination of both. Going from Chicago to Mke, the train would probably get a new high speed line (track with a much higher speed limit) once it is between both cities. When it got to the more metro areas it would probably be forced to slow down and use existing freight lines. For between Milwaukee to Madison, I assume a lot of new line would be built, but I am not too sure. There is plenty of open space for a high speed line, so I would imagine eminent domain wouldn't be a huge hindrance once you get past Waukesha County. The line from Madison to Minn would probably be the same.

 

So hopefully that background helps people make a little more sense out of what is being proposed here. Now I feel like ranting a little so please bear with me.

 

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".

 

TabbertBB, I am curious what your background is in planning, engineering, and large scale public works projects. I am curious what type of decision process you used to discover that adding a third travel lane from Milwaukee to Madison would be a better decision both economically and for the general public. Also, how do you know what WisDot planners think is "cool?"

 

In addition, you answered your question incorrectly. The private sector has not undertaken this project because (a) no private companies have the kind of capital for a project of this magnitude and (b) no private company would be able to profit from the side benefits of this project such as increased commerce, cost savings on the current interstates, and job creation.

 

Sorry to specifically address you, but as an engineer is always pains me to see people who decide that they know more than senior engineers who have been working in this business for 40+ years (not me specifically but my bosses and the bosses at WisDOT). The average person has no idea the planning and thought process that goes into this type of work, yet when presented with a vague plan they have already decided that the people who are preparing it are wrong. In this thread alone I have seen people claim that the projected ridership is wrong, that the estimated cost is wrong, and even that it would be cheaper to construct and maintain 160 miles of new lanes than rail (try taking care of pavement through a WI winter). To those of you who have suggested these things, I would love to see some of your independent calculations. Now I am not saying the plan is perfect and there very well could be errors, but some of the responses here are people who have more than jumped to conclusions.

 

All that being said, I am happy to offer my opinion as someone who has done similar design work to what is being proposed. I will stop trying to convince people one way or another though as I have made my case and I think some have already made up there mind. I don't meet to come off too strong either. As an engineer I need to grow thicker skin. When tax money is involved everyone is going to have an opinion of your work and thats just something I have to get used to. End rant.

[TabbertBB]

For the record, no I am not an engineer and such. But the point I am attempting to make with the 3rd lane-- not that that is even a great idea, is this is like adding an outdoor swimming pool to a house in Wisconsin when they don't even fix or claim they don't have the money to fix broken windows. Fixing the broken windows would serve far better than coming up with something new like the swimming pool. Next we will hear that more bridges are falling apart yet, guess what, we will not have budgeted one dime for their repair.

[paul253]

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.

 

You're absolutely right, and that is a benefit....but again, at what cost? Are the temporary construction plus the maintenance/conductor/train staff jobs worth $810 million? Who knows? But wouldn't there be a lot of similar jobs just by having Amtrak service Madison?

 

My opinion on this is rather divided. Like Invader said, this seems like a real lousy and very rushed way to do this. The government is spending close to a billion dollars on a rail line that they didn't bother to really figure out how much use it will get. Those numbers thrown out earlier in this thread are absurd....something like 22,000 fares a week? Whoever came up with that number is obviously biased. I'd love to be able to hop on a train and get to Madison in 30-40 minutes but it's just not going to happen. I think once the initial "cool a new train" attitude wears off this system is going to be an enormous mistake. Our deficit this past year and these next two years are something like 3 times higher than any deficits in the history of our country. I'm just saying, is it so wrong to study this plan before you spend close to a billion dollars on it?

 

Oh, and just an fyi to anyone not familiar with Milwaukee. As Tabbert said, taking this thing to Miller Park isn't very convenient at all. From Madison you'll either have to get off in Brookfield and take a bus or cab a good distance east on I94 (during rush hour most likely), or get off downtown and take a bus or cab west on I94. A trip on a bus from downtown to Miller Park around 5pm or so will cost you about 20-30 minutes. They should add a stop at State Fair Park during the summer for Brewers games.

[owbc]

I concede that there is a 95% chance that it will get built, so I will comment on the best way to get it done. It would make the most sense to build the line in the median of I-94 or right alongside the highway. The land is already owned by the state and the grades/curves would not have to be significantly adjusted. In addition, the location would promote the railroad line. Cars chugging along in traffic or bad weather could watch the train comfortably blow by them at 80-100 mph. Stations could be built next to existing park and rides as well, which would easily connect the train to the bus lines and parking lots.

[thebruce44]

Those numbers thrown out earlier in this thread are absurd....something like 22,000 fares a week? Whoever came up with that number is obviously biased.

 

Paul, again, I would love to see some of your independent calculations if you are going to accuse the planners who came up with this as being biased and their work absurd. Do you actually have any concept of how many people 22,000 a week is because its actually not very much. A suburban Metra station I am working on right now has 15,000 just during the work week.

For the record, no I am not an engineer and such. But the point I am attempting to make with the 3rd lane-- not that that is even a great idea, is this is like adding an outdoor swimming pool to a house in Wisconsin when they don't even fix or claim they don't have the money to fix broken windows. Fixing the broken windows would serve far better than coming up with something new like the swimming pool. Next we will hear that more bridges are falling apart yet, guess what, we will not have budgeted one dime for their repair.

 

The government set aside this money for high speed rail. It can't be used for "broken windows" and it goes to another state if WI doesn't want it.

 

What specifically about the State Hwy system do you consider broken? The bridge issue is way overblown in my opinion though I am sure there is money budgeted for inspection after what happened in Minn.

[JJHardy7]

My opinion on this is rather divided. Like Invader said, this seems like a real lousy and very rushed way to do this. The government is spending close to a billion dollars on a rail line that they didn't bother to really figure out how much use it will get. Those numbers thrown out earlier in this thread are absurd....something like 22,000 fares a week? Whoever came up with that number is obviously biased. I'd love to be able to hop on a train and get to Madison in 30-40 minutes but it's just not going to happen. I think once the initial "cool a new train" attitude wears off this system is going to be an enormous mistake. Our deficit this past year and these next two years are something like 3 times higher than any deficits in the history of our country. I'm just saying, is it so wrong to study this plan before you spend close to a billion dollars on it?

 

It is not wrong to study a plan...how do we know there wasn't a study done of some sort? I mean if billions of dollars are being spent and there has been no study...that's dumb. I just highly, highly doubt that is the case. I'm not saying it's going to work, but I'm also not going to speak about things I don't know. I'm sure the fares per week weren't a number pulled out of thin air. I'm sure going forward we'll hear more about the research done. It does remain to be seen how accurate it will be.

[paul253]

Paul, again, I would love to see some of your independent calculations

if you are going to accuse the planners who came up with this as being

biased and their work absurd. Do you actually have any concept of how

many people 22,000 a week is because its actually not very much. A

suburban Metra station I am working on right now has 15,000 just during

the work week.

 

Obviously I have no engineering training, but I did get a B- in common sense in high school. Fist of all, if they haven't even determined where the train is going yet, how can they come up with an accurate estimate of ridership? Are they assuming that a stop in Madison is a stop in Madison, no matter where the stop actually is? Second, if they did this estimate based on the seemingly most common idea that its going to go to the Dane County Airport, I just can't imagine that many people going there every week. Again, not familiar with Madison at all but I believe I heard there really isn't much around there? Third, prices, to my knowledge, haven't been set yet and that will have a major affect on riders. People aren't going to pay $60 round trip every day. Finally, this idea has been very misleading from the get go with constant mentions of 110mph speeds. If they conducted studies/surveys based on that speed instead of the more accurate speed, those studies will also be flawed. Basically what I am saying is it's just my opinion that the numbers thrown out are the absolute rosiest of estimates based on 110mph speeds, cheap tickets, and convenient stops.

 

I think the Metra will be much more popular than this train will be so even 15,000 a week may be high.

[thebruce44]

Obviously I have no engineering training, but I did get a B- in common sense in high school.

 

Well then I am sure the study that you have never seen and have no knowledge of how it was put together is, as you said, absurd.

 

I think the Metra will be much more popular than this train will be so even 15,000 a week may be high.

 

My point was that you have no concept at all of what a ridership of 22,000 means, especially on an entire line that will be carrying riders from Chicago to Minneapolis by way of MKE to Madison. The 15,000 figure I provided was for a single stop on one of the less busy Metra lines. This is covered by 2 parking lots...its essentially a large park and ride for a city of 50,000.

 

The busiest Metra line actually has an average weekly ridership of 327,000. 22,000 or whatever for this line actually seems conservative to me despite your common sense.

[homer]

I started a thread over on the political board since it's starting to look like this one is headed downhill. Feel free to post over there and mock others opinions openly and without regret.

 

http://brewerfanpolitical....com?topic=754/master/1/

[Invader3K]

I do agree with the premise that adding another lane to an interstate is not a good long term solution. I mean, I always see that the eastbound lane of I-94 gets littered with pot holes after a bad snow storm. I believe I've read the average roadway needs to get replaced every 7 years. I would guess the maintenance on railway tracks is not comparable.

[RobertR]

It needs to be said, roads are not cheap to build. Especially not interstate roads. And adding a third lane calls for work on every bridge and structure. Land acquisition. And reevaluation of every on and off ramp. And perhaps rebuilding every bridge overpass. The I-94 expansion to the Illinois border has a budget of $1.9 billion and that's a much shorter stretch.

 

I see no real benefit to adding a third lane between Milwaukee and Madison as the stretch as a whole doesn't suffer from congestion, except maybe during Badger football and the day before deer hunting. If the choice is between a rail line, part of a larger Chicago to Minneapolis project, or a third lane, with minimal benefits and more cost, I'll go with the rail line. That's not a realistic alternative. The realistic alternatives are to do nothing or build a rail line.

 

I do want to read more on the plan though. Like where the train would end up in Madison. And what kind of connections there are from its depot. I most certainly could see an advantage if it's faster to get to the Capitol or UW. Heck, if you can divert some of the gameday traffic to rails, that would have added benefit of extending the life of the interstate. I think sticking the station out by the airport would undercut the project though.

 

Robert

[paul253]

Well then I am sure the study that you have never seen and have no knowledge of how it was put together is, as you said, absurd.

I really am trying to play nice here, but it seems as though instead of responding to my points you are just using personal shots and trying to downplay the points I have made by acting as though I am completely ignorant on the subject. I really do believe this topic doesn't have to be political so I will continue to comment on this thread so long as its open and other people are as well. To your above quote though....no....i do not know how the numbers were put together, as I stated it was just my opinion. I also stated though I was curious how they could even come up with accurate numbers before the route and prices were set. If you truly believe 3,100 people are going to travel from Milwaukee to the Dane County Airport every day at a cost of around $40-$60, that's certainly your right. I don't believe they will, though, as it would cost half that to drive....not to even mention convenience. Second, a few posts ago I wrote up the distances between each of the cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis) and used a rough estimate of how long it would take this new train to get from Chicago to Minneapolis (about 5 hours, give or take not including stops) which you never acknowledged. You seem to think its going to knock all this time off the current trains we have (8 hours 15 minutes/9 stops via Amtrak), but while I acknowledge it will knock some time off the trip the time it will knock off doesn't seem to be worth the cost.

People have stated over and over again that we need to get away from this "car attitude" we have but nobody can really give a good reason why. Is it because Europeans use trains and we are supposed to be like the Europeans? Is it because cars are going to destroy the world through global warming? If man-made global warming was set in stone I wouldn't think their scientists would have to make up and/or use false data to prove their point. So again....why exactly do we need to move away from cars? If the United States can build a train system that fits my needs better than cars do, then I will use it and I suspect a lot of people feel the same way. If I lived or worked in Chicago, I would most likely use the Metra. You certainly seem to think very highly of it, and for good reason. But I see very little demand for a train from Milwaukee to Madison. The fact that we wouldn't even be considering this unless we got "free money" from the Feds to build it seems to back my opinion.

My point was that you have no concept at all of what a ridership of
22,000 means, especially on an entire line that will be carrying riders
from Chicago to Minneapolis by way of MKE to Madison. The 15,000 figure
I provided was for a single stop on one of the less busy Metra lines.
This is covered by 2 parking lots...its essentially a large park and
ride for a city of 50,000.

I continue to ignore any comparisons between this and Metra because they serve two very different purposes. The Metra is successful because traffic in Chicago is atrocious. I've had to drive through Chicago around rush hour and it literally makes you want to get out and walk. Driving thru Chicago can literally take longer than driving from Milwaukee to Madison on occasions. Taking the Metra to and from the Chicago suburbs saves loads of time and is more than likely going to be much cheaper than tickets to this new train. Also, a heck of a lot more people work in downtown Chicago than work in downtown Milwaukee or the Dane County Airport. Just sheer the population of the city and its surrounding suburbs means a lot more people are going to be taking the train. The fact the Metra is successful provides me with no relief that it will carry over to this new train. I see what you're trying to say....I think That people from Madison will come to work in Milwaukee just like people from the Chicago suburbs come to downtown Chicago to work. I just don't buy it. Downtown Milwaukee just doesn't have that much business, while Madison probably has more business than the Chicago suburbs meaning the demand on both fronts will be less. Its not worth the cost....not now.

[RobertR]

FYI, info on the project can be found at http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/recovery/railroad.htm

 

Edit: I'll add that after looking over a bit of the documents, that I think it's a really good project for Madison when seen as part of a Madison-Chicago link and a Madison-Twin Cities link. Especially the Chicago connection. Less so from a Milwaukee-centric perspective since those links already exist and the Milwaukee-Madison benefit isn't as pronounced.

 

Robert

[thebruce44]

I really am trying to play nice here, but it seems as though instead of responding to my points you are just using personal shots and trying to downplay the points I have made by acting as though I am completely ignorant on the subject.

 

I am reacting to the fact that you admittedly know nothing about the project but decided that whoever did the work was bias and the results absurd. You have a laundry list of questions. Before making up your mind maybe you should find the answers. Why make definitive statements or claim that ridiculous alternatives are better and continually slam WisDOT? Thats the point I am trying to make, and its not just towards you. When further information is released I fear you will not even look at it or try to understand because of some of the incorrect conclusions you have already drawn. If you are open minded, then wait and make your decision at a later time. Its perfectly understandable to be confused, have questions, and want further information. The idea that this is being thrown together without a plan or that the information released so far is bias and absurd is, well, absurd. And I am not trying to pick on you in particular since others have posted similar thoughts. Its just the aqusatory tone and that the points you have made are completely insane to anyone who has even a little bit of experience in public works and development.

 

I continue to ignore any comparisons between this and Metra because they serve two very different purposes.

 

As I said before, the reason I posted that information isn't as a direct comparison, but because I don't think many people have a concept of what ridership means, especially when numbers get that high. The fact that you will ignore information pretty much confirms my fears that you have made your decision without any of the facts and are not open to further explanation. I skimmed through the DOT link Robert posted and will expand on a few points in my next post. I sincerely hope that you and others read it with an open mind.

[thebruce44]

Okay, skimmed through the DOT link at lunch and will just make a few points that address some issues people have raised so far:

 

1 - This will not be done along I-94, it will just be upgrading the existing rail lines between MKE-Watertown-Madison. Right now trains are limited to under 79 mph along those tracks, and there is no passenger travel between Watertown and Madison currently.

 

2 - The $800 mil price point is a bit misleading. $320 mil is needed to upgrade track. A lot of the rest goes towards stations, the trains themselves, incidentals, and inflation. It appears they are spending more now so that they will spend less later when the whole Midwest system is in place. Thats a good thing in my mind.

 

3 - There has in fact been planning done on this. It isn't in any way being thrown together. The planning has been going on since 1997 and has gone through many updates on the Federal Level and the State Level.

 

4 - At the height of the project they plan to directly create 5,500+ jobs.

 

5 - In the first full year of operation, they are projecting a ridership of 22,500 per week. Now I know some of you thought this number was absurd, but this is the ridership of the entire project, from Chi-Mke-Mad. By the 10th year of operation they are projecting a weekly ridership of almost 28k. This seems entirely reasonable. The current weekly ridership between Chi-Mke is heavily limited by the number of trains and operation speeds, yet it was still 14,500 in 2008 and trending upward greatly. All of these projections were done by Amtrak planners who should be pretty experienced in this regard.

 

6 - Ticket prices will be set to maximize ridership and revenue. Its not set in stone.

 

7 - Stations will be made in downtown Watertown, Oconomowoc, and Brookfield. This is essentially the light rail system they have been talking about for a while. Their cost is included in the total price.

 

8 - The operating subsidy for both completed lines is projected to be 15.6 mil. I hate to say it since I know that sounds like a lot, but this is nothing compared to the potential saving along I-94.

 

8 - The cost savings on I-94 for maintenance and congestion is amazing. This is being built with the 2030 population projections in mind. It is not a solution but will help out greatly.

[olliegjw]

4 - At the height of the project they plan to directly create 5,500+ jobs.

 

5 - In the first full year of operation, they are projecting a ridership of 22,500 per week. Now I know some of you thought this number was absurd, but this is the ridership of the entire project, from Chi-Mke-Mad. By the 10th year of operation they are projecting a weekly ridership of almost 28k. This seems entirely reasonable. The current weekly ridership between Chi-Mke is heavily limited by the number of trains and operation speeds, yet it was still 14,500 in 2008 and trending upward greatly. All of these projections were done by Amtrak planners who should be pretty experienced in this regard.

 

At the best estimate peak, we have:

 

28000 riders/wk * 52 weeks *$33/ticket = $48 million revenue

 

$48 million/5500 workers (your estimate) = $8736 per worker (YIPPEE!!!)

 

That does not include upgrade and maintenance of trains, fuel costs, insurance, payroll taxes, etc. The trains will most likely lose billions of dollars per year. Not to mention that the time savings is rather insignificant. At least the highway system pays for itself through gas taxes (remember the reserves being transferred to other funds).

[Bucky370]

thebruce44, I have a question for you. Being an engineer, would you personally benefit (job wise or career) by having this rail system? My point is if you do, you have a natural bias and should not be realistically included in this conversation. That would be like asking me, if I was a government worker to vote for a raise.

Their are a few bigger points that I also would like you to answer.

1. How do you convince those that perfer the freedom of driving, to ride a train that decreases their flexibility. How will you convince those with children that paying for fair of 3 or 4 at $25 or even $35 each direction, per person ($75 - $100, or $100 to $125) is cost effective. You know us here in wisconsin are generally more conservative and cost minded. To jump in the family car / mini van or even SUV, and at worst have 15 miles per gallon for 80 miles, That comes out to 80 / 15 * current price of about 2.70 to $14.40 one way. The argument doesn't change materially if you have a passenger car that gets 30mph, and quite a few of them today do, it just cuts it from $14.40 to $7.20. Ok, maybe you have to pay $10 for parking in madison, which is only if your downtown. In the burbs you won't have to pay for that. So $24.40 max, versus $75 to $125. Again, the question is how to you convince those in the state of Wisconsin to pay the addition $50 etc.

I understand this will be used mostly by the younger 20's crowd or those working in one or the other. But again, having the flexibitiliy if you have to work late, or get in early is something difficult to dispute. Unless your an 8 to 5 worker, the rail line is incredible un-flexible if their not running enough trains. But if they run too many trains, they will run more and more empty.

I concur with other here that we're not chicago and not as densly populated. Traffic between these cities is not bad and very uncomparable to chicago. So please keep the chicago comparison out of this, even the milwaukee / chicago amtrak comparison is fruitless since it includes the traffic in rush hour in chicago.

2. Please explain how some will be willing to schedule their commute on the timetable of the rail system over just jumping in their car and leaving when they want too? If the rail leaves on the hour, and I get off work at 5:30, now I have to bus it from some spot in Madison to the station, 10 to 20 minutes each side of the trip (location to station, and station to destination), than take a train that arguably will be a bit slower than driving. Now my time of just leaving at 5:30 driving, an avg easily of 60mph, will now be reduced to probably 40mph. (how do I calculate this, the train will avg about 50 at most for 80 miles (max distance) that's 1 hour 36 minutes plus 20 to 40 minutes, so 1 hour 56 minutes to 2 hour 06 minutes). If I jump in my car you can easily average 60 (with slower driving thru any of the city) and at the fastest 65 (like we all drive the speed limit, haha) that is 1 hour 20 minutes to 1 hour 14 minutes. Difference is 36 minutes to 46 minutes. In our society today, 36 to 46 minutes is a huge inconvience. How do you sell this to people?

So the two points, you pay more, and you spend more time on your travels. Please answer how you convice us to do this.

[thebruce44]

At the best estimate peak, we have:

 

28000 riders/wk * 52 weeks *$33/ticket = $48 million revenue

 

$48 million/5500 workers (your estimate) = $8736 per worker (YIPPEE!!!)

 

That 5500 figure is during the second year of the construction phase. When the train is in operation after construction it will have 55 full time employees for the Chi-Mke-Mad line.

 

The trains will most likely lose billions of dollars per year.

 

Seriously?! I mean really? You think the operation will lose more each year than its total construction cost? You think their figure of $15.6 mil is off by that much?

[thebruce44]

thebruce44, I have a question for you. Being an engineer, would you personally benefit (job wise or career) by having this rail system?

 

Not this rail system, no...not in any way. The line between Chicago and St. Louis possibly. I hope my company is trying to get their foot in the door for that job.

 

So the two points, you pay more, and you spend more time on your travels. Please answer how you convince us to do this.

 

I don't know how and thats not my job. But the planners are not pulling this information out of thin air. It costs more to travel by rail from Chicago to Mke then by driving, yet the ridership is climbing every year and is already very high. The rail service was already in place before the construction delays started and that combinded with rising gas prices are probably why it continues to get more popular. Furthermore, price points haven't been decided on and final speeds could very well be faster than driving at some point in the future.

 

Also, this is proceeding ahead right now with the idea that the population in the Mke to Mad area will increase 30% by 2030. By then the train may be a great way to travel if the traffic follows the projections. The idea with these large scale projects is to fix something before it becomes a problem, but then that just seems to anger people for spending the money. If you wait to fix it when the problem is obvious, they get even angrier. Sometimes you just can't win.

 

I am not trying to convince anyone here how they should travel, I am simply asking people to be a little open minded and not just assume the study is wrong, or worse yet, that no study has been done.

[olliegjw]

The trains will most likely lose billions of dollars per year.

 

Seriously?! I mean really? You think the operation will lose more each year than its total construction cost? You think their figure of $15.6 mil is off by that much?

Ok, billions is too high, but there is no way that they keep the annual cost under $63 million. I would be willing to wager a lot of money that they would not keep it under $100 million/year. Even with the $15.6 million estimate, does it make sense to spend $800 million in order to lose $15.6 million per year? Why not use the $800 million to create jobs that will have a long term benefit and create positive revenue for a debt-ridden government? If the state, or federal, government was swimming in excess money, it would be a hard sell. But, in today's economic times, it makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

[berniebrewer4life]

I wouldn't imagine children would pay full price. Most trains i have ridden have kids under 17 usually 1/2 price. Metra(different i know) has a deal where one adult ticket gets you 3 kids tickets free. As well as weekend passes, where you ride all weekend for $7. I can see how it would be a problem during the week, but if you were going to madison for the weekend, it would be a huge savings($7 for the whole family, both ways). Now obviously, this is all hypothetical, but i would imagine this train service would have similar price deals. And if you are going to be using it for work, there are usually rail passes, which offer discounts as well.

 

But again, having the flexibility if you have to work late, or get in early is something difficult to dispute.

 

You obviously have a lot more flexibility with a car, but unless by working late you mean, 11:30pm or so, i can't see these trains making a huge difference(i imagine them running every 1/2 hour or so). Let's say i have to work till 8pm. The train leaves at 8:45, i would probably just work till 8:30 and get to the train just fine.

 

In our society today, 36 to 46 minutes is a huge inconvience.

 

To some, yes. To others, no. The rail isn't going to be for everyone. If you are the type of person who likes to rush home and do what you need to do ASAP, then you obviously want to take a car. I personally, wouldn't mind relaxing a little bit on a train and unwinding before i get home. Same thing in the morning.

[Invader3K]

The problem with that argument is that, when is the government (state or federal) ever "swimming in money?" Debt can be managed...that can't be used as an excuse to not build infrastructure.

[Godspeed]

thebruce44 --- I just want to let you know that your input & perspective on this topic has been appreciated.

 

EDIT: also regarding the "flexibility" one gets from their car, how flexible is it in snowy weather or traffic jams or construction detours, etc.? Rail is an effective and consistent alternative in these scenarios.

[Bucky370]

Bernie,

 

I wouldn't imagine children would pay full price. Most trains i have ridden have kids under 17 usually 1/2 price. Metra(different i know) has a deal where one adult ticket gets you 3 kids tickets free. As well as weekend passes, where you ride all weekend for $7. I can see how it would be a problem during the week, but if you were going to madison for the weekend, it would be a huge savings($7 for the whole family, both ways). Now obviously, this is all hypothetical, but i would imagine this train service would have similar price deals. And if you are going to be using it for work, there are usually rail passes, which offer discounts as well.

 

If this is the case that discounts and monthly / weekly passes are cheaper, that blows the budget out of wack even more. Now technically you can take the 22k estimate of riders down for revenue's. How many though? I don't know, nor do I know that the estimate of 22k is realistic. Expenses won't go down, but the budgeted revenues will avg more like what, 15 to 20 per rider instead of 25 to 35? Just a guess, that's a big difference right? So who pays this difference, yes, the taxpayers of the state, and those that will never use the system.

 

To some, yes. To others, no. The rail isn't going to be for everyone. If you are the type of person who likes to rush home and do what you need to do ASAP, then you obviously want to take a car. I personally, wouldn't mind relaxing a little bit on a train and unwinding before i get home. Same thing in the morning.

 

I would easily say that majority if not almost everybody thinks the extra 35 to 45 minutes with their family is a big deal...right? How many of the people that travel to and fro have families? I have 2 young ones and want to spend as much time as I can with them.

 

Back to the costs, if I was being offered a job in madison at say 40k a year, and my costs are expected to rise, odds are I would move to madison before commuting. Even if I made 80k a year, odds are I would move to madision. I really think their is a misconception of how many people commute between the two cities for work. I personally, over the last 20 years, only know of 1 person that has. And like I stated above, he couldn't stand it and eventually moved.