Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[thebruce44]

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

 

Thanks, its good to know someone is using my input to help formulate their ideas. If someone thinks I am bias or just doesn't believe the points I am making I really encourage them to read the report Robert linked to. There is just so much incorrect assumption or wild exageration on here that I worry people are taking for fact.

 

Even with the $15.6 million estimate, does it make sense to spend $800 million in order to lose $15.6 million per year?

 

The $15.6 million will more than be made up for in maitenance savings on the roadways and the local economic impact. Think big picture. The report outlines and attempts to quantify just how much money this could save immediatly as well as in 2030.

[berniebrewer4life]

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.

 

Of course, but that's with the assumption that they are home before you. When i was a kid, i never beat my parents home, due to having soccer practice, or boy scouts or stuff like that. Now, if we are talking kids small enough where they aren't in school yet, or a work schedule that has you home later than them, then it makes a difference. Like i said, the rail isn't going to be for everyone, but i think it is going to be a very nice addition to our current infrastructure.

[RobertR]

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.

 

A point that I think is being constantly overlooked. This isn't a line just connecting Milwaukee to Madison. It's part of a line connecting Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to the Twin Cities. And I think that's part of what makes the ridership figures reasonable. You get not only Milwaukee / Madison ridership but also Chicago / Madison ridership on top of existing Chicago / Milwaukee ridership. Not to mention new stations in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown which makes it more accessible instead of just a downtown station. (And I can see both Brookfield Square and Johnson Creek outlets running shuttles to the train stations.) I don't think the stations out in the suburbs are a coincidence at all. They're hubs. And a considerable part of the cost of the project.

 

I think that's part of the key to the project. The people that drive to Chicago from Waukesha County, Jefferson County, and Dane County, paying for gas, tolls, and parking.

 

Robert

[Bucky370]

At what cost though is it really a nice addition to our infrastructure. As you said it's not for everyone, but if it runs as a deficit, now everybody is paying for something they will never use. Using other train services (and I won't say high speed rail, because that it is not) almost all run significantly as a loss. If it wasn't for the government funding Amtrak would have gone broke a long time ago.

 

If you traveling from madison leaving even at 5, live in milwaukee, your lucky to be home in a car by 6;30. That's well before kids are home after soccer practice. Most schools are out at what, 2:30, they practice for about 1 to 1 1/2 hours, usually home by 5 or 5:30 at the latest. And again as I stated, most people with families probably would just move instead of make the daily trek back and forth. My point of this is I think the #'s of 22.8k users annually are quite inflated. I can't imagine that many users especially if the cost is higher to ride a train over driving.

 

Bruce, even if you won't answer your bias question, please answer the other two. I do thank you for your input, but I obviously do not share your opinion that this is a cost effective addtion to our infrastructure. Not to mention I'm not convinced that it creates more than 500 to 1000 jobs. But that being said, it's 500 or 1000 jobs on the taxpayers dime if it doesn't run as at least as break even entity.

[Bucky370]

A point that I think is being constantly overlooked. This isn't a line just connecting Milwaukee to Madison. It's part of a line connecting Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to the Twin Cities. And I think that's part of what makes the ridership figures reasonable. You get not only Milwaukee / Madison ridership but also Chicago / Madison ridership on top of existing Chicago / Milwaukee ridership. Not to mention new stations in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown which makes it more accessible instead of just a downtown station. (And I can see both Brookfield Square and Johnson Creek outlets running shuttles to the train stations.) I don't think the stations out in the suburbs are a coincidence at all. They're hubs. And a considerable part of the cost of the project.


Does this mean that amtrak goes broke or shuts down their line? Or is this just a amtrak from chicago to milwaukee, than jump on another train milwaukee to say waukesha? Does the ticket allow for transfers? If so the costs to ride from milwaukee to chicago are free essentially. If it's part of 1 network, than amtrak probably should cease to exist as the ridership will corresponently decrease!

[RobertR]

I just want to interject one point. Roads run at a deficit as we're discussing here. A huge one. There's a reason we don't have private roads.

 

And that's part of the point, to divert some of the ridership from roads to rail. To spend $800 million to save probably in excess of $3 billion to run a third lane to Madison, along with added maintenance costs.

 

Robert

[thebruce44]

Bruce, even if you won't answer your bias question, please answer the other two. I do thank you for your input, but I obviously do not share your opinion that this is a cost effective addtion to our infrastructure. Not to mention I'm not convinced that it creates more than 500 to 1000 jobs. But that being said, it's 500 or 1000 jobs on the taxpayers dime if it doesn't run as at least as break even entity.

Come on man, I already answered all 3. I even addressed the jobs issue. It will be 55 jobs when running. Durring construction it will be significantly more. Please, please, please read my posts.

[olliegjw]

I just want to interject one point. Roads run at a deficit as we're discussing here. A huge one. There's a reason we don't have private roads.

 

And that's part of the point, to divert some of the ridership from roads to rail. To spend $800 million to save probably in excess of $3 billion to run a third lane to Madison, along with added maintenance costs.

 

Robert

Do roads run at a huge deficit? All licensing fees and gas taxes have to come close to covering the maintenance costs.

 

Why spend $800 million, when the roads aren't crowded at all 99% of the time. So, no $3 billion for a 3rd lane is necessary either.

 

 

[RobertR]

 

 

Does this mean that amtrak goes broke or shuts down their line? Or is this just a amtrak from chicago to milwaukee, than jump on another train milwaukee to say waukesha? Does the ticket allow for transfers? If so the costs to ride from milwaukee to chicago are free essentially. If it's part of 1 network, than amtrak probably should cease to exist as the ridership will corresponently decrease!

This is an extension of Amtrak service. It's Hiawatha extended. With suburban station hubs.

 

Here, from the first paragraph of the report, which I highly encourage people to read.

 

The purpose of high speed intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) service along the corridor between

Milwaukee and Madison is to help meet travel demands by re-establishing reliable, efficient, frequent,

and cost-effective rail service within the corridor. In order for HSIPR service to be a competitive

alternative to highway and air travel, it needs to be more reliable, more frequent, and provide amenities

that are attractive to potential rail travelers. High speed rail service in this corridor will also serve the

purpose of promoting intermodal connections within the region. The service will provide 6 daily roundtrips

between Milwaukee and Madison in 2013. These trains will be an extension of the existing

Chicago-Milwaukee Amtrak Hiawatha Service, which will continue to provide 7 round-trips between

Chicago and Milwaukee. The Milwaukee to Madison service is a key component of Phase 1 of the

Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS).

Again, I think it's really important to look at the overall view of the plan. The idea isn't just to create a glorified trolley with two end points. They're creating a modern interstate railway.

 

I haven't read the report in depth, but there's nothing glaring that jumps out at me as a completely unfounded or overly optimisitic assumptions. My main concern would be the location of the Madison station from preventing the plan from really flourishing. The other stations appear to make sense, but a station that's not really close to the Capitol and UW is a strike against the plan, IMO.

Robert

 

 

[olliegjw]

It will be 55 jobs when running. Durring construction it will be significantly more. Please, please, please read my posts.

$800 million for 55 full-time jobs?? Can't they find another way that would add more jobs, in this high unemployment state. That $800 million could pay a salary of $40,000 this year to 20,000 people (not taking into account payroll taxes). Plus, that $40,000 per person would result in more income taxes paid to both the state and federal governments. And those 20,000 people would have money to spend, which would result in more sales tax collected by the state. Doesn't that seem to make more sense than a train that loses $15+ million/yr, and creates a whopping 55 full-time jobs?

 

 

[RobertR]

Do roads run at a huge deficit? All licensing fees and gas taxes have to come close to covering the maintenance costs.

 

Why spend $800 million, when the roads aren't crowded at all 99% of the time. So, no $3 billion for a 3rd lane is necessary either.

 

And all fees and taxes will cover the railway maintenance costs. The basic point is that there's no free lunch. And, roads aren't cheap to build and maintain. That's why we have gas taxes, licensing fees, etc.

 

But, I think the main point is that you have to look at transportation on a holistic basis. I'm sure if you broke it down by roads, some roads would run at a deficit of benefit to cost. The idea is to figure rail into the equation and what are the benefits. Yeah, it would be great if rail broke even based on ridership and fares. However, if you lose $15 million on rail, but save $30 million in road and bridge maintenance and building costs, you still come out ahead. And that's a good deal for the taxpayer. That's a win/win, if the report is accurate. More options and less overall cost.

 

Robert

[olliegjw]

And all fees and taxes will cover the railway maintenance costs. The basic point is that there's no free lunch. And, roads aren't cheap to build and maintain. That's why we have gas taxes, licensing fees, etc.

 

But, I think the main point is that you have to look at transportation on a holistic basis. I'm sure if you broke it down by roads, some roads would run at a deficit of benefit to cost. The idea is to figure rail into the equation and what are the benefits. Yeah, it would be great if rail broke even based on ridership and fares. However, if you lose $15 million on rail, but save $30 million in road and bridge maintenance and building costs, you still come out ahead. And that's a good deal for the taxpayer. That's a win/win, if the report is accurate. More options and less overall cost.

 

Robert

All taxes and fees will not cover the rail costs. The only revenue is from the fees. There is no tax revenue with the rails, unless the government pays itself gas tax, which would be a wash at best. With the roads, cars are paying $0.51 for every 25 miles (average MPG). There is no such corresponding tax revenue for trains. That would come out of the general fund (which is already currently running at a deficit).

 

 

[thebruce44]

It will be 55 jobs when running. Durring construction it will be significantly more. Please, please, please read my posts.

$800 million for 55 full-time jobs?? Can't they find another way that would add more jobs, in this high unemployment state. That $800 million could pay a salary of $40,000 this year to 20,000 people (not taking into account payroll taxes). Plus, that $40,000 per person would result in more income taxes paid to both the state and federal governments. And those 20,000 people would have money to spend, which would result in more sales tax collected by the state. Doesn't that seem to make more sense than a train that loses $15+ million/yr, and creates a whopping 55 full-time jobs?

It is something that the state feels needs to be done as part of the 2030 regional transportation plan. Working on it now while unemployment is high makes sense as it will front load a large number of jobs in the next 5 years or so during the construction. Once completed, staffing will obviously not be nearly as high. It will use a lot of computerized systems to keep operating costs low.

 

The jobs that will be created for construction are just a fringe benefit of this. The real benefit will be $$ savings to the DOT after it is completed and a positive economic impact on SE WI. As I said before, the report outlines how it will actually save the state and general public a lot of money even though Amtrak's passenger service line will need to be subsidized by $15 mil. Robert mentioned it and I have as well...people really should read the report if they are so concerned with this issue. My brief outline was just meant to answer some of the questions that have already been posed.

[olliegjw]

From skimming through the financial report:

 

1. They expect the riders from Milwaukee-Madison to be just over 300,000. The total riders currently from mil-chi is about 800,000. Intuitively, I would think that the Mil-Chi line would produce much more than 2-3 times the Mil-Mad route, due to Chicago's traffic problems.

 

2. The current average fare/passenger on the Hiawatha line is $18-19 per passenger. The Mil-Mad projection show an average of $24/passenger, while the Mil-Chi projection remains at $18-19/passenger. Why would the Madison line be 33% more on average when both routes are about the same distance and would take roughly the same time?

 

Those two things alone make me think that the projections are way off.

[TabbertBB]

To a comment above about just catching the next train about 30 to 45 minutes later--- Just how many trains are going to be on this track going back and forth?

Will there be 1 train? 2 trains? 25 trains? nd how will all these trains be on the tracks?

I just don't think this train will be running one night, such as last night with a Badger Basketball game, and then no train tonight with no event in Madison. Either the train will be running at 11pm with nobody in it or it will not be running when there is a Basketball game. It is not random.

[RobertR]

All taxes and fees will not cover the rail costs. The only revenue is from the fees. There is no tax revenue with the rails, unless the government pays itself gas tax, which would be a wash at best. With the roads, cars are paying $0.51 for every 25 miles (average MPG). There is no such corresponding tax revenue for trains. That would come out of the general fund (which is already currently running at a deficit).

 

So, what are you arguing here? That artificial walls in the budget make no sense if they end up costing the taxpayers more in the long run?

 

I think it's a fair question if we've reached the point of diminishing returns on roads or not. I don't know the answer to that, but I think absolutely looking at a road budget and a rail budget as opposed to a transportation budget doesn't make sense in the long run.

 

I'm going to have to sit down and look over the report thoroughly. One of the things that jumps out at me is two stations in Waukesha County. And apparently phasing in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown at the same time. I think the idea of hubs in the route makes a lot of sense in the big picture, but would it perhaps make more sense to phase them in differently? Say, build the Brookfield and Watertown stations right away and the Oconomowoc station in 3 or 4 years? Or vice versa? And where are they putting the Madison station?

 

I do absolutely think that linking Madison to the larger passenger rail network is long overdue. And I think if you live in Madison you should be all for it.

 

Robert

[olliegjw]

Tabbert, the report says that there will be 6-7 roundtrips daily, with 2 trains running. I did not see times listed, but I would guess one would depart every 2.5 hours or so. Lets guess they start at 7:00 AM it would go 7:00, 9:30, 12:00, 2:30, 5:00, 7:30, and maybe 11:00? The times might even be spread out more, since a train can only be going in one direction at a time. Not to mention, there are a couple of freight companies that will be sharing the line as well.

[RobertR]

To a comment above about just catching the next train about 30 to 45 minutes later--- Just how many trains are going to be on this track going back and forth?

Will there be 1 train? 2 trains? 25 trains? nd how will all these trains be on the tracks?

I just don't think this train will be running one night, such as last night with a Badger Basketball game, and then no train tonight with no event in Madison. Either the train will be running at 11pm with nobody in it or it will not be running when there is a Basketball game. It is not random.

According to the report:

 

The envisioned mix of railroad services between Milwaukee and Madison is summarized as follows:

Intercity Passenger Service Trip Goals:

•

Initially with implementation of MWRRI Phase I: 6 daily round-trips Milwaukee and Madison

•

Service vision with implementation of MWRRI Phase II: 10 daily round-trips when service is

extended to the Minneapolis/St. Paul

•

Travel time between Madison and Milwaukee: Approximately 1 hour 9 minutes (express) and 1

hour 14 minutes (local)

•

Fare: $20-$33

•

Total Seats Accommodated: Approximately 424

•

Train consist: Modern train equipment with trainset length approximately 697 feet

•

Speed: Maximum speed 110 mph

Long Distance Passenger Service Trips:

•

Long Distance Empire Builder (Chicago to Seattle) Service

o

Service exists today and is expected to continue through 2030

o

Service uses track between Milwaukee and Watertown; there are no stops made at

Watertown

•

Total daily roundtrips: 1

Freight Trips:

•

Estimated 2014 daily trips

o

Between Milwaukee and Watertown: 22

o

Between Watertown and Madison: 5

•

Estimated 2030 daily trips:

o

Between Milwaukee and Watertown: 32

o

Between Watertown and Madison: 5

•

Train consist: varies up to approximately 7,000 feet (108 cars)

I'm going to stop linking but most of the answers to the basic questions are in the report and what they see as the benefits. Also, looking through the other reports, I'd expect some side by side sections to accomodate more than one train at a time.

 

Robert

[Bucky370]

$800 million for 55 full-time jobs?? Can't they find another way that would add more jobs, in this high unemployment state. That $800 million could pay a salary of $40,000 this year to 20,000 people (not taking into account payroll taxes). Plus, that $40,000 per person would result in more income taxes paid to both the state and federal governments. And those 20,000 people would have money to spend, which would result in more sales tax collected by the state. Doesn't that seem to make more sense than a train that loses $15+ million/yr, and creates a whopping 55 full-time jobs?

 

 

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding. Jobs creation is the name of the game right now. Not fruitlessly spending money for infrastructure that I believe the masses will never use. I was trying to give Bruce a shot to convince me the masses would use this system. Bruce, I read this entire thread earlier today and you do not have me convinced that we really really need to spend 800m (even if it's from the fed, it's still tax payer money coming from where, your gov't debt or your federal taxes). This 800m could be spent in a significantly more effective manner to restart the economy, not just 55 or so jobs in the long run.

 

I'll answer this for you bruce.....How to you convince people to use this system. 1. make is cost effective, which means you have to charge relatively low rates for the system, problem is, it is almost impossible to do that just of the nature the cost of the fuel etc etc etc. 2. make it faster than what my current travel plans would be, that would mean making it true high speed rail that goes over 100mph as an average. You should be able to build the system between west / east traffic along 94 without having to any purchasing of land rights etc.

 

The whole plan I know has good intents but doesn't make fiscal sense at all and is not an effective use of our tax dollars.

[thebruce44]

You have shown repeatedly that you have not read my posts. I am sorry I was unable to convince you, but I am not going to spoon feed you a 200 page report so that you have the necessary facts to make an informed opinion.

 

edit: My goal here was never to convince anyone that this was a good idea, instead my goal was to get people to keep an open mind and make an informed decision instead of listening to some of the wild conjecture and exaggeration that is being thrown around. In that respect, I feel as thought I have massively failed.

 

I also wanted to provide my opinion on the planning, construction, maintenance, and

cost side of this project since those are topics the average person is not

very familiar with. If people want to think they are experts, that I am bias, and that they know more than the people who put this togeather they can go ahead and do that. I am just glad they are not the ones who make the decisions.

[TabbertBB]

And we are only concerned about the number of stops between Milwaukee and Madison being too mnay and making this too slow. Just how many stops do you think will be made between Madison and the Twin Cities?

[olliegjw]

You have shown repeatedly that you have not read my posts. I am sorry I was unable to convince you, but I am not going to spoon feed you a 200 page report so that you have the necessary facts to make an informed opinion.

There are very few facts in the report: we know a train will run from Milwaukee to some place in the Madison area, with some stops along the way. They will purchase 2 trains, and update the current train line to accomodate the "high speed" train.

 

The number of routes, passengers, fares, stops, times, and total costs are all estimates. It is questionable if many of those estimates are even close to being realistic. The history of governmental infrastructure projects, and cost overruns are well-known. Later this week, I will search to see if I can find estimates on the Hiawatha line when it was put up. Also, the Twin Cities system that was installed a few years ago.

 

 

[TabbertBB]

Again just throwing out an idea if "job creation" is the main idea. Then why don't they just start spending some of that $1 trillion coming from the money tree on tearing down some of the old warehouses and create some new housing projects. As an example, on East Washington just past the Capitol there are a bunch of old warehouse and old factories that could be demolished and turned into new housing for students people in Madison.

Just an idea. I am not saying this is the #1 idea but it would rank higher up than this train idea. Or start replacing the holes that college students live in, 10 deep or so.

Everything doesn't need to be a new idea, there can be replacement ideas.

[thebruce44]

There are very few facts in the report: we know a train will run from Milwaukee to some place in the Madison area, with some stops along the way. They will purchase 2 trains, and update the current train line to accomodate the "high speed" train.

 

The number of routes, passengers, fares, stops, times, and total costs are all estimates. It is questionable if many of those estimates are even close to being realistic. The history of governmental infrastructure projects, and cost overruns are well-known. Later this week, I will search to see if I can find estimates on the Hiawatha line when it was put up. Also, the Twin Cities system that was installed a few years ago.

 

How are they suposed to give anything beyond estimates for something that hasn't been built yet. "Some stops along the way?" How about 3 stops. For the other things you listed, do you want them to lock into how many routes and fare prices right now? If you don't trust those estimates thats your prerogative, but I doubt you have a better information source or a better way to arrive at these figures. If you are just that against estimates and planning or anything done by the government with tax money, then lets just let the entire infrastructure system degrade and not do anything to it. Your housing projects would require planning and estimates too, would you trust those? In terms of the cost overruns, 200 mill is actually budgeted for inflation and incidentals.

 

Again just throwing out an idea if "job creation" is the main idea.

 

Where did you get the idea that that was the main idea. I said before it was one of many fringe benefits.

 

Everything doesn't need to be a new idea, there can be replacement ideas.

 

Does upgrading existing tracks for high speed travel not count?

[thebruce44]

Tabbert, the report says that there will be 6-7 roundtrips daily, with 2 trains running. I did not see times listed, but I would guess one would depart every 2.5 hours or so. Lets guess they start at 7:00 AM it would go 7:00, 9:30, 12:00, 2:30, 5:00, 7:30, and maybe 11:00? The times might even be spread out more, since a train can only be going in one direction at a time. Not to mention, there are a couple of freight companies that will be sharing the line as well.

They way they would most likely do it is to schedule the trains according to peak hours or events. That means during the morning rush hour you have 2 trains. Then maybe one or two mid-day. Then 2 more during the night rush hour. Then a late one. The idea is to take pressure off the interstate and that would be the most efficient way IMO.