Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[RobertR]

Frankly, for some buildings and rail lines, I don't know why we wouldn't trust those estimates. They're not building a rocket to Mars, just upgrading and building existing systems. Considering the engineering challenges of the Marquette including working in the middle of the city, scheduling demolition of structures for specific dates, etc. this should be a relatively straight forward project in comparison.

 

One of the things that came along with the digital / computer revolution were much better databases for calculating how much it will cost to build something. There's a reason that the Marquette Interchange came in under budget. For building this project, I trust the $800 million quite a bit. I wouldn't argue that too much. Considering that the project will be competitively bid, I expect the actual cost to come in under it. WDOT isn't much for change orders.

 

I do think it would be prudent to pay attention to their ridership estimates and how they derived those numbers. I don't think those numbers are at all beyond the range of possiblity, they're basically assuming only about 2/3rds of capacity on average or about 270 passengers a trip, but of course the devil is in the details. And I haven't delved that deeply into the guts of the report yet. But, first glance indicates that it's a more than competent report.

 

Robert

[owbc]

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

This is stimulus money, so yes, job creation is the main idea--or at least that's how Congress and the President sold the package to the American public.

[Invader3K]

Yes, that's how the administration and Congress sold it, but if you look at where the money is going, by and large it was spent on infrastructure (ie. "pork projects"). Building and fixing infrastructure isn't necessarily a bad thing, though.

[RobertR]

FYI, Page 81 of the Appendices has a sample schedule. As is usual, that's where the guts of the report is.

 

After glancing through it, I'm fairly comfortable with the operating estimates. Heck, it's not hard to figure out how much it costs to run a train. I'm sure Amtrak has plenty of information on that.

 

I'm still looking for the ridership estimates which I do think bear careful scrutinty.

 

Edit: The capital cost budget starts on page 217 of the appendices. It's fat with contingency. They really should be able to come in below budget.

 

Robert

[pretendastronaut]

Some thoughts from watching this thread unfold;

 

1- I want to also echo that I really appreciate the insight thebruce44 is bringing to the conversation. Accusing him of bias and that he has no place in the conversation is unfounded. As far as I'm aware, he's the only one in this thread who has any life experience related to these issues, he's obviously going to have a better understanding of issues then we do, that's not bias. Unfortunately, as he's experiencing, we're all experts on the internet.

 

2- There seems to be a lot of double speak about the jobs creation issue and I don't think anyone is stating it correctly or clearly, but more how they prefer to view it. What Obama has said about the stimulus and jobs creation is that the stimulus is ultimately about putting people to work in the present, to build the infrastructure we need into the future when the economy is back on it's feet. So yes, it's about jobs for the next few years of construction, but not about people having these jobs forever, and in having these jobs, we begin developing the technologies our future needs. So it's not fair to attack this first that it will create to many jobs (as was done earlier in the thread), and then that it won't create enough long term (as is being done now). If you'll recall the stimulus was initially attacked because these construction jobs weren't "careers".

 

3- I don't understand why people are coming up with these scenarios about today, and examples about if I have this many people in a car, why would I take the train, etc., and then using that as a defeat against the rail line. It doesn't make sense. This isn't meant to outright replace how we transport ourselves (if it was, it would have to be far larger than it's going to be), it's meant as a supplement. And yes, this is a change in our way of lives into the future, so comparing it to how we do things today isn't going to mesh up perfectly, and it will be met with resistance. But at some point we are going to need alternative methods of transportation, and an efficient rail line makes sense. If you don't believe/care about the environmental issues, that's fine, because on a logistical standpoint, we can't just keep putting everyone into more cars and putting those onto the roadways, we simply won't have the space for all of these cars as our living areas continue to populate.

 

4- The repeated questions that center around, "here's what I like about cars, why would anyone ever want something different?" as justification for it being a failure. The fact of the matter is there are people who are willing to trade one convenience for another. It won't likely be a majority of the populace at first, or even for a very long time, but that doesn't mean there won't be enough people to make the idea worthwhile either.

[thebruce44]

1- I want to also echo that I really appreciate the insight thebruce44 is bringing to the conversation. Accusing him of bias and that he has no place in the conversation is unfounded. As far as I'm aware, he's the only one in this thread who has any life experience related to these issues, he's obviously going to have a better understanding of issues then we do, that's not bias. Unfortunately, as he's experiencing, we're all experts on the internet.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

As I said before, I am not trying to convince anyone one way or another. At this point I will just say that the information is all there for people to look at. If anyone has any questions they would like me to address that deal with the cost, planning, or engineering side I will do my best to answer them. If you want to ask me about how this effects your individual family and friends or how it is going to be marketed I can only help with the big picture items.

[brew64]

Great thread. I've just skimmed it, so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said.

 

First, I've always liked the idea of rail - either light rail within cities, or interstate rail (which is what the Madison - Milwaukee segment will ultimately be part of). To me, the main benefits are reducing our reliance on foreign oil, reducing congestion, reducing travel times, and being able to read/work instead of driving. However, the more I see the dollar costs and estimated travel times, the more I become skeptical.

 

From this article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (the graphic in the story gives travel times), it shows that with the proposed rail line, to go from Minneapolis to Chicago it would take 5:21 hours by rail , by car 6:39 hours, by bus 8 hours, and by plane 1:20 hours. I know that by plane you add maybe an hour with check-in/security, etc. But with rail being only 1:20 hours faster than car, I think most people would drive - especially when more than one person is the same cost by car, but increases from the additional train tickets. Then there is the hurdle of getting around at your destination. I assume the numbers are based on making one stop in each city. If it stopped at say the state fair grounds, Miller Park, Downtown, and MKE (and multiple stops in other cities), then the total travel time is even worse.

 

I think the money would be better spent adding light rail within Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago. This would help solve a problem people have everyday - traffic. I've never thought of travel between Minneapolis and Chicago as a problem that needed to be solved. The current options work fine - want to travel between the two cheap and slow, then drive; if you want to go fast and expensive, then fly. I'm not sure there is room in the middle from a market perspective for rail. It just doesn't save much time compared to car.

 

Just my $.02

[olliegjw]

I don't think anyone is trying to change anyones mind. It is just that people have different perspectives, which is a good thing. It all comes down to whether you believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Even if the report's projections are accurate, which I don't, is it worth $1 billion dollars over the next 10 years?

[RobertR]

Great thread. I've just skimmed it, so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said.

 

First, I've always liked the idea of rail - either light rail within cities, or interstate rail (which is what the Madison - Milwaukee segment will ultimately be part of). To me, the main benefits are reducing our reliance on foreign oil, reducing congestion, reducing travel times, and being able to read/work instead of driving. However, the more I see the dollar costs and estimated travel times, the more I become skeptical.

 

From this article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (the graphic in the story gives travel times), it shows that with the proposed rail line, to go from Minneapolis to Chicago it would take 5:21 hours by rail , by car 6:39 hours, by bus 8 hours, and by plane 1:20 hours. I know that by plane you add maybe an hour with check-in/security, etc. But with rail being only 1:20 hours faster than car, I think most people would drive - especially when more than one person is the same cost by car, but increases from the additional train tickets. Then there is the hurdle of getting around at your destination. I assume the numbers are based on making one stop in each city. If it stopped at say the state fair grounds, Miller Park, Downtown, and MKE (and multiple stops in other cities), then the total travel time is even worse.

 

I think the money would be better spent adding light rail within Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago. This would help solve a problem people have everyday - traffic. I've never thought of travel between Minneapolis and Chicago as a problem that needed to be solved. The current options work fine - want to travel between the two cheap and slow, then drive; if you want to go fast and expensive, then fly. I'm not sure there is room in the middle from a market perspective for rail. It just doesn't save much time compared to car.

 

Just my $.02

 

I agree the farther you have to travel, the less sense rail makes.

 

That said, I'm looking at the schedules, page 81 of the appendices, and here are what I think are the attractive routes. Basically intermediate distances, too long to drive, too short to fly.

 

Madison to Chicago - approximately 3 hours

(Certainly faster than you can drive, especially during rush hour. Depending on where you're going in Chicago, probably faster then you can fly.)

Presumably Madison to the Twin Cities will eventually have a similar time.

 

Milwaukee to Chicago - about 1 and 1/2 hours

(Definitely faster than you can drive. Or fly with checkin.)

 

Watertown to Milwaukee Airport - about 1 hour

 

Watertown to Chicago - about 2 hours 15 minutes

 

Oconomowoc to Milwaukee Airport - about 45 minutes

 

Oconomowoc to Chicago - about 2 hours

 

Brookfield to Milwaukee Airport - about 1/2 hour

 

Brookfield to Chicago - about 1 hour 45 minutes

 

Obviously pricing matters, but those times look like good alternatives to me. While something like Watertown to Madison doesn't make much sense. Except for perhaps the business traveler. Get dropped off at a train station near the house and ride to an airport from there.

 

Edit: Actually, you should do better than that on most of those as I believe the schedules are based on departure times. Departure to arrival should be shorter.

 

Robert

[olliegjw]

3- I don't understand why people are coming up with these scenarios about today, and examples about if I have this many people in a car, why would I take the train, etc., and then using that as a defeat against the rail line. It doesn't make sense. This isn't meant to outright replace how we transport ourselves (if it was, it would have to be far larger than it's going to be), it's meant as a supplement. And yes, this is a change in our way of lives into the future, so comparing it to how we do things today isn't going to mesh up perfectly, and it will be met with resistance. But at some point we are going to need alternative methods of transportation, and an efficient rail line makes sense. If you don't believe/care about the environmental issues, that's fine, because on a logistical standpoint, we can't just keep putting everyone into more cars and putting those onto the roadways, we simply won't have the space for all of these cars as our living areas continue to populate.

 

According to the report, the trains will not be as environmentally friendly as cars. On page 16 of the report, it states that 279,064 gallons of diesel fuel will be used with today's infrastructure, in the year 2030. That is 11.17 gallons per passenger (based on the 25,000 weekly passengers estimated in the report). With the rail improvements, they say they can reduce the fuel consumption 36% to 177,600 gallons. That would still be 7.1 gallons per passenger. With an automobile (if every passenger drove their own car), it would take an average of about 4 gallons to drive from Milwaukee to Madison. By 2030, car's would use even less gallons than that.

 

The gallons of fuel for the trains do include freight gallons used. However, a majority of the gallons will be used for passenger service, and any decrease in gallons/passenger due to that adjustment would be more than offset by the fact that there would be more than one passenger in some of the automobiles making the trip.

[RobertR]

According to the report, the trains will not be as environmentally friendly as cars. On page 16 of the report, it states that 279,064 gallons of diesel fuel will be used with today's infrastructure, in the year 2030. That is 11.17 gallons per passenger (based on the 25,000 weekly passengers estimated in the report). With the rail improvements, they say they can reduce the fuel consumption 36% to 177,600 gallons. That would still be 7.1 gallons per passenger. With an automobile (if every passenger drove their own car), it would take an average of about 4 gallons to drive from Milwaukee to Madison. By 2030, car's would use even less gallons than that.

 

The gallons of fuel for the trains do include freight gallons used. However, a majority of the gallons will be used for passenger service, and any decrease in gallons/passenger due to that adjustment would be more than offset by the fact that there would be more than one passenger in some of the automobiles making the trip.

You're misreading the report. That fuel consumption is for the Empire Builder (which goes all the way out to Seattle) and freight. The tipoff in that paragraph should be when they talk about existing service. They talk about daily fuel consumption of 5,217 gallons for the 6-train service later in the paragraph. And that train route is from Chicago to Madison.

 

Robert

 

 

[randybreuerfan]

Wait, let me get this straight, RobertR. Olliegjw suggested that in a regular day, the train would use 8 gallons/rider compared to 4 gallons/car. The actual estimate for the train is ~ 0.2 gallons/rider? That's a huge difference!

[thebruce44]

Wait, let me get this straight, RobertR. Olliegjw suggested that in a regular day, the train would use 8 gallons/rider compared to 4 gallons/car. The actual estimate for the train is ~ 0.2 gallons/rider? That's a huge difference!

No different than when he claimed the report was wrong for estimating a $15 mil deficit and said it would instead be in the "billions."

 

Olliegjw, I am glad you are reading the report, but it seems like you are just looking through it trying to find faults and errors instead of trying to understand it. If you find something that doesn't make sense to you then please pose the question here.

 

However please realize that if something doesn't make sense to you, you don't have to announce that the report is wrong or post your incorrect calculations here as fact. I know you are very against this train, but posting insanely wrong information doesn't help anyone.

[TracyThom]

I haven't seen much actual discussion here talking about whether or not you will use this service. I live in eastern Dane County. When we fly, we usually fly out of MKE due to the fares being much cheaper than Dane County. If just my wife is flying out town, I'll drive her to Mitchell International and drop her off, and then pick her up when she gets back. Although a pain in the butt, it saves on parking. When the new rail line is built, I can imagine us making the 25 minute drive to Watertown and then taking the train to MKE that way.

 

Also, if the station in downtown Milwaukee is anywhere near the Bradley Center, we would take the train for Bucks and Admirals games, as well as concerts.

[homer]

Also, if the station in downtown Milwaukee is anywhere near the Bradley

Center, we would take the train for Bucks and Admirals games, as well

as concerts.

They're about a 3/4 of a mile apart. Cheap cab ride if it's too cold.

[SenatorShriv]

I am not an expert on transportation policies or the specifics of this plan but I know that the modeling and planning that goes into these efforts is extremely rigorous so I'm inclined to trust the ridership estimates. The conversations that I've had with folks working directly on these issues indicate that they are being fairly concervative with their approach and that there is a good chance the costs will be lower and the benfits will be greater than the initial estimates. I believe that they will design the service in a way that will maximize ridership and will make it a viable alternative to highway travel. State and local transit experts have been at the table every step of the way to ensure that local transit will be integrated into the broader midwest rail plans so I'm not too worried about where the specific Madison stops will be.

 

I travel from Madison to Milwaukee for work about once every other week and have several co-workers who make the trek once or twice a week. After taking a quick poll in the office this week it was unanimously agreed that it would be great to use that commute time actually doing work rather than constantly worrying about what the traffic situation on the beltline and between Waukesha / Milwaukee was going to be. Adding more traffic lanes has been the answer for decades and continues to be a just temporary "band aid" type approach to our transit needs.

 

The argument that we should be spending this money on other infrastructure investments is a little strange to me. Lots (too much in my opinion) of the ARRA / stimulus funding is being directed toward infrastructure improvement projects that were "shovel ready" but will have little overall public benefit.

 

The bottom line is that ALL transportation funding is expensive. I'm glad to see that we're diversifying our investments a bit and providing options for travelers. Until we master the technology of teleportation I'm excited to have the choice betwen trains and cars for some of my travel.

 

Edit: Design DOES matter so if you have strong opinions about where trains should go or stop I would contact state or local government reps and ask them to advocate for routes / stops that would be convenient for you.

[LouisEly]

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.

1) Fewer people are getting married, and people are having fewer children. Families are in the minority.

 

2) If you think that gas is getting any cheaper in the long run you're a fool.

 

3) Do you know how many times I have had flights from Madison to Chicago (connecting on the first or last part of a trip going from Chicago to somewhere else) canceled? When bad weather hits they cancel the shortest flights first, thus Madison to Chicago is usually among the first canceled. Get me to Chicago or Milwaukee where I can fly direct, thank you. When those flights get canceled it's nice to have an alternative... and cheaper than getting a hotel for a night because you're stranded.

 

4) When gas gets back up to $5/gallon people will be complaining, "Why wasn't the rail line built years ago??"

 

5) Van Galder charges $27 each way per person for bus service from O'Hare to Madison, and it takes 3+ hours. They run about a dozen buses a day each way.

 

6) Trains are never late. Ever. Never have to worry about traffic or weather delays. Ever.

 

7) Safety. Fatal accidents involving trains - very rare. Fatal accidents involving cars - daily.

 

8) Being able to work on your laptop, use WiFi (my Verizon Blackberry can get internet anywhere there is a cell phone signal), read a magazine/newspaper/book, talk on your cell phone while traveling... getting more done instead of sitting behind the wheel, thus saving time because you won't have to do those things when you get there or before you leave.

 

9) Bring food with you and eat on the train, eliminating the need to stop somewhere. Buy cheaper (and healthier) food at a grocery store and not garbage at a fast food restaurant.

[RobertR]

Wait, let me get this straight, RobertR. Olliegjw suggested that in a regular day, the train would use 8 gallons/rider compared to 4 gallons/car. The actual estimate for the train is ~ 0.2 gallons/rider? That's a huge difference!

Not that good.

 

5217 gallons a day X 7 days / 22500 passengers a week = 1.6 gallons / passenger. Offset some by freight.

 

Looking over the proposed schedules, it doesn't look like the idea of seeing something in Milwaukee and catching the late night train back to Madison is feasible. Last train scheduled to depart Milwaukee for Madison is 6:38 pm. Last train departing Madison is 6:53 pm. Obviously the schedule isn't set in stone and might change on the weekend, but I wouldn't be making these train plans yet. This is being designed around rush hour as an alternative.

 

This is obviously being set up for the business traveler primarily. Go to a meeting/airport and return.

 

Robert

 

 

[paul253]

When gas gets back up to $5/gallon people will be complaining, "Why wasn't the rail line built years ago??"

 

Haha I can't possibly see this happening. I think people will complain like they did last time. "Why are the stupid gas taxes so high?", and "if the price is oil is so friggin' high, why don't we tap into our own supply?"

Also, if the station in downtown Milwaukee is anywhere near the Bradley

Center, we would take the train for Bucks and Admirals games, as well

as concerts.

 

Homer beat me to the punch but its about a 6 block walk. I'd suggest a cab ride as well....it's a long 6 blocks. And not too sound too politically incorrect but you'll probably run into a lot of homeless people walking back from the Bradley Center after the game. Take that as you'd like.

[homer]

paul253 wrote:

And not too sound too politically incorrect but you'll probably run into a lot of homeless people walking back from the Bradley Center after the game. Take that as you'd like.

What the heck are you talking about?

[paul253]

What the heck are you talking about?

 

I'm talking about walking from the train station to the Bradley Center, which is what TracyThom was suggesting he'd do. Calm down homer, I was agreeing with you. I was just hinting that taking a cab would be a little safer while still not super expensive.

[thebruce44]

The 6 block walk down 4th street is really nice though. I think thats what he was refering to. I have walked around that area a lot when I was in school at Marquette. No reason not to feel safe there.

[paul253]

Its certainly not that bad of a neighborhood. But when walking from the BC to the train station, especially in the winter time at 10:00 or 10:30 at night, you're going to run into a lot of homeless people. That's all I was getting at. Most are fine but some are rather aggressive. I knew someone that worked at the George Webbs on 3rd St down there and he said they constantly had problems with people who refused to pay and refused to leave, basically because they had no money and nowhere else to go. Once the cops kick them out they just wander around the area.

[RobertR]

In general, I don't think this is being designed around sporting events/concerts. And, I imagine the rush of people from these trains is going to clear a pretty substantial path where they coincide.

 

I do think it's worth pointing out that this isn't a choice between $810 million and $0. The Chicago/Milwaukee/Twin Cities route will be improved to keep up with modern demands. That's going to cost 100s of millions too. The choice is $810 million with Madison connected to Chicago and the Twin Cities or some large number with no benefit to Madison. And probably higher operating costs with one of the prime destinations/source of passengers removed.

 

Robert

[homer]

Its certainly not that bad of a neighborhood. But when walking from

the BC to the train station, especially in the winter time at 10:00 or

10:30 at night, you're going to run into a lot of homeless people.

That's all I was getting at. Most are fine but some are rather

aggressive. I knew someone that worked at the George Webbs on 3rd St

down there and he said they constantly had problems with people who

refused to pay and refused to leave, basically because they had no

money and nowhere else to go. Once the cops kick them out they just

wander around the area.

No, there are not a lot of homeless people in that area. That is false. Unless your idea of "a lot" is like one or two.