Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[Bucky370]

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

 

And if Gas isn't getting any cheaper neither is Diesel!!!

 

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

Sad state of affairs, isn't it?

 

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

 

And the price of Diesel will corresponently rise making your fairs increase. Why not build a high speed electric system? Oh wait, our electric prices are going up as well.

 

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.

I don't disagree with this at all. But I just don't believe a high % of people travel for work regularly in state. My company of about 400, maybe 5 travel, and only 1 regularaly, but it's not to Madison, it's out of state.

 

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.

 

I don't disagree, but it's pretty easy to pack a sandwich in a brown bag, but who really does this anymore.

 

I havn't come on this board to offend anybody or put anybody down. I don't know many of you and asking Bruce a few simple questions was more about why he is so supportive of this idea. I for 1 am not, and never will be. To answer the earlier question if it's 800m or 0, I'd rather it be 0. Why, because if it's federal money, it's still coming out of our pockets. We don't live in a densely populated area. I don't know many that would really use it at all. After posting a few days ago, I too starting asking friends co workers etc who would use this system and what they thought, the consesus and not even close (99 to 1) said they would never use it nor would they support it. Too bad it's already out of the taxpayers hands. Bottom line, I was trying to point out is that if it is running at a deficit, we the state tax payers will pay to support it. Something very similiar to what is happening with the hiawatha amtrak route. Without federal assistance, that route would have already been shut down. (I have taken the Hiawatha for work in the past, it's nice, but when traveling for work I need more flexibility on times, on a few occasions I'm still in chicago at 11pm, too late to train it back home) The state of Wisconsin is already financially a complete mess, adding another potential burden upon the state will not help at all. How about the 800m going towards a rebuild of the zoo interchange??? Right now their wasting our tax money by doing a quick fix on the interchange, and will eventually be totally wasted since they are still planning a complete rebuild in the near future.

 

I did get a couple of great ideas from the people I talked too. Most were in favor of a light rail system from downtown to the suburbs. We would all agree that an awful lot of people travel from the waukesha area to downtown. A light rail system from Waukesha or a little bit west to downtown would be a great idea. It would significantly cut down on traffic on 94, save the system from wearing down so fast. Would have to have many stops on the way. Add hi fi and everybody could do their own thing on the way.

 

Part of my whole argument is that this is not answering what we really need. 1. a true high speed rail line between milwaukee and madison (100mph +) 2. Doesn't take any stress off 94 around milwaukee since locals won't use this system at all, especially for the price. 3. I'm not sold it doesn't create a dependency on the tax payers of Wisconsin.

[LouisEly]

Sad state of affairs, isn't it?

 

Cuts down on oil consumption too, keeping prices down. The best thing for the environment is to not have any people.

 

Lots of good points made in this thread. Generally speaking, the big picture is this - anything will cost money. Whether it is high-speed (or medium speed) trains or road construction/maintenance. Thousands of people every day go from Chicago-Milwaukee, Milwaukee-Madison, Chicago-Madison - that is not debatable. The question is what will be the most cost-effective method over time, both for the government/taxpayer and the consumer. Someone quoted the cost of just adding another lane to the freeway to be a massive amount. If this rail line can cut down on vehicle travel enough so that an extra lane isn't needed, or expensive maintenance is reduced, and the overall amount spent on transportation is less, then it is a good deal and saves the taxpayers money. That is what needs to be determined.

[thebruce44]

And if Gas isn't getting any cheaper neither is Diesel!!!

 

The cost of fuel per person on a train is much better than traveling by car. The difference will be much more pronounced as fuel prices increase. Therefor, as fule prices rise, the train will save more and more money at an increasing rate.

 

But I just don't believe a high % of people travel for work regularly in state. My company of about 400, maybe 5 travel, and only 1 regularaly, but it's not to Madison, it's out of state.

 

The traveling situation of your company is all but irrelevant to this argument. That being said, where does your company travel to typically? The Twin Cities? St. Louis? Chicago? Detroit? Hmm...maybe this could be a nice alternative.

 

I havn't come on this board to offend anybody or put anybody down. I don't know many of you and asking Bruce a few simple questions was more about why he is so supportive of this idea.

 

And this sentence continues to show how you have missed the whole point of my posts. You asked me how it is going to be marketed with all your specifics in mind. I answered that I don't know because thats not my job and because its pretty irrelevant. Instead of looking at the report you continue to think how this will affect you and your co-workers. Hardly a scientific study of south eastern Wisconsin's population.

 

In addition, I am an engineer who has been asking people to keep an open mind and read the report with the understanding that I would be happy to answer questions on cost, engineering, and the planning. The specifics you keep trying to get me to address are unimportant in the grand scheme of things and not something I care about personally.

 

Sorry I haven't been able to "convince you" but that shouldn't be the reason you are in this thread. You should be coming here like others to talk about the plan that the state has provided to the public.

 

I for 1 am not, and never will be.

 

Exactly as I predicted and part of the reason why I did not indulge your questions. Its pretty easy to pick you out as someone who just doesn't like this idea and will not listen to reason or try to understand the report with an open mind. If you want to convince others that this is a bad idea, showing that you are completely uneducated about it and that you are not open to further learning is only going to make people tune you out.

 

Bottom line, I was trying to point out is that if it is running at a deficit, we the state tax payers will pay to support it.

 

No, this actually will save the tax payers money. The deficit the train will run at is less than the savings in maintenance along 94.

 

After posting a few days ago, I too starting asking friends co workers etc who would use this system and what they thought, the consesus and not even close (99 to 1) said they would never use it nor would they support it...I did get a couple of great ideas from the people I talked too. Most were in favor of a light rail system from downtown to the suburbs. We would all agree that an awful lot of people travel from the waukesha area to downtown.

 

It sounds as thought he people you polled hadn't read the report either then since this accomplishes what the light rail system was supposed to do. There are 3 stops in the suburbs.

 

Please read the report and ask questions here before you decide you don't want this...if you have already made up your mind without educating yourself, I think you will have a hard time finding people who are going to take you seriously.

 

Bucky, its perfectly alright for people to be against this. Its your right as a taxpayer and Wisconsinite. However, I don't see the point in being so against something when you don't understand it at all.

 

edit:formatting

[thebruce44]

Someone quoted the cost of just adding another lane to the freeway to be a massive amount. If this rail line can cut down on vehicle travel enough so that an extra lane isn't needed, or expensive maintenance is reduced, and the overall amount spent on transportation is less, then it is a good deal and saves the taxpayers money. That is what needs to be determined.

 

The maintenance issue is addressed in the report. By 2030 I think they will be able to get by with only 2 lanes, but who is to say it wont eventually need to go to 3. Long story short, its pretty safe to say this will save the taxpayers money by the end of the 2030 time period. In addition, it will have a pronounced effect on things that are more difficult to measure the direct relationship to, such as helping local businesses, less money spent on accidents and insurance, and the money value of people being able to work on the train if they choose.

[Bucky370]

The question is what will be the most cost-effective method over time, both for the government/taxpayer and the consumer. Someone quoted the cost of just adding another lane to the freeway to be a massive amount. If this rail line can cut down on vehicle travel enough so that an extra lane isn't needed, or expensive maintenance is reduced, and the overall amount spent on transportation is less, then it is a good deal and saves the taxpayers money. That is what needs to be determined.

 

Completely agreed. I personally don't think we need to add a lane from the west burbs to Madison, just do a better job of maintaining what we have. The bottom line I've been trying to point out is their has to be a better more cost effective way to fix congested areas, not necessarily open road areas. If those fixes are in place it makes traveling for work etc significantly easier for everybody who still choose to use the freeways. We know their will always be a dependency on the freeways, just way too many of us like our freedom than being put on mass transit. But we can be significantly smarter about it than what is currently being proposed. Just adding this train on as it's a good starting point is not about being smart. Very few business's I know want the 1/2 way solution to a problem, they want it fixed for good. Can you imagine how more efficient our public systems would be if this money was used to upgrade government computer technology? Most agencies are still on a paper environment (not green..LOL) and are very slow because of this. HMMMM

[thebruce44]

Can you imagine how more efficient our public systems would be if this money was used to upgrade government computer technology? Most agencies are still on a paper environment (not green..LOL) and are very slow because of this. HMMMM

 

Not to take this off topic, but most of the government agencies I have worked with our behind on technology because of the people that work there. Often times they get up grades or have them available but refuse to learn them or utilize them correctly. If you want to throw money at that problem its a pretty big waist in my opinion unless you want to let a bunch of people retire and bring in a younger work force.

[TabbertBB]

Gee, I guess that is what they do in the "real" world.

[RobertR]

Looking over the plan some more, I feel strongly that the downtown Madison station is the more attractive of the two alternatives.

 

The pros of the airport station are that a) it's an actual destination, the downtown station just drops you off at the east end of the isthmus and you'll need another form of transport to get to the Capitol and UW and b) there's parking at the airport. I presume it's also the cheaper alternative to construct.

 

That's all well and good, but I feel strongly that if the line is going to be a success it needs to be attractive to Chicago travelers. And Twin Cities travelers. And what's the attractiveness of going from Chicago to the Dane County Airport as opposed to something closer to your real destination? Yeah, the airport is only about 2.3 miles further down the line, but that's likely another 5 to 10 minutes of travel that seems unnecessary. Especially when you're backtracking which is sure to be psychologically irritating. Run a shuttle from the station to the airport. And maybe in 10 to 20 years, when the Twin Cities connection is made, consider an airport station.

 

Robert

[paul253]

No, this actually will save the tax payers money. The deficit the
train will run at is less than the savings in maintenance along 94.

Keep in mind though that we already have in place two ways to collect money to pay for the highways...the registration fee and the gas tax. If certain politicians didn't continually raid these funds to pay for things completely unrelated to transportation there would be a lot more money to pay for highway maintenance and/or they wouldn't have to constantly raise the fees. In order to subsidize the train, we're going to have to come up with a whole new tax or fee or both to pay for it. I don't believe this will "save us" anything overall. It may save us money on highways, but that money and more is going to be used to pay for the train.

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.


I don't mean to keep going back to this completely unrelated point, but you are wrong. I won't get into how I know you are wrong, but I do. I will say this though. This past summer the private security guard who works at Milwaukee's train station locked all of the entrance doors for the station between certain early morning hours because people were constantly walking into the station, not buying train or bus tickets, and basically sleeping on the chairs.

[thebruce44]

Keep in mind though that we already have in place two ways to collect money to pay for the highways...the registration fee and the gas tax. If certain politicians didn't continually raid these funds to pay for things completely unrelated to transportation there would be a lot more money to pay for highway maintenance and/or they wouldn't have to constantly raise the fees. In order to subsidize the train, we're going to have to come up with a whole new tax or fee or both to pay for it.

 

Huh, what does this have to do with anything? The train saves the State government money. Isn't that the point? Your point about the politics raiding funding doesn't change that.

 

I don't believe this will "save us" anything overall. It may save us money on highways, but that money and more is going to be used to pay for the train.

 

The state's report and common knowledge among any engineer/builder/planner says the opposite...especially when factoring in all the fringe benefits. If you disagree so be it, I won't try to change your mind at this point.

[thebruce44]

Looking over the plan some more, I feel strongly that the downtown Madison station is the more attractive of the two alternatives.

 

The pros of the airport station are that a) it's an actual destination, the downtown station just drops you off at the east end of the isthmus and you'll need another form of transport to get to the Capitol and UW and b) there's parking at the airport. I presume it's also the cheaper alternative to construct.

 

That's all well and good, but I feel strongly that if the line is going to be a success it needs to be attractive to Chicago travelers. And Twin Cities travelers. And what's the attractiveness of going from Chicago to the Dane County Airport as opposed to something closer to your real destination? Yeah, the airport is only about 2.3 miles further down the line, but that's likely another 5 to 10 minutes of travel that seems unnecessary. Especially when you're backtracking which is sure to be psychologically irritating. Run a shuttle from the station to the airport. And maybe in 10 to 20 years, when the Twin Cities connection is made, consider an airport station.

 

Robert

I am not as familiar with Madison as I used to be, but I will say that the trend right now in urban planning is intermodal integration. Wisconsin cities are lagging well behind while Chicago and the Twin Cities are moving forward with this quickly. I know its kind of a foreign concept to some, but in 10 years it will probably become a way of life for a lot of people.

 

Milwaukee's Train Station is billed as an Intermodal Station though I don't know how aggressively they are pushing it. In Chicago, they are integrating the Metra and El so that one card will work for both. The bus lines and El already work that way. Minneapolis has its new Target Field Intermodal station that connects the Lighrail system to the Commuter Rail and is right next to the new stadium. I could see this being the destination of this high speed rail line.

 

My point is that Madison may want to integrate the station near the airport this way. If you have to get dropped off at the edge of the Isthmus and take a shuttle to the capital or university, why not get dropped off 2 miles away from there and take a waiting shuttle. The idea is that its as seamless as possible...you walk off the train onto the platform and onto one of several waiting shuttles that go to the key points around the city. Being out of the congestion between the lakes may make this a lot easier to accomplish and easier for passengers to follow. It may even be faster in the end than having the train travel slowly through the dense final 2 miles of the city.

[paul253]

he train saves the State government money. Isn't that the point? Your

point about the politics raiding funding doesn't change that.

 

What I was getting at is that the state couldn't care less about saving individual taxpayers money. Just look at how the rebuilding of the zoo interchange is being handled. They constantly raise taxes and fees for transportation, then take huge chunks of that money and use it for something else. This will be another excuse for them to raise fees and taxes.

 

The state's report and common knowledge among any

engineer/builder/planner says the opposite...especially when factoring

in all the fringe benefits. If you disagree so be it, I won't try to

change your mind at this point.

 

I'm trying really hard not to offend you as engineer, but I just don't see how so many cars will now be off of I94 that its going to postpone or prevent any major road projects and in turn save all that much money. Of course the state's report is going to say it's going to save money. Do you expect them to fill out a report saying "yeah this is going to cost people millions of dollars more each year". Maybe if you look far enough into the future you'll start seeing some savings, but that still doesn't take into account the added costs of the train. I know my opinion is frustrating to you, and I really do feel bad that you seem to be the one who has to keep defending this, but I just can't see that many people using this thing.

[Bucky370]

I'm trying really hard not to offend you as engineer, but I just don't see how so many cars will now be off of I94 that its going to postpone or prevent any major road projects and in turn save all that much money. Of course the state's report is going to say it's going to save money. Do you expect them to fill out a report saying "yeah this is going to cost people millions of dollars more each year". Maybe if you look far enough into the future you'll start seeing some savings, but that still doesn't take into account the added costs of the train. I know my opinion is frustrating to you, and I really do feel bad that you seem to be the one who has to keep defending this, but I just can't see that many people using this thing.

 

Thank you Paul, I've been saying exactly what you have. Only thing is maybe you said it more eliquently. I too don't see enough people using this train, nor am I convinced it will pay for itself once up and running. It's been very well know the milwaukee to chicago hiawatha amtrak route is heavily subsidised by the fed.

[RobertR]

It bothers me that people can state with authority that they know more than the engineers. Who actually did studies and documented them. Without a hint of self doubt. What is this, talk radio?

I'll make a small point for perspective.

The State's transportation budget for 2010 is $2.7 billion for the coming year. In any given year, $15 million is less than 1% of the State's transportation budget. It's a pittance. Especially when Illinois will likely be paying for a good chunk of it. Repaving a 10 mile stretch of 2 lane, each way, interstate costs more than that. You start extending pavement life, you save money. The breakeven point is when you can put off repaving one small stretch a year. Cutting down on the demand for petroleum doesn't hurt the pocket either.

Robert

[RobertR]

I am not as familiar with Madison as I used to be, but I will say that the trend right now in urban planning is intermodal integration. Wisconsin cities are lagging well behind while Chicago and the Twin Cities are moving forward with this quickly. I know its kind of a foreign concept to some, but in 10 years it will probably become a way of life for a lot of people.

 

Milwaukee's Train Station is billed as an Intermodal Station though I don't know how aggressively they are pushing it. In Chicago, they are integrating the Metra and El so that one card will work for both. The bus lines and El already work that way. Minneapolis has its new Target Field Intermodal station that connects the Lighrail system to the Commuter Rail and is right next to the new stadium. I could see this being the destination of this high speed rail line.

 

My point is that Madison may want to integrate the station near the airport this way. If you have to get dropped off at the edge of the Isthmus and take a shuttle to the capital or university, why not get dropped off 2 miles away from there and take a waiting shuttle. The idea is that its as seamless as possible...you walk off the train onto the platform and onto one of several waiting shuttles that go to the key points around the city. Being out of the congestion between the lakes may make this a lot easier to accomplish and easier for passengers to follow. It may even be faster in the end than having the train travel slowly through the dense final 2 miles of the city.

The train is going through the City either way. The question is whether they put the station near 1st St & Pennsylvania Ave or by the airport. There's no real gain in speed. And, whether you're at the airport or downtown, you still have to travel through the isthmus to get to the Capitol and UW. There's really not going to be a savings in time for those travelers or an alleviation of traffic.

 

I would presume that a downtown station would have the same intermodal model as the airport. Just with the airport being one of the destinations. But, on a daily basis, I can't imagine the airport being a more popular end point for commuters to Madison than the Capitol or UW.

 

I know several people are pushing for 2 stops. Downtown and the airport. Unless one of those is a very stripped down station, I don't know how much sense that makes.

 

Robert

 

 

[Bucky370]

It bothers me that people can state with authority that they know more than the engineers. Who actually did studies and documented them. Without a hint of self doubt.

 

Problem is these agencies are paid to create a report and who is their employer? The people that want the rail system, which is in itself a natural bias. They would not get future contracts if they didn't create reports in the favor of the guys hiring them. For that reason it's always tough to have an independent 3rd party do any report like this.

 

 

What is this, talk radio?

 

This one came out of left field. But this is a forum and a disussion about the proposed rail line addition from Milwaukee to Madision. Last time I checked I'm an american citizen that has a voice just like you do. Talk radio has nothing to do with my viewpoints. Can I assume you don't like talk radio? If not that tells me what side you lean immediately since their are really not any left leaning talk shows in existance anymore. I would love their to be, but for some reason they don't get an audience to keep them afloat. Let's end this discussion right now because too me this isn't about politics, this is about what I think is an very inefficient use of tax payer money.

 

Robert, I am not totally against rail transportation like republicans are. I've been very clear that I don't think this line solves any problems on our freeway system as I don't believe the ridership will even warrent the system to be in place. I've made many recommendations that if your going to do this, do it right. Problem is Madision is only open to their ideas and nobody else's. Did they do a study that would show severl different options to reduce highway traffic. Probably not. How about a light rail system around the city to the city of milwaukee. That will eleviate the high traffic (the highest traffic freeway in the state btw). Why don't we make this a true high speed rail line that is at or over 100mph where it actually cuts down time on the trip, thus creating a demad? Why don't we make it an electric system instead of fossil fuel, going green is part of the point right? Why don't we get madision to stop raiding the transportation fund for the general fund. Our roads wouldn't be in disrepair, since the transportation fund is broke from the re-delegation of funds.

 

 

[Invader3K]

Why don't we make this a true high speed rail line that is at or over 100mph where it actually cuts down time on the trip, thus creating a demad? Why don't we make it an electric system instead of fossil fuel, going green is part of the point right?

 

This is what I don't get, and no one has been able to address at all, even though I've raised the point multiple times. California is getting a new state of the art "green" true high speed rail system, and I guess we're getting stuck with a much lesser, seemingly somewhat antiquated one. I just don't get it.

[Godspeed]

What is this, talk radio?

 

This one came out of left field. But this is a forum and a disussion about the proposed rail line addition from Milwaukee to Madision. Last time I checked I'm an american citizen that has a voice just like you do.

Dude, you're just not getting it. Robert's point is your and other's steadfast refusal to trust the experts while placing your own partial skepticism above all else does not make for effective discussion nor reasonable debate. This is an attitude prevalent on all forms of talk radio, from political to sports. No political undertones are necessary or inherently implied.

[Bucky370]

No political undertones are necessary or inherently implied.

 

Dude, whether it's radio or tv talk shows, their all politically motivated. I've made it very clear that I believe when the owner pays for a report to be done, it's automatically slanted, especially in our political climate. I'm taking my particular point of view because I don't think it will be used very much. I've also along with others suggested that this rail system is far from adequette to a be high speed rail system that it is being called. My point of view is this money can be used more wisely for other forms of mass transit that will have a lot better, longer reaching effect. I'm a fiscally conservative person and have no interest in supporting a rail line that in my opinion will be a burden on the tax payers.

[RobertR]

Making declarations without being able to back them up, with no expertise in the field, is the part of talk radio that I'm talking about, not left wing/right wing.

The report's out there in the public. And, it's engineering, so it's based in math and scientific models. So, a challenge to anyone that thinks they know more than the engineers, point out the math errors and scientific fallacies with specifics. I respect it when people point out specific errors and actually debate policy. What should be the mix of highway/rail/air? How much is too much in operating costs? etc.

But, frankly, I think the critics accusing the report of bias are full of hot air. Math isn't biased. Science isn't biased. If there's a significant error in the report, the scientific method applies. Disprove it by more than opinion. The report clearly lays out what it will cost to construct and run the line. And the error in that is? Frankly, I think the report overestimates the construction cost as it's packed full of contingency. Laying rail and building buildings aren't exactly unknown quantities. You can estimate the cost of a mile of track and a building on a square foot basis pretty easily. And the report lays out the rationale for estimating the benefits. And the error is? Heck, considering that they can build this project relatively quickly, getting it off the ground before the zoo interchange reconstruction makes a lot of sense. That's a benefit right there that's not included in the report. Frankly, I trust that there aren't math or science errors. The report is based on the idea of what it would cost to connect Madison to the Hiawatha Line extended and what are the benefits and it answers those questions. It may not answer the larger policy questions or other questions, but it answers the limited questions that were put to it.


Robert

[TooLiveBrew]

But, frankly, I think the critics accusing the report of bias are full of hot air. Math isn't biased. Science isn't biased. If there's a significant error in the report, the scientific method applies. Disprove it by more than opinion.

 

This seems to be a pervasive issue in the political discourse nowadays. Fact-based report is issued... critics decry it with exaggeration, manipulation of facts, & play to simple emotional responses... said criticism is refuted by facts, or directed to examine facts on issue... wash, rinse, repeat

[thebruce44]

I'm trying really hard not to offend you as engineer, but I just don't see how so many cars will now be off of I94 that its going to postpone or prevent any major road projects and in turn save all that much money. Of course the state's report is going to say it's going to save money. Do you expect them to fill out a report saying "yeah this is going to cost people millions of dollars more each year".

 

Problem is these agencies are paid to create a report and who is their employer? The people that want the rail system, which is in itself a natural bias. They would not get future contracts if they didn't create reports in the favor of the guys hiring them. For that reason it's always tough to have an independent 3rd party do any report like this.

 

The planners have a job whether this train is built or not. The people that stand to benefit are the construction workers and any independent contractors who will be bidding to work on this...and of course the citizens of SE Wisconsin. The planning and estimations in the report are all based on established math equations and computer models. There isn't a lot of room to add in "bias."

 

Furthermore, manipulating any report like this would go against all engineering ethics. When it involves public funds, such actions would not only cause you to loose your job and face law suits, but are actually punishable by jail time.

 

At this point I think its safe to say that you both are so ignorant on the whole process and your political bias is so strong that you will do whatever it takes to convince yourselves this is a bad idea.

[Bucky370]

Anybody read the business section of the journal sentinal yesterday. The original report of this project creating 13k jobs, is now revised to about 1/3. hmmm, these reports are never wrong right?

[TabbertBB]

Yep, the experts know.

Check out the train cars in Kenosha County. Ooops. (I know, I know, it is a different type of train).

[thebruce44]

Anybody read the business section of the journal sentinal yesterday. The original report of this project creating 13k jobs, is now revised to about 1/3. hmmm, these reports are never wrong right?

 

Are you refering to this article:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/83698652.html

 

It pretty clearly explains the difference in figures. Had you read the article correctly you would have noticed that the report hasn't changed. The press release added all the jobs togeather. Different interpretations of the same numbers. The people who put the report togeather did nothing incorrect here. Here is part of that article:

 

But the job-creation figures listed in the grant application reflect total employment during each year of construction: 1,281 this year, 4,060 next year, 5,535 in 2012, 1,847 in 2013, 621 in 2014 and 250 in 2015. Only by adding all of those annual figures together would one reach a total of "nearly 13,000 jobs" - 12,723, to be precise - by 2013, or 13,594 by the time construction ends.