Madison-Milwaukee High Speed Rail

[homer]

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?

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

 

Here's a link to the Journal article so everyone is on the same page.

 

The report was fine. It was the spin put on the report by the governor that is the issue.

[RobertR]

Yeah, it's the spin not the report that's at issue.

 

BTW, there are $158 million in incidentals/contingencies/inflation in the budget for the plan. Frankly, that's an absurd amount, almost 25% of the base budget. I'll criticize the report for being too conservative in budgeting. That's butt-covering. Yeah, noone will second guess them when the project comes in under budget, but it's making it a much harder sell in the first place.

 

I'll note, from the report, with 338,000 in incremental increase for 6 round trips daily, i.e.12 total, 6 in each direction, that is based on an average of 77 passengers per train on the Madison-Milwaukee portion. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me with the airport and downtown Chicago being destinations/sources.

 

Robert

[thebruce44]

I don't do a lot of budgeting, but I don't believe it is at all unheard of to add bump up the numbers by 20% in your preliminary estimates. I don't know if its butt covering or simply that they can ask for this money now and give it back later if/when everything goes according to plan.

[randybreuerfan]

I'm curious to hear from all the traffic engineers out there about options for a national transportation system in, say, 40 years. How would an intermodal system work in this country? What would be the role of cars and trains and airplanes? How would residential neighborhoods and commerce be arranged?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not asking about politics, as in how can one of those options can be made reality over another option.

[RobertR]

I don't do a lot of budgeting, but I don't believe it is at all unheard of to add bump up the numbers by 20% in your preliminary estimates. I don't know if its butt covering or simply that they can ask for this money now and give it back later if/when everything goes according to plan.

24% is a pretty large number. Granted, it's a big project, but there are a lot of known quantities. The miles of rail. The square feet of station. The number of structures that will need replacement. Yeah, some structures will end up costing more, but they're not going to be 24% over on every mile of track. Not unless steel gets very expensive in the next few years.

 

Heck, the ridership estimate is pretty conservative. Working it out, it's basically 20 people per new stop per one way trip.

 

As usual, the DOT skimped on the geotechnical investigation some. No rock cores for the land bridges is going to lead to a conservative preliminary design. A couple of rock corings during the final design phase could lead to substantial savings.

 

And because it's up for competitive bid don't be at all surprised when it comes in at a lower cost. Heck, the numbers are public, so if you want the job you start with the public budget and start figuring out where you can save money in order to actually outbid other contractors.

 

So, this is a very conservative report. It's better to err on the conservative side than to underestimate costs, but there are opportunity costs for a too conservative estimate. No one is sticking their neck out on this report promising more than can be delivered.

 

Robert

[paul253]

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.

 

This is a statement I have a problem with. Nobody here is claiming to be an expert and nobody here is claiming to be smarter than the people who plan this. I stated either in this thread or the one on the political board that in theory this is a very good plan. But reality isn't theory. I don't need Mark Belling to tell me that I don't think people are going to use it. I think that way because I myself won't use it for very practical reasons and I truly believe a lot of other people also won't use it for practical reasons. I'm not going to use a train to get somewhere when I can get there just as fast, just as cheap or more likely cheaper, and with the added convenience of having car at my disposal to go where I need to go. Why would I? Why would anybody? Just because we build a new system doesn't mean people will automatically start using it. Theoretically the idea is fine. Build an alternative transportation method so people don't have to use a car. This in turn will take cars off the freeway negating the need to repave rebuild or expand the freeways. But in reality if very few people use the train, which I believe will be the case, the need to rebuild and repave the freeways will still exist. I have not heard one person claim that this will turn a profit, which means we will need yet another fee or tax to continue to pay for it. It may be disguised as some sort of regional transit tax that goes to all forms of transit, but it will be there. You can count on it.

 

I also have stated some reasons why I don't like the report. I think it was filled with a lot of assumptions, like stating that with an aging population there will need to be an alternative form of transportation, or something to that extent. It compares the fares for Badger Bus and this new train, yet fails to point out the prices they gave for Badger Bus were round trip and the estimated price for the train was one way, thus making it appear as though it would actually be cheaper to take the train. It's billed by the media as a "110mph train" but the report states it will top off at 79mph train until the second phase is completed, and even then it will only travel at tthe higher speeds for a short distance. I don't believe anyone flat out lied about anything on the report, but I certainly think they worded it in a way that makes it seem like a much better idea than it really is. And that's certainly not something thats limited to this report, it's something everyone does, but that doesn't make it right. I stand by my opinion (yes it's my opinion, its not Mark Belling's or Charlie Sykes' opinion) that this train is going to cost taxpayers much more than it saves.

[JJHardy7]

...I hope everyone realizes that this plan will cost much, much, much less than roadways. And I know money from the Feds is tax dollar money, but it is NOT 100% state income tax/sales tax money. The entire country is paying for this...not just Wisconsin folks. Again, just because one person doesn't want to use it doesn't mean it will or won't work. It is somewhat off base to base any opinion off of one's own personal view or 'poll'. I don't live in Wisconsin...I'm not going to use it. I haven't done intense studies or reports though to determine whether or not it will work...thus I'm willing to give it a shot. IMO Wisconsin just happens to have to destinations (Milwaukee and Madison) that should generate some interest, but the real issue here is a rail that goes from Chicago to Minneapolis. That is the prize.

 

I just think there are plenty of other things to complain about than this issue. It is a relatively small percentage compared to the transportation budget as a whole. If this rail system does work (not saying it will), Wisconsin would look awfully foolish for saying 'no' to the federal money.

[thebruce44]

This is a statement I have a problem with. Nobody here is claiming to be an expert and nobody here is claiming to be smarter than the people who plan this.

 

The people who did this report likely have a college degree in Civil Engineering or Planning. They likely have 10+ years of experience putting together or reviewing similar reports. The people who checked and signed off on this report likely have 20-30 years of experience each.

 

You have 0 years of experience in this field.

 

Yet you think they are wrong and you are right. It sounds to me as though you think you are smarter in this aspect than the people who put together the report. And yet you have not pointed out one single, creditable flaw in the report. You just don't think its right...you just don't see yourself using it...you don't see anyone else using it.

 

You think they "worded" it a certain way. This tells me you got too hung up on the short narrative instead of reading the proof behind their summary.

 

I have not heard one person claim that this will turn a profit, which means we will need yet another fee or tax to continue to pay for it.

 

Then you have not read my posts or are incapable of understanding how the train will save on maintenance or provide other sources of revenue.

 

I don't believe anyone flat out lied about anything on the report, but I certainly think they worded it in a way that makes it seem like a much better idea than it really is.

 

As an objective 3rd party civil engineer, I am telling you that I think this report is actually quite conservative in terms of ridership and construction costs.

 

Now I know that probably doesn't mean much to you, but thats my opinion. If you disagree with the report and have read it, thats fine. I don't expect everyone to like it. I just want people to have all the facts (or estimates from the experts) before they form their opinion. I do think you have made an effort to understand it, but I personally feel as though you did so trying to find holes in something you were never going to like. So be it. I hope once the train is completed you again try to use it sometime with an open mind.

 

It looks like this thing is going to be built sooner than later and I am excited to see it go forward.

[thebruce44]

I'm curious to hear from all the traffic engineers out there about options for a national transportation system in, say, 40 years. How would an intermodal system work in this country? What would be the role of cars and trains and airplanes? How would residential neighborhoods and commerce be arranged?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not asking about politics, as in how can one of those options can be made reality over another option.

Man, thats a tough one. Who knows if we will have hover cars or something crazy by then.

 

Personally, I truly feel as though we will be moving away from dependence on oil...how that effects cars I am not too sure. I think more people will be living in cities, not necessarily because they will be moving into cities, but because the less dense areas will keep getting more dense. That is when public transportation will get more and more valuable. If the state plays its cards right now, they can have everything in place to keep expanding public transportation. I think this train is a great first step for SE WI in that regard.

 

Also, I hope by then they have advances in concrete and hot mix asphalt that makes roads last a lot longer in Wisconsin's freeze/thaws. They have come a long way in the last 40 years, no reason to think that wont continue.

 

Anyway, this is a question an Urban Planner could probably answer a lot better than me. I am just a grunt at this point, doing whatever pays in this economy.

[homer]

I'm not going to use a train to get somewhere when I can get there just

as fast, just as cheap or more likely cheaper, and with the added

convenience of having car at my disposal to go where I need to go.

Why would I? Why would anybody?

It will take less time to get from Chicago to Madison once this is done. So while you living in Milwaukee (I think you live there) won't see a time savings benefit, there are several million people to the south of you that will (me included). Not to mention....some people just don't like to drive - they'd rather use that time for something else. You might find the immediate cost savings more important than being productive for that 1.5 hours. Perfectly fine. But that is a major reason why someone else would take the train even if it takes the same amount of travel time as a car and costs a little more.

[thebruce44]

Oh man, it sure was nice riding the train this morning. Right on time for work as usual.

[paul253]

Yet you think they are wrong and you are right. It sounds to me as

though you think you are smarter in this aspect than the people who put

together the report. And yet you have not pointed out one single,

creditable flaw in the report. You just don't think its right...you

just don't see yourself using it...you don't see anyone else using it.

They are misleading everyone who reads it into thinking that it will be cheaper than taking the bus. Why is that not a credible flaw? Cost has a huge affect on ridership totals.

 

The only thing I have ever thought they were wrong about is ridership estimates. I have never said anything about the cost to build it, rather I talk about the cost to operate it and how we will pay for those. I've stated over and over again it's a good plan in theory except if nobody rides it then the theoretical numbers are meaningless. I have disagreed with Bruce's opinion on a few things, namely how much this will actually save in highway maintenance, but that has nothing to do with the report. I didn't realize in needed a degree in civil engineering to have an opinion as to how many people will use a train. My bad.

 

This is how I view this entire thread. I compare it to the Brewers signing a free agent, we'll call him John Smith. You are some big time baseball guy who studies stat after stat after stat and I am a casual fan who follows the team and goes to a few games. The Brewers go out and spend $100 million to sign Smith, and in turn ticket prices go way up. I tell you, you know this is a bad signing. We could have used the money elsewhere, or not at all because the team was pretty good to begin with, and then we wouldn't have had to raise ticket prices. You come back with, well I know a lot more about baseball than you do and this is a good signing. Definitely worth the ticket price increase. He's really good at this stat and at this stat and at this stat. I say, well knowing the team I don't think he's a good fit and I don't think he'll put up the same stats that you think he will. I've seen him play and to be honest I don't think he's that good. You just keep saying "you don't know what you're talking about. I know a lot more about this than you do and I am right and you are not". We could about it until we're both blue in the face, but until we actually see him play we won't know whose right. The only thing that is for sure is the contract is guaranteed and good or bad we are stuck with him. And ticket prices are going up so whether you wanted him or not, you have to pay more to see him.

 

I have issues with people telling me I only have my opinion because conservative talk radio told me to. It's such an old and overused argument. It's used by both sides (global warming/Al Gore) but it seems to happen a lot more by people who disagree with a conservative. It's annoying and it makes you sound petty.

Oh man, it sure was nice riding the train this morning. Right on time for work as usual.

 

Took my car to work last night. Got there ten minutes early and parked in a structure attached to the building I need to go to http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif.

[Bucky370]

Oh man, it sure was nice riding the train this morning. Right on time for work as usual.

 

I drove my gas guzzling SUV to work today, snow didn't bother me one bit. Also got to work early. Now I have the flexibility to go to the store for lunch or any of my favorite restaurants since nothing is closer than 1 mile away. And yes, I get to enjoy by XM radio to and fro. Wait I'd miss Belling this week...oh who cares. I'd rather listen to MLB.com.

 

Paul you make a lot of good points and no matter what either of us say they will put it down. The fact is we have an opinion as well. We may disagree with both Robert and Bruce...but that's our right too. Too bad we can't control opting out of paying thru our taxes, the potential tax h e double hockey sticks it could create. Our state and Dept of transportation is broke due to our current administration shifting the money to the general fund, than spending it. Nobody is answering to that being the cause of our roads falling apart and the significant future costs to rebuild the funds, and fix our roads. Not to mention after raiding the transportation fund they pushed back the repair time of the zoo interchange, which is now going to be fixed twice and cost way way more than it should have from day 1.

 

Bruce, since you ride the train to work, I'm guessing you live in milwaukee area and work in chicago right? Either way it doesn't matter, but Yes, traffic in Chicago is out of control. As you also know milwaukee traffic is a piece of cake for the most part except for when their's accidents. But it's our choice to work downtown, and our choice to drive thru that traffic. If I don't like it, I'll take a job somewhere else or move closer to work. It's called the free market!!! I choose to live in Milwaukee instead of Arizona where it's warmer and I wouldn't have to deal with snow. But it's my choice. At some point though, if the state continue's to shove higher fees and taxes down my throat, I will move out of state. If they lose the wealthy of this area, that leaves basically nobody to pay for our state debt. Nobody wants that, but without some fiscal responsibility the next few decades, it's going to happen. (state of NY) You are obviously also one of the small % of people that ride a train, more power to you. Your choice to go to and fro from Chicago and Milwaukee, but keep the cost of you riding a train off my taxes!!!

[thebruce44]

They are misleading everyone who reads it into thinking that it will be cheaper than taking the bus. Why is that not a credible flaw?

 

I can't seem to find that part. Where do they say that taking the train will be cheaper than taking the bus? I see where they state:

 

"Bus transportation is provided by Greyhound and Badger Coaches with a total of ten round trips daily for $28 to $40..."

 

Not sure how that is misleading. They clearly state that price is for a round trip ticket.

 

This is how I view this entire thread. I compare it to the Brewers signing a free agent, we'll call him John Smith. You are some big time baseball guy who studies stat after stat after stat and I am a casual fan who follows the team and goes to a few games. The Brewers go out and spend $100 million to sign Smith, and in turn ticket prices go way up. I tell you, you know this is a bad signing. We could have used the money elsewhere, or not at all because the team was pretty good to begin with, and then we wouldn't have had to raise ticket prices. You come back with, well I know a lot more about baseball than you do and this is a good signing. Definitely worth the ticket price increase.

 

Except, it would be more like 2 or 3 people who have never watched a baseball game sitting in on a press conference with Doug Melvin after his big signing and telling him he doesn't know what he is doing. Posters here besides me aren't saying "I know more than you and you are just wrong." Those posters are saying that this report seems correct and the people who put it togeather know what they are doing. They are saying that if you are so against it then please point out the flaws. Saying you just think the numbers are wrong with no evidence or methodology isn't very convincing.

 

You are obviously also one of the small % of people that ride a train, more power to you. Your choice to go to and fro from Chicago and Milwaukee, but keep the cost of you riding a train off my taxes!!!

 

No, I have lived and worked in Chicago for the last 2 years.

 

The fact is we have an opinion as well. We may disagree with both Robert and Bruce...but that's our right too.

 

It absolutly is your right and I have said that before. My goal was to get people to understand what they are so against though instead of just hating it from the start. That seems impossible though when it comes to taxes.

[FVBrewerFan]

This plan wreaks of the "Monorail" episode of the Simpsons. We should trust civil engineers? You mean like the civil engineers who were involved in the deep tunnel project? If a light rail system is so cost effective long term, wouldn't a private railroad want to build it? I don't understand why we would want to go backwards and invest in old technology.

 

Commuter trains are a way of life in Chigago, the East Coast etc. where it makes perfect sense. Long term, the only logical next step is to automate cars and trucks. Think of it as REAL cruise control. You get on !-94 from Mke to Madison and your vehicle and the road system will do all the work. Hover cars? You're close. Magnets and/or computer chips can propel your vehicle and keep it exactly in the middle of the lane. Far fetched? Systems like this are already being tested, and in fact parts of it are already in use. Lane departure systems are already widely in use in commercial fleets. Ever been to Disney World? Those parade vehicles are all programmed to follow a certain precise path with microchips. Can you imagine the savings in gas if most interstate travel can be done with the engine off?

 

All we're missing is the long term vision and plan to get it done. And there's only so much money to go around. Every dollar invested in dying rail takes money away from projects that will be much better in the future.

[endaround]

Actually personal transportation devices is the monorail-ideas from the 1950s always dressed up as the next big thing. It makes no sense for a number of reasons. The same reasons that flying cars don't exist.

 

One thing people who talk about how this won't be any faster than driving miss is that it will be much, much safer than driving. Amazing how many people are willing to take such a huge risk for granted.

[Bucky370]

One thing people who talk about how this won't be any faster than driving miss is that it will be much, much safer than driving. Amazing how many people are willing to take such a huge risk for granted.

 

I couldn't agree more, but the problem is we live in a right now society and most of everybody wants this or that right now. They definetely don't want to wait for a train, or have the inconvienence of station to station than bus to final destination. They just want to jump in their cars and get where their going asap. This train system is not a "High Speed Rail" in the original form. Changing the populations habits, the freedom of their cars, I believe is almost impossible in the state of wisconsin since were NOT densly populated!!! We don't live in chicago where you can easily sit in traffic for several hours. Nowhere in Wisconsin does that happen other than a car accident taking place, but even then their are many side road options.

[Bucky370]

The fact is we have an opinion as well. We may disagree with both Robert and Bruce...but that's our right too.

 

It absolutly is your right and I have said that before. My goal was to get people to understand what they are so against though instead of just hating it from the start. That seems impossible though when it comes to taxes.

 

Bruce, I have actually stated that I'm in favor of some types of commuter rail. But particularly in the Milwaukee area where ridership could offset bus usage and reduce congestion on the freeways. I am not a hater of mass transit, but want to spend the money in a manner that makes sense for the population of the state of Wisconsin and a system that can finanically run on it's own. If this will be anything like the Hiawatha rail line between Milwaukee and Chicago, it will be a drain on the taxpayers to operate.

[thebruce44]

I couldn't agree more, but the problem is we live in a right now society and most of everybody wants this or that right now. They definetely don't want to wait for a train, or have the inconvienence of station to station than bus to final destination. They just want to jump in their cars and get where their going asap. This train system is not a "High Speed Rail" in the original form. Changing the populations habits, the freedom of their cars, I believe is almost impossible in the state of wisconsin since were NOT densly populated!!!

 

Will they 20 years from now when the population of SE WI has increased 30% and there is traffic?

[thebruce44]

Bruce, I have actually stated that I'm in favor of some types of commuter rail. But particularly in the Milwaukee area where ridership could offset bus usage and reduce congestion on the freeways.

 

Isn't that what the Watertown, Oconomowoc, Brookfield, and Milwaukee stations will do?

 

For a specific, I used to live in Grafton and work in Waukesha. I know people say the traffic isn't too bad in Milwaukee, and they are right for the most part, but from 4:30 to 5:30 the drive from Waukesha to the MU interchange up to Bay Shore where it goes down to 2 lanes was hell. 20 years from now I don't even want to think about how bad it is going to be.

[paul253]

Not sure how that is misleading. They clearly state that price is for a round trip ticket.

 

And the price listed for the train ticket is a one way ticket which is not mentioned. They mention the cost of a round trip ticket for the bus and a one way ticket for the train. You don't think that is misleading?

 

Posters here besides me aren't saying "I know more than you and you are

just wrong." Those posters are saying that this report seems correct

and the people who put it togeather know what they are doing. They are

saying that if you are so against it then please point out the flaws.

Saying you just think the numbers are wrong with no evidence or

methodology isn't very convincing.

 

Are you reading my posts? The only thing I am saying is wrong is the rider estimates. That's all. I said some parts of it are misleading, but I am not saying its wrong. The above example is correct, it's just misleading. You need to stop painting everyone who doesn't like this plan as ignorant nobodies who are calling the engineers liars because that's not what we are doing.

We should trust civil engineers? You mean like the civil engineers who

were involved in the deep tunnel project? If a light rail system is so

cost effective long term, wouldn't a private railroad want to build it?

I don't understand why we would want to go backwards and invest in old

technology.

 

This is a very good point. How many times has the government painted a very rosy picture of something in order to get support for it only to have the reality be nothing like the theory? The people who wrote the report were obviously not going to make it sound like it was a bad idea. Would you at least give me that? That means that they either had to leave out or re-word certain things in order to make the general public think something else. Again, it's not that what they say is wrong, but it's just not completely accurate. It's like how "jobs saved" can be re-worded to make it seem like people who get a raise counts a job saved when clearly it should not.

 

Except, it would be more like 2 or 3 people who have never watched a

baseball game sitting in on a press conference with Doug Melvin after

his big signing and telling him he doesn't know what he is doing.

 

Again this is you just flat out ignoring what we are saying. Nobody is saying the engineers are wrong (except rider estimates) or that they don't know what they are doing. I've traveled on trains before while I was visiting friends in Chicago. They were much faster and more convenient than cars. We walked about 3 blocks to a station, rode the train to the other side of the city, got off, and walk another 6 or 7 blocks to our destination. The price of the tickets was probably a little more than the price of parking, but it saved a lot of time. Ok....there you go....I am admitting that the train in Chicago is a good idea (as I have before). But this isn't Chicago, and the need for a Madison-Milwaukee train is far, far less than the Chicago train. And if you really listen to people, you'll know that more there are a few people against this plan, not just the ones who bother to post on brewerfan.net about it.

Again, just because one person doesn't want to use it doesn't mean it

will or won't work. It is somewhat off base to base any opinion off of

one's own personal view or 'poll'

 

And couldn't this very well be turned around to say "Just because you WANT this train and WILL ride it doesn't mean everyone else will too?"

 

[Bucky370]

Will they 20 years from now when the population of SE WI has increased 30% and there is traffic?

 

20 years from now you probably will have much more efficient electric cars and can use the most up to date technology to build a true high speed rail system based on a different power source other than fossel fuel. Not to mention the currently proposed system will have probably lost more just to operate semi empty than it would take to build the entire system new in 20 years.

[Bucky370]

Isn't that what the Watertown, Oconomowoc, Brookfield, and Milwaukee stations will do?

 

No, trains won't run frequently enough. I would comparing this more to a system like the L in chicago.

 

For a specific, I used to live in Grafton and work in Waukesha. I know people say the traffic isn't too bad in Milwaukee, and they are right for the most part, but from 4:30 to 5:30 the drive from Waukesha to the MU interchange up to Bay Shore where it goes down to 2 lanes was hell. 20 years from now I don't even want to think about how bad it is going to be.

 

You should have moved to Waukesha than. It was your choice to live in Grafton. And their were options to drive west and pick up 45 south and skip going thru downtown Milwaukee. No reason that you need to go thru downtown on that route. I work in Mequon and live in Brookfield. The only freeway I see is from Good Hope to Mequon road on I-43. It's still a 25 to 35 minute drive, but I don't complain because it was my choice to take a job in Mequon, my previous job was in St. Francis, the reason I bought my house closer to the city of Milwuakee.

[Bucky370]

Except, it would be more like 2 or 3 people who have never watched a baseball game sitting in on a press conference with Doug Melvin after his big signing and telling him he doesn't know what he is doing.

 

Again this is you just flat out ignoring what we are saying. Nobody is saying the engineers are wrong (except rider estimates) or that they don't know what they are doing. I've traveled on trains before while I was visiting friends in Chicago. They were much faster and more convenient than cars. We walked about 3 blocks to a station, rode the train to the other side of the city, got off, and walk another 6 or 7 blocks to our destination. The price of the tickets was probably a little more than the price of parking, but it saved a lot of time. Ok....there you go....I am admitting that the train in Chicago is a good idea (as I have before). But this isn't Chicago, and the need for a Madison-Milwaukee train is far, far less than the Chicago train. And if you really listen to people, you'll know that more there are a few people against this plan, not just the ones who bother to post on brewerfan.net about it.

Again, just because one person doesn't want to use it doesn't mean it will or won't work. It is somewhat off base to base any opinion off of one's own personal view or 'poll'

 

And couldn't this very well be turned around to say "Just because you WANT this train and WILL ride it doesn't mean everyone else will too?"

 

 

 

GREAT POST PAUL!!!

[homer]

I just don't understand why people are stuck on the whole Milwaukee to Madison thing. This establishes service from Chicago to Madison. That is a major piece of the puzzle that everyone seems to overlook. I'm starting to think it's on purpose.