Dean, if you charge the drivers who go to work on Wisconsin's arterial suburban roads what it costs to maintain those roads, the WIsconsin gas tax would more than double. Nothing in Wisconsin is subsidized more than the highway system.

Only because Doyle raided the fund.

The mayor said walker's position on this was shortsighted. What is shortsighted is talking about the temporary jobs during construction but not the long-term costs related to such an expensive and relatively unused mode of transportation

"Only because Doyle raided the fund."

WRONG. This is a nationwide problem. The simple fact is that roads are expensive, primarily because of the wear and tear they get from car and especially truck traffic. User fees pay for less than half of the cost of maintaining the roads.

@SKC - Milw/Chgo is the 3rd busiest rail corridor in the country? Huh. Then not investing in better, faster, more efficient trains really doesn't make sense. I can't speak to the way the contracts were or were not written but why aren't we investing in the infrastructure to move people more efficiently? Why is there such a hesitation when it comes to mass transit around here?

Having lived in and around Chicago for 10 years, I remember very few trains and/or buses that ran near empty or empty. Typically it's standing room only during the rush hours and even on the weekends, people rely on the CTA to get them to points of interest because it's cheaper and less of a headache than driving and finding somewhere to park.

I cannot test as to the folly of most mass transit projects. I live in Portland Oregon for over six years and saw the rampant waste that occurred because of a system that was run by the government. Most disturbing is that the system in Portland was constantly packed and written very heavily and yet it still lost millions and millions of dollars every year. Walker made the case that if our state wants to project it should pay for it, and only if they could take care of itself and not drain taxpayers.

This federal money is coming from somewhere. I'm tired of money laundered through DC and 3.5 million employees with strings attached.

There's nothing shortsighted about this policy. The only shortsightedness was in the job numbers Mayor Dickert and Mayor Barrett were throwing about.

*CAN attest as to.... Oops. :)

Edward,

The only way that public transit has any hope of ever paying for itself is if we drivers start fully paying for our drives. And we don't! We drivers only manage to cover 51% of the costs of our highways via fuel taxes and other direct fees. And most local streets are paved with property taxes, not fuel taxes.

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/highways/funding/analysis/

Even if we drivers pay the full costs, it would probably be hard for systems like Portland's to do anything more than cover operating costs. They'll never cover capital costs. However, the train to Madison would have been able to do both, if drivers actually knew how expensive it really is to drive!

And regarding Portland, consider the following: Every time someone stepped on a bus in Portland in 2010 it costs the taxpayers $3.05 for their average ride. Every time someone stepped on a light rail train, it cost the taxpayers $1.64 for their ride.

Personally, I like paying less. How about you?

And for those that support this rail project, where would the money come from exactly? Oh, what's that, it would be borrowed money? But I thought you guys supporting Barrett are now slamming Walker for refinancing our state's previously accrued debt obligations instead of paying them off. And yet, you now want to add billions of expense in a train project that you would either have to 1) make even deeper cuts in the budget, 2) engage in en mass layoffs of state public employees, 3) significantly raise taxes, and/or 4) borrow even more money to properly fund and accommodate the state's obligation. And the federal contribution would be 100% newly originated Obama debt!

What in the hell is wrong with you people?!?!

Hypocrisy and spending money you don't have - that's the liberal way!

"And for those that support this rail project, where would the money come from exactly?"

Wisconsin is wasting a cool billion dollars on two cloverleaf interchanges. I know exactly where to find the money for the rail project.

James,

No one is talking about spending "Billions". Even back when they were talking about running to Madison, the entire project was still less than $1 Billion. But at this point, that is dead thanks to Walker.

What this story is about is 1) honoring contracts already signed; 2) spending X millions instead of Y millions to run new trains that the State of Wisconsin now owns. Wisconsin has already spent Millions on these new trains. That money is gone! All that's left is to decide whether to let that investment rot away in some rail yard while paying Amtrak to run the current trains or paying Talgo to maintain the new trains so that Amtrak can instead use them.

And for the record, Walker opposed light rail in Milwaukee and now he's opposed both the extension to Madison and running the new trains. He only grudgingly seems to accept that the Hiawatha service is necessary. That's not a rail supporter!

@ahblid -

With the cost of interest on the borrowed money that would have been used to build that line alone, not to mention the maintenance costs and future subsidies that would have been needed to sustain that line, it most certainly would have eclipsed $1B over time.

Sure, eventually it would have gone over a Billion. But that's not "Billions".

Plus, just think about what happens in terms of interest when it comes to the Billions that we do borrow for our highways.

And I guess we're not going to address the rest of the concerns, things like the fact that we taxpayers have paid for these brand new trains that no one is going to be able to use now. By the way, just to be clear, these trains don't require the Madison line to run. They were brought for the already existing Hiawatha service. Talgo was to build another two trainsets that would have, when combined with the current two sets, provided service between Chicago, Milwaukee, and on to Madison.

"And for the record, Walker supports rail projects. He just doesn't think that we should be expended resources on them at time when both the state and federal debts are already obscenely high." This statement clearly shows that one can say anything these days, without the least evidence behind it. When Walker cuts train proposals as much as he cuts highway proposals, I'll listen to you again. He _added_ $400 million to his budget expressly for highways, above the previous budget. From general revenue funds. He has never once done anything neutral, much less positive, for _any_ train proposal. We can argue over _why_ he feels this way at a later time.

Actually, Walker never got to say "no thanks" to the Feds. The Fed withdrew the offer before Walker was ever even sworn in as governor.

And the State knew exactly how much it was going to cost to operate and maintain the line to Madison. Those numbers were supplied by the State to the Fed when Wisconsin applied for the Federal monies.

@Eric -

It's not that Walker is against rail projects. It's just the reality of both the state's and the fed's current fiscal situation in that we don't have the money to take on something like this right now without significantly raising taxes - something that Walker stands vigorously against. And he doesn’t see this as being worthwhile enough to go even deeper into debt over at this time. Not to mention the crap no-bid contract that Doyle and Barrett entered us into with Talgo, a foreign company, to build the trains, when existing Milwaukee train manufacturer SuperSteel should have been allowed to bid for that contract. The whole time, we had a train manufacturer located right in Milwaukee, and yet Doyle/Barrett go to Spain under the cover of darkness to do a no-bid contract. And yet, the Dems wonder why businesses continue to flee from Milwaukee - incredible, isn't it?!?!

Check Politifact on this - Walker supports the Milwaukee - Chicago line, but isn't ready to commit to it until we actually have the money to pay for it.

Now do you get it?

James,

One could argue that perhaps the state couldn't afford this, even though Wisconsin was the only state to get almost 100% of the funds needed to build the project, meaning that Wisconsin would have only been on the hook for operating costs. But turning down the Federal money didn't stop the Fed from spending it. It just went to another state, as the Stimulus package required. That money was spent as far as the Fed was concerned, so all that was accomplished by opposing things and the Fed withdrawing the offer, was to deprive Wisconsin taxpayers of getting some of the dollars that they sent to Washington back for use in Wisconsin.

And SuperSteel doesn't build trains. They renovate/repair existing trains. They were never a qualified bidder to build the trains for Wisconsin, since they own no designs for new trains.

@ahblid -

It can also be viewed as taking a stand against continuing to spend little more than borrowed money. By disassociating himself from it, Walker can rightfully claim that he didn't spend borrowed money. The fault of the borrowing therefor stops at Obama and Congress's feet.

SuperSteel couldn't have sold us a train that it had refurbished/renovated? REALLY??? It had to be a brand new train??? Only in Doyle's sick world!

James,

Please don't make me laugh. What stand? Walker didn't take a stand against spending borrowed money. He sent a letter to Sec Trans. Ray LaHood saying that he wanted to divert that same "borrowed money" from the train to a highway project! Governor Walker took a stand against the train because the polls showed that it would catapult him into office. And it worked!

And SuperSteel doesn't own train cars to my knowledge. Companies & transit agencies come to them with cars that they want renovated. SuperSteel can't just sell someone else's cars to the State of Wisconsin.

@Anthony -

And these great subsidies from the federal government come from where exactly? Doesn't the federal government get its revenues from the same place that the State of Wisconsin derives its revenues from - our taxes? And isn't the federal government currently $16T in debt and rising, with its debt rating having just been downgraded for the first time in history?

You act like just because the fed will be kicking in, that this is somehow 'free' money. In reality, it will be borrowed money and do nothing but increase the financial burden on future generations to come. But hey, if that's the liberal way, then why not embrace it, right? After all, let our kids worry about how they'll pay for it, as we'll probably all be long since dead when this debt obligation comes to fruition, right? I'm sorry, but somehow, that seems very SELFISH to me!

Wake up and try again!

"And these great subsidies from the federal government come from where exactly? "

So you support WIsconsin giving up on Federal funding for the Zoo & Marquette interchanges?

@Omri -

You still have to have the roads to get to the train stations, as trains don't stop at everyone's front door, do they? So you still have to be committed to the roads.

And right now, we barely have enough money to do one, as you've pointed out, yet alone having the money to do both!

So again, where are you going to come up with the money for these rail projects, knowing that you still have to be committed to the roads? Only possible place is taking on even more debt. That's very selfish to our future generations, isn't it?

Let's get our financial house in order first, then worry about additional spending. It's called being financially responsible.

James,

Nice try, but no. Walker wanted to take that Federal money and use it on roads. Only the Stimulus act wouldn't allow for that, since the Stimulus package also appropriated $27.5 Billion to highways, while only giving $8 Billion for HSR.

Trust me, our kids will be paying for that $27.5 Billion far longer than they will be paying for that $8 Billion.

"You still have to have the roads to get to the train stations, as trains don't stop at everyone's front door, do they? So you still have to be committed to the roads."

That does not mean that I have to be committed to spending a cool billion on two cloverleaf interchanges to shave off 2 minutes off a Kenosha-Milwaukee drive.

@ahblid -

So, what you're saying is that the train would have required absolutely no subsidies or government funding after initially building it? Really??? It would have been completely self sustaining into the future??? Did anyone guarantee this in writing???

Also, your argument still doesn't get away from the FACT that you'd still need to support the roads. Or is everyone expected to walk to the train stations? If walking is expected, then how does one get large goods back and forth - Radio Flyer wagons?

" It would have been completely self sustaining into the future???"

I don't know about guaranteeing that, but I will guarantee this: the tracks and rolling stock will stay functional for decades after regular use. Unlike any of Walker's highway projects which will become rutted relics within 10 years.

James R Hoffa wrote: "So, what you're saying is that the train would have required absolutely no subsidies or government funding after initially building it? Really??? It would have been completely self sustaining into the future???"

Nonsense! First, I never said that at all. Second, before you ask for those types of guarantees, you first need to secure the same guarantees from the drivers on the highways. Because they're going to need ongoing subsidies too!

As for your "fun fact" about needing roads, see my post further down the page in reply to another one of your posts.

And regarding goods moving around, first, consider that 40% of all freight in this country moves by rail. Only 28% moves by truck. And the rail line to Madison that would have been fixed up by the HSR project is a freight line that would have been able to move a lot more freight. And a large part of that freight line is owned by the State, and the State just spent millions fixing that line up now, millions that would have been paid for by the Fed instead of the state.

Finally, on the truck issue, people are already paying for those trucks to be on the roads. It's a little thing called a shipping fee. Even if you don't see it on say your receipt at the grocery store, you can be assured that the store included it in the costs of the goods. No need to tax people again to pay for those roads. And we don't build 6, 8, 10, & 12 lane highways for trucks. We build them for drivers!

We DON"T need addition I-94 lane! We DON'T need Lake Freeway 794 through Racine! that cost over Billions Dollars. not even no support for our commuter rail line along Lake Shore since May 1971, when Amtrak took over.
Tango cars would be nice to use KRM's line, but NO high speed required along this line.
$280 Million Dollars project along this KRM's line, AND 7.9 Million Dollars for 14 round trips a day operation cost a year, OR 7.1 Million Dollars for 10, or 12 round tripa a day operation cost a year.
Mr. Robin Vos, he's is a financial committee for State of Wisconsin Legislation Committee, he told every committees to say NO!, for support KRM's line. it's cost money for any taxes to pay for. like Sale Taxes, Gas Taxes, User Taxes, School Taxes, Property Taxes, AND even Wheel Taxes.
I'm really love to ride KRM's line to get to Waukegan, Glencoe, Evanston, Ravenwood, Madison Street Station in Chicago.
To Milwaukee, I would get off at South Milwaukee, Layton Avenue, Bay View, Saint Paul Avenue Station in Milwaukee.
Let get back to fight the Legislations to yell YES! for support, AND tell Mr. Robin Vos to change his mind! WE WANT it!

KRM is 'done' because the loudest voices were convinced roads are free, and they could think only of the roads they drove on. Roads aren't free (they cost WI more than is available in gasoline taxes). Extending I-794 from Cudahy to Racine will be expensive and damaging (may require disrupting a major power distribution area that WE Energies won't pay for, and wipes a good chunk of excellent residential Oak Creek & Caledonia, not to mention Racine). We're talking in the range of $90 million per mile for much of 794 extension, just to get the right of way. The right of way for KRM is already there.

Clearly, Jeff, you have not tried to shuttle from Amtrak to Racine. BUS service is spotty at best, and not available on weekends. Amtrak service is less than the KRM proposal, and costs the rider a good deal more. It gets to Chicago faster and goes from STurtevant (2 reasons why some people use it instead of going to Kenosha Metra station), but at a price. Amtrak has only 1 stop between the state line and Chicago. If you work in Waukegan or Evanston, Metra is what you use. Amtrak is a long haul train being used as a commuter from Milwaukee. KRM is a commuter rail line.

Jay-Your cost estimate for 794 is way off base. Due in part to paying for moving transmission lines, the proposed 6 mile extension of 794 to Ryan Road would cost $207M, that is $34.5 miilion per mile, no where near the $90M you quoted. The highway would be built next to rr tracks and would not wipe out excellent residental land.

It would cost little to improve bus service in from Sturtevant, not $300m like KRM. A Metra monthly pass costs about $250, Amtrak is just $400 and well worth the money given the quality of service. Amtrak should consider adding another stop in ILL besides Glenview. Believe it or not, I have taken Metra to Chicago. A 35mph average speed train won't save Racine. It would cost 30m just for the second rail line to be installed from the just north of Kenosha metra station to Milwaukee.

"Problem is, you still have to have the roads." No, you don't. Walker's road widening projects are utterly frivolous.

James,

This country used to have trains that were built, maintained, and operated by private industry.

Then government interfered in the Free Market by subsidizing roads, highways, and planes. We drivers, on average in this country, only manage to cover 51% of the costs of our highways via fuel taxes and other direct fees. And in most states, fuel tax revenues are not shared with the local municipalities, meaning that local streets are subsidized 100%. Even in the few states that do share, at best maybe 20% is paid for by us drivers. So now we also subsidize trains thanks to that.

If roads are so critical, then maybe its time that we drivers actually start paying more for our roads & highways. Not only would that free up some monies for rail projects without the need to borrow, but since drivers would now be bearing more of their costs, they would turn to trains allowing for fare increases so that trains can pay still more of their costs without the need for subsidies.

And just for comparison, in 2010 Amtrak only got a 31% subsidy from the Fed, meaning that they covered more of their expenses than drivers covered on the highways.

These arguments ignore the fact that the roads are a part of the public domain and have been for quite some time. Meanwhile, most if not all rail lines in this country are privately owned and operated, and yet still receive taxpayer's dollars. Are you both advocating for the eminent domain and take over of rail operations by our governments? After all, isn't that how it should be if government is just going to subsidize a profit for a private entity anyway? Or will the private entities be willing to share in both the losses and profit that may be experienced by these rail projects?

Actually, until the last few years freight RR companies have shunned all public dollars, save those used to add tracks because government wants to run passenger trains on a stretch of their tracks. And those improvements to their property mean that they get to pay still more in property taxes, something that roads & highways don't pay. And RR property taxes are a cash cow for many states!

Only in the last few years have RR's been a bit more liberal in accepting direct subsidies to improve their own tracks. And they've started doing that in large part because it's the only way that they can continue to compete with the truck industry which gets massive subsides every time they drive down a subsidized highway.

Now, to some extent I wouldn't be totally opposed to Government taking over all tracks in this country as it would level the playing field for all and it would fix some of Amtrak's delay issues. But it is also fraught with many pitfalls too, so I'm not sure that it's the best idea.

I'll leave it to others to debate whether it's better to subsidize things with direct money like in the case of the RR's or indirect money in the case of the trucks on the roads, although I will again note that the subsidies to rail are a fraction of those to the roads. But regardless of what happens, We The People are subsidizing private trucks & trains, just in different ways.

"These arguments ignore the fact that the roads are a part of the public domain and have been for quite some time."

The reason for that is that roads more time, money, and materiel to build, and cost a lot more to maintain, than tracks, and so the private sector has no interest in building them. What's more, train tracks, when they are privately owned, translate to property taxes. Roads don't. And somehow this makes you want to defend Walker's policy of white-elephant highway projects all around the state?

"Are you both advocating for the eminent domain and take over of rail operations by our governments? "

Roads are government-owned, and the vehicles on them are privately owned.
Waterways are government-owned, and the vehicles on them are privately owned.
Air lanes are government-owned, and the vehicles on them are privately owned.
Government owned train tracks do exist, in the US and in other countries, to serve privately owned trains. Not something likely to expand here in America, but is hardly something to be worried about.

@ahblid -

Good points and fair enough. But you'd still need roads. And contrary to what Elizabeth Warren may think, trucks aren't getting a free ride, as they pay taxes and usage fees as well. But unlike the trains, the only subsidy trucks receive are the usage of the public roads that they help pay for, whereas the trains, under these proposed projects, are not only receiving the infrastructure to use from the government, but also cash payments to subsidize a profit for these private companies which will own/operate the trains. While they may also be paying taxes, if they're also receiving tax revenues back in the form of direct cash subsidies, it's a wash. And then we again have the situation of the taxpayer covering what would otherwise be corporate losses to the benefit of those who own/operate the private company. Given the way our government has proven to work, this type of arrangement is too prone to corruption and favoritism. I believe it's called crony capitalism.

"Good points and fair enough. But you'd still need roads. And contrary to what Elizabeth Warren may think, trucks aren't getting a free ride, as they pay taxes and usage fees as well"

Not a 100% free ride. Just 50%. You need to understand that roads aren't laid down by the road fairy. They are expensive to build, and they are quick to get wear and tear and require repairs. And less than half of the money for mantaining our road systems comes from gas taxes and user fees.

James,

I never suggested that trucks don't pay considerable amounts in fuel taxes and other fees. Still doesn't change the fact that they don't fully pay for their passage on the roads.

Next, this proposed project for trains involves no private companies, beyond giving Canadian Pacific some funds to allow the passenger trains to run faster or in some cases to allow for more passenger trains. Yes, CP is getting some public monies, but they don't need to do make these improvements for themselves. They're making them because the State of Wisconsin wants to run more passenger trains and faster passenger trains.

Yes, I won't deny they will still benefit some from the improvements. But the bulk of the benefit is to the passenger train, which generally is not a private company. METRA is not a private company, nor is the CTA. Heck Amtrak is only technically a private company, in that it's registered as such. But the common stock is worthless. And the Preferred stock, which includes the right to vote, is all owned 100% by the US Government and held in trust by the USDOT on behalf of Congress and We The People.

Finally, no matter how you look at it, we're subsidizing trucks so that they can make a profit too. If they were paying 100% of their road costs, they would probably be out of business. That means we're subsidizing their profits!

While I can relatively easily take my own car and put it on the road, or take my own boat and put in the waterways, or take my own plane and put it in the air, I cannot just take my own train and put it on the tacks just as easily, can I?
So while you may have government owned tracks, the private vehicles allowed to use them are severely more controlled and limited. Who gets to decide who gets to put their engines on the track? How do I know that the person making the decision won't be biased and/or employ favoritism because of undue influence? Ever hear of Solyndra?

James,

Most of the tracks in this country are still privately owned. The Fed owns most of the Northeast Corridor and selected commuter systems own tracks and both permit freight to operate on the tracks for a fee, just like the freight companies permit passenger trains to operate on their tracks for a fee.

Beyond that, most light rail systems and subway's & L's own their tracks.

But you miss one important fact in your comparison. To do all of those things you mentioned, you need a special license and generally a registration too. You can't just go do those things.

There is no reason that such a system couldn't be setup for the RR's, at least the publicly owned ones. But it makes no sense to do so; so we don't.

And Solyndra has no bearing here, as that was a privately owned company that got public money. We're talking about public entities getting public money. A better example of something to worry about would be the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. But then that's the other party's mistake so we probably don't want to mention it. So why don't we just keep politics out of this.

Especially since HSR in Wisconsin was a Republican idea. Sec. Trans Andrew H Card designated it so back in 1992 on behalf of the George H W Bush White House, along with California & Florida too. President Obama merely funded a Republican dream.

I have a question - why are roads not considered mass transit? And why is it okay to pay for roads through taxes, subsidies, etc., but not trains and buses?

Yes, you still need roads. But you may not need _more_ roads, or even the amount of roads we have now. Gov. Walker slashed and burned his way to a 'balanced' budget, yet he still _added_ $400 million for roads over and above the previous budget. Clearly a matter of priorities: more roads are worth more than half the funding removed from schools, or any of the other things he cut out. He could have paid for all the KRM project, and still had $150 million left over.

Really? Then how do you explain this -

http://dullesgreenway.com/

Pays taxes. Doesn't take public money.

"What's more, train tracks, when they are privately owned, translate to property taxes."

OK, if the proposed train projects are all privately owned, then why is the taxpayer expected to kick in anything, especially around $1B in this case, plus future maintenance and subsidies? You're comparing apples to oranges. Please try to stick to the topic of the proposed projects on hand, which are greatly subsidized by public dollars.

If the train is such a great idea, then why doesn't the private sector jump on the opportunity? They'd profit, the government would collect tax revenues - it would be a win all around, right? But the private sector says it won't do it without significant public subsidy. WHY??? After all, it's a great idea, right?

Wow! 1 highway out of how many that actually pays taxes?

And in this case, we're not talking about a privately owned train project. Heck, over much of the run to Madison we're not even talking about privately owned tracks, we're talking about tracks already owned by the State of Wisconsin.

Finally, please don't confuse "a great idea" with making a profit. Things don't have to make a profit to be a great idea. If they did, then we would have no Interstate Highways.

@Omri -

Where does it say anything about the early losses being absorbed by the Commonwealth? As I read and understand the information, it would appear that the private investors who originally built the road absorbed the loss. They just got their contract with the state amended so that they could increase the toll fee to make up for and fully cover those losses. There's no public dollars being used here, is there?

Try again!

No, as yet the early losses have not been absorbed by anyone. The can is simply being kicked down the road, again, and again, and again.

And that is the best example you can come up with.

Ummm... I hate to point out the obvious, but there are these things of mass transportation already in place called 'busses' that accomplish exactly the same goal as a passenger train.

Why don't you try riding the bus sometime, as it should give you the exact same high as a train, as after all, the bus will actually take you to more places than a train physically can! Imagine that, hey!?!?

Are you for real?

"
Ummm... I hate to point out the obvious, but there are these things of mass transportation already in place called 'busses' that accomplish exactly the same goal as a passenger train."

A bus has a life expectancy of 10 years, if it is well looked after.

A train can easily be made to outlast that by a factor of 5.

James,

In this country on average it costs 40 cents per passenger mile to move people by heavy rail (subways & El's) and commuter rail; it costs 70 cents to move people by light rail, and it costs 90 cents per passenger mile to move people by bus.

Milwaukee in 2010 actually spent $1.04 per passenger mile moving people by bus.

Do you like higher taxes?

Because that's what more buses represent, higher taxes.

Mind you I'm not suggesting that we throw away the buses either, they do have a place and purpose. But more buses are NOT what Milwaukee needs. It needs the cheaper to operate light rail!

@Omri -

Guyanese_Prince didn't seem to be at all concerned about longevity in his post, did he?

@ahblid -

We're not even filling the busses we have, yet alone have a need more busses, as you suggest!

If train ridership would be so high, then how come we can't even fill the busses that we presently have?

Bus Service was cancelled for Racine on Memorial Day. Don't people need to get anywhere by bus on a holiday?

Who in their right mind who live in outlying areas would have driven to the proposed KRM train station near the inner city, to ride the train to Milwaukee. As it is if one wants to avoid the congestion of downtown Milwaukee there are several freeway flyer lots.

Speaking of mass transit, what happened to Greyhound bus's.

James,

Forgive me, I partially misunderstood where you were going with your post. I thought you were trying to say that more buses were the answer.

Still doesn't change things however, light rail is still cheaper to operate and therefore costs the taxpayers less. Better to mothball some of those existing buses or move them to other areas to provide yet more transportation.

And the buses aren't empty, not with an average weekday ridership of 141,000 people. The national average for ridership per bus per hour is 33.5 people, Milwaukee comes in at 34.15 people per hour per bus.

Finally, as has been shown time after time in cities around this country and around this world, there is a stigma associated with buses. Some people just won't ride a bus. But they will get on a train, so ridership always goes up in any city that adds rail transportation to it's mix of options.

"Guyanese_Prince didn't seem to be at all concerned about longevity in his post, did he?"

He just disclosed that he's a kid. So the longevity of what we build matters a lot more for him than for us.

The Empire Builder and Hiawatha both go to Milwaukee. The Empire Builder stops in western suburbs of Milwaukee on its way to Minnesota.

I suspect Barrett will assure that the Talgo contract is honored. I'm equally sure that he would like to see more rail throughout WI. SE WI has been absorbing highway money faster than it's generated for 20+ years, and the rest of the state would like some of their roads maintained, too. When Black River Falls collectively figures out that their State roads are in a shambles because Oak Creek wants to add an I-794 spur to shorten their commute time by 5 minutes, they may feel trains in SE WI are not a local issue.

Also, see if you can keep different trains straight better than Sen. Wanggaard (who calls KRM a light rail - it's not); the proposed train in Mke city is a light rail, stopping frequently. The KRM is a commuter rail, stopping every couple miles and getting to a more distant place faster. Amtrak is an intercity train stopping occasionally between large cities.

A suitable automobile does all 3 of those types of transit - short, within city, plus commuter trips plus intercity trips, so auto drivers don't notice the change. But then they have to park the car. (how much $ is that?) Plus, a good car for long hauls doesn't do well on city streets, and a doodle bug type car that zips around town fine won't stand up to a 5 hour trip to St. Louis. You like the doodle bug, then you have a second car for long hauls. Yet more $. Electric cars today have the same problem - it takes a 55 mile range to get from RAcine to Mke and back on one charge.

@Jay Warner -

How will Barrett pay for these trains exactly, while still maintaining and providing for the roads?

"Plus, a good car for long hauls doesn't do well on city streets, and a doodle bug type car that zips around town fine won't stand up to a 5 hour trip to St. Louis."

REALLY???

Funny how ALL of the cars I've ever owned did equally well on both the highway and in the city. I guess I've just been lucky, right?

Yup. If you don't like getting your oil from not-nice people who barely tolerate you, then use less of it. The KRM, even on diesel fuel, uses less fuel than the equivalent number of cars when it is about 1/4 filled with riders. I worked the numbers out once.

And yes, economic development (read steady jobs & income) is much better with rail than with highways. Most drivers on I-94 are going somewhere else, not interested in stopping for a sample of cheese :) The train concentrates people when they get off or on. Not only do housing values in the area jump (as much as 2 times the day the build project is announced, somewhat less 1/4 mile away), but personal services - dry cleaners, child care, hair cuts, coffee shops, groceries - all congregate neat the station. In Caledonia, we have an auto tire store near the station, that would do just fine working on cars while their owners commuted elsewhere. Then you have the companies that need quick access to the distant areas; Kenosha near their train station has architectural firms and others who serve NE IL.

These places don't make all their money on train riders, but they do show a profit because of the 'extra' traffic.

And couldn't we use a boost in property values?! The resistance to mass/commuter transit is something I can't understand because it's okay to pay for roads that crumble after a few years (and look how many of those projects have yet to be addressed!) but not okay to pay for a system that not only benefits more people, but requires less investment for maintenance.

"The problem isn't that rail is a bad idea - it's the FACT that you'd still have to maintain and provide for the roads at the same time as trying to build, run, and maintain this wonderful rail system."

You wouldn't, and you won't. There is already a huge backlog of undone maintenance work on Wisconsin's road system, and regardless of how much we get done with rail, we are letting it sink and will continue to let it sink. Literally sink, by the way, since so much of Wisconsin is prone to subsidence.

I'm also all for getting our financial house in order. That starts with having a transportation infrastructure that doesn't crumble down to an ugly wreck within 20 years the way our roads do.

James,

We could start with raising the fuel tax a bit, so that we drivers actually pay a higher percentage of the costs of our roads. That would help fix the budget issues and provide some extra money. Especially on the Federal side where the last increase came back when Bill Clinton was President. We haven't raised the Federal fuel tax in 19 years.

@Hoffa - I think you're missing the point that if you have a mass/commuter transit system that connects people with communities where there are jobs and also spurs economic development where there are stations, you are getting our financial house in order because ... more money comes into the state coffers through income and sales taxes. Not only that, but when property values rise, that also means more money into local and state coffers.

And I think another point being missed is that mass/commuter transit is not instead of, it's in addition to, maintaining the roads that will remain necessary for the foreseeable future. Let's not forget that upkeep on roads also supplies jobs and helps boost local and state economies.

@Heather A -

But you have to build it first before any of that other wonderful stuff that you mention actually happens. So again, where is the money going to come from? Should we cut education even more? How about public healthcare?

Because borrowing and raising taxes is just out of the question right now! The people have spoken on this much!

@Omri -

You honestly believe that once we build a rail system, that everyone will move to live within close vicinity to a rail station overnight, thus making our system of roads completely unnecessary?

Yeah, I don't think so!

James,

All other things being equal, the pricier real estate in any city is always within a 5 block walk of a train station. If people will pay more to live near a train station, then clearly they are willing to move.

If the train doesn't make as many stops as a bus does, what makes you think that the train stops will be near your origin or destination?

Perhaps they should take some of the money and run another bus on that route to ease the overcrowding problem. It would be far cheaper than putting a train into operation...

And that means ... ?

Peter,

That's a lovely speech you've made, but you left one Freedom off your list. One of the Freedom's we American's value the most too! That is the Freedom of Choice. The Freedom to choose how we wish to travel. The Freedom to choose not to sit in traffic wasting time, gas, & money.

You're so busy worrying about your Freedoms that you've failed to notice that you are seeking to deprive other's of their Freedom of Choice.

By the way, both liberals and conseravatives ride trains. In fact, the HSR train service between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Madison was a Republican idea. It was Sec. Trans. Andrew H Card, Jr. who on behalf ot the George H W Bush White House designated the above corridor a HSR corridor back in 1992.

And with each passing day more and more of both are riding trains. Ridership on trains has been steadily increasing for the last 30 years in this country. So, while you may not want it, plenty of people do want it!

This "freedom" that you're talking about is a "freedom" that you have to have a license to exercise. If this is what you call freedom, then you no idea what the word evenb means.

If one's only choice is to get into a car and drive because others oppose funding for anything else, then one has no freedom of choice. One must have choices to have freedom of choice.

Peter,

Why shouldn't it be President Obama's decision or Governor Walker's decision? After all, that's why we elect them to office, to make decisions for We The People. And why shoudl there need to be a vote on whether or not the train should get built? After all, I don't recall getting to vote on building the Interstate Highways.

Both are infrastructure improvements, so why should one be held to the higher standard of needing a vote?

Of course most polls still do show that a majoriy still favor Amtrak and rail transit.

Next, I did not say that "All Americans" are interested in riding trains. And frankly I suspect that you're not in the minority yet for having no desire to ride trains. But again, more and more American's are indeed riding trains whether or not they truly desire to do so. They just realize that they can do work, take a nap, read a book, or do any of a few dozen other things on a train that they cannot do while in their cars and often stuck in traffic while on their way to work.

Back in 1973, the low point, American's took 1.921 billion rides on trains. Today that number is up to 4.423 billion rides.

And for the record, I like driving myself. I have no intention of giving up my car, at least until I'm too old to see well enough to drive it. I just understand the value of trains, and I realize that whether I get on a train or get into my car, I'm getting a partially subsidized ride.

For all I know he may well be hoping. But if indeed he is hoping, then if he doesn't get it with the trains, then he'll get it from the next road/highway contract that gets let. I'm not saying that Dickert does or doesn't have his hand in the cookie jar, i'll leave that for others to decide and prove or disprove.

But if he does have his hand in the cookie jar, it won't matter what we build he'll still have his hand in the cookie jar. Therefore it is NOT a reason to not build the train. Unless of course your planning on stopping the building of anything and everything!