no more high speed rail?

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
HOMOsapien

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby HOMOsapien » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:05 pm

Donald wrote:I think truly high speed rail would be a good thing in the right environment (ie., where there is enough density to generate high ridership), but I'm at a loss to explain why medium speed rail to Madison makes any sense. Doesn't it make more sense to build out and try out a real high speed rail line?


I agree with this. I'd back properly implemented city-to-city "high speed" rail if it was presented and implemented that way over time. That's not what Wisconsinites got over the past 4 years. We got a mediocre idea backed by mediocre press coverage that would have benefited few people during a time when so many other better ideas deserved energy, input, work, and publicity. Slow speed passenger rail was mostly a "Get it and do it now!" rush job facilitated by timing events in DC.

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13869
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Ned Flanders » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:18 pm

The initial cost of these boondoggles is bad enough, but the real kicker is ther cost of subsidizing them on a yearly basis into the future.

green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union
Contact:

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby green union terrace chair » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:54 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:The initial cost of these boondoggles is bad enough, but the real kicker is ther cost of subsidizing them on a yearly basis into the future.


$7.5 million / year is a drop in the yearly WIDOT budget bucket of $3.1 billion.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:01 pm

We could run the thing for 21 years on what Meg Whitman, a fiscal conservative, spent on her failed Gubernatorial race this year.

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3064
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby ilikebeans » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:38 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:The initial cost of these boondoggles is bad enough, but the real kicker is ther cost of subsidizing them on a yearly basis into the future.

Ah yes, the standard criticism.

If we take the high estimate, $10 million/year, that comes to about $1.80 per Wisconsin resident per year.

If we go with the (probable?) 90% federal subsidization of annual operating costs, like with the current Milwaukee-Chicago Amtrak line, it would come to about 13 CENTS per resident per year.

Oh, and since you don't live in this state, how about you just fuck off anyway?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12972
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby snoqueen » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:33 pm

For me, the idea behind high speed rail (or medium speed rail -- applies to both) is to build an alternative national network of ground-level public transit. Eventually, it would be equal in reach to the interstate highway system, offering us a way to get to destinations in every state, destinations both urban and rural. Among the benefits would be energy savings, safety, convenience, access for those without private vehicles, support for the growth of urban centers, support for the growth of agricultural and tourism industries, reducing heavy private vehicle traffic, and much more.

The rail system doesn't have to be Japan-style high speed to accomplish a lot of that. It's a third alternative to private vehicle travel and air travel, different from both. Ideally, you'd have all three systems (and others -- buses, bicycles) seamlessly interconnected.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:53 pm

snoqueen wrote:For me, the idea behind high speed rail (or medium speed rail -- applies to both) is to build an alternative national network of ground-level public transit. Eventually, it would be equal in reach to the interstate highway system, offering us a way to get to destinations in every state, destinations both urban and rural. Among the benefits would be energy savings, safety, convenience, access for those without private vehicles, support for the growth of urban centers, support for the growth of agricultural and tourism industries, reducing heavy private vehicle traffic, and much more.

The rail system doesn't have to be Japan-style high speed to accomplish a lot of that. It's a third alternative to private vehicle travel and air travel, different from both. Ideally, you'd have all three systems (and others -- buses, bicycles) seamlessly interconnected.


Thank you. This is exactly how I feel. If we build it now, we can have high speed rail as they've said, down the road. Put in the infrastructure and it can happen.

It could have happened 10 years ago, but they said it was too early. Now they say it's too early. When will it be a good time.

Change is hard for some, but we have to get with the times here people. Please think down the road. Don't think about 2 or 4 years, but in 10 years. Are people that short sighted? I may not be in the same place 10 years down the road, but I would like to think that I am one person who helped make Wisconsin a better place to live.

Has anybody thought that more people riding the train would put less people on the roads meaning less work on the roads and less maintenance.

Do any of you asshats even weigh the options or do you blindly say NO.

Average Joe
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:33 am

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Average Joe » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:09 pm

It's time for Tommy Thompson to come out and say something like, "I've always been for rail, yes I said some 'blah, blah, blah' statement during the campaign to try and make Doyle look like an idiot, but this is an opportunity that would be foolish for Wisconsin to pass up on. Git'er done. Go Pack".

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:13 pm

That would be against party line. They wouldn't want that.

Average Joe
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:33 am

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Average Joe » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:19 pm

Stebben84 wrote:That would be against party line. They wouldn't want that.


Actually, no. It would be Tommy helping Scotty to get his tit out of ringer less than a week after junior got elected.

Average Joe
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:33 am

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Average Joe » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:04 pm

And now Ohio's new Scott Walker has killed their rail project. Thanks for making sure the upper Mid-West is the new lower Deep-South of the North, jack-wads. That money is not going to go unspent, it's going to go to California to build the LA to Las Vegas route instead. Oh well, they need the jobs more than we do anyway.

Average Joe
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:33 am

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Average Joe » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:13 pm

Ah-Oh...this just in...Governor-elect of New York Cuomo has told the Obama administration that New York would like the federal grants being refused by Scott Walker-elects of Wisconsin & Ohio to build rail. Governor-elect Cuomo explains that the people New York state like jobs as a reason for requesting the refused funds.

Canoe_Convoy
Senior Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Dane County, Wisconsin

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby Canoe_Convoy » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:26 pm

HOMOsapien wrote:
Donald wrote:I think truly high speed rail would be a good thing in the right environment (ie., where there is enough density to generate high ridership), but I'm at a loss to explain why medium speed rail to Madison makes any sense. Doesn't it make more sense to build out and try out a real high speed rail line?


I agree with this. I'd back properly implemented city-to-city "high speed" rail if it was presented and implemented that way over time. That's not what Wisconsinites got over the past 4 years. We got a mediocre idea backed by mediocre press coverage that would have benefited few people during a time when so many other better ideas deserved energy, input, work, and publicity. Slow speed passenger rail was mostly a "Get it and do it now!" rush job facilitated by timing events in DC.


So would I, but the price tag for TGV style rail can be staggering: something on the order of $ 39 million per mile. That would put the price tag of the entire CHI - MKE - MSN - St. Paul segment at some $ 16.8 billion, alone. Plus, the French and other Europeans have abackbone system of conventional speed passenger rail to augment their higher speed service, and had conventional speed rail before considering to go to speeds in excess of 180 mph.
As the cliché goes, one has to walk before one runs, and run before one can sprint.

One other reminder: this segment is not about just Madison and Milwaukee. This is intended to be an important link in the nine state Midwestern Chicago Hub system, some 3,000 miles. It would connect Madison, by rail, to Saint Paul, Kansas City, Saint Louis, Omaha, Louisville, Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Cleveland, and detroit (and, possibly, Winnipeg, MB, maybe). WI has worked for a decade and a half on this. It is seriously wrong for Walker to throw all of that away.


MWRRS planning shows that once completed, the Chicago hub HSR will be second to only the profitable NE corridor in terms of potential ridership. While if you just look at the first link between Madison and Milwuakee, the numbers don't justify that effort in isolation.

Walker has deceitfully framed the rail issue in a way that has prevented the public from being exposed to the information that shows the larger benefits of the system. In doing so, he is destroying a great opportunity to grow the regional economy. Walker has deceitfully, disingenuously, chosen short term political gain over long term prosperity.

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3064
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby ilikebeans » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:02 am

Yeah, I know it's an old topic, but a recent article in the NY Times discusses high-speed rail and the benefits (and yes, some troubles) it's bringing to ... Scandinavia? Germany? Japan?

No... China.

China’s manufacturing might and global export machine are likely to grow more powerful as 200-mile-an-hour trains link cities and provinces that were previously as much as 24 hours by road or rail from the entrepreneurial seacoast.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: no more high speed rail?

Postby DCB » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:39 am

ilikebeans wrote:Yeah, I know it's an old topic, but a recent article in the NY Times discusses high-speed rail and the benefits (and yes, some troubles) it's bringing to ... Scandinavia? Germany? Japan?

No... China.

Guess who else? Iraq. Fucking Iraq.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13909905

Maybe Wisconsin will get HSR after 10 years of the Republican war on the middle class.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests