yeah sorry about the terseness. Alcohol after a horrible hockey game (see college football thread for details) leads to anger, which leads to terseness on the internet, which leads to the troll-side.
I meant I was being terse. :P
Also, yeah, you guys got rocked. By the Fightin' Mollys! Sad.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I hope that each and every GOP candidate in the recall elections loses and I hope they spend a shit ton of money in the process of losing.
Right to work laws are a horrible idea. Sure on paper it sounds good, you don't have to join union to get a job. Sure that means you won't end up in a situation where you are paying fees backing a union that supports politicians or candidates that you don't agree with. You also won't end up being inconvenienced by strikes that won't directly benefit you. Those gains just aren't worth it when you consider that it makes it easier for a business to treat their employees like crap because if you someone objects they can just turn around and hire someone who won't complain about being screwed over. Sadly most people don't get that because they still think that the honor system works amongst business leaders that only care about the bottom line.
Unions are similar to insurance companies. You shouldn't get mad at the union not doing anything for you when there was nothing to be done. That said just because you didn't see the unions doing something in your benefit doesn't mean they didn't and that said Unions as an institution are more important then failings of a few shitty corrupt unions.
Also are you aware the Unions agreed to all the budgets cuts Walker wanted? He handed them a list of concessions and they agreed. Then he stripped them of their rights anyway.
I don't get how people can complain about unions making it hard for governments to do things... and also complain about governments being boneheaded and stupid. It's because governments are boneheaded and stupid, that unions make it hard for them to do things. Are people just supposed to work for idiotic politicians who have no long-term vision and no management expertise without trying to defend themselves in any way? Maybe if politicians could be TRUSTED to do the right thing, unions wouldn't feel the need to bargain for policies to prevent the wrong things from being done.
I mean, doesn't someone like Walker demonstrate why unions are necessary? Because without unions, someone would have Walker-ed the damn government years ago. (And also, when your employer is the same body that you would report employer malfeasance to, yeah, you need a union. Because otherwise, you have the Communist Party of China.)
1) He refused a $800 million dollar grant to put in a light rail system from Chicago to Milwaukee and then Madison, which would later be expanded to Minneapolis. The reason he declined it is because Wisconsin would have to pay up to $5 million to maintain it, but probably less due to other grants from the feds. If you don't see how pants on head retarded this is during a recession (JOBS!), well, it is.
I want to address this... I think killing this was a very good thing to do...
Here's a little backstory.
I grew up in Japan, and I *LOVE* light rail. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed my teen/young adult years crisscrossing the Japanese countryside. It was a complete dream to get anywhere. The train system is one of the fondest memories I have of that country.
The light rail system they had planned here would of been a complete disaster. Let me tell you why
Let's start with the basics. The Metra coming up from Chicago to Kenosha is absolute shit. First of all it's a goddamned EMD F40PH diesel with 5 cars as rolling stock. So we have this huge inefficient engine designed to pull over a mile of rolling stock connected to just 5 cars. That's frigging pathetic. It's also operated by Union Pacific, which means that non-passenger trains have priority. That's not a commuter line, it's a joke.
In Kenosha proper, there are two sets of Union Pacific lines that run North/South (Minus the good-for-nothing unconnected trolly line that runs East/West to the lakeside). The UP lines just serve as coal runners for P4 (Pleasant Prairie Power Plant) and there would be no way in hell that UP would allow commuter rail on those (Never mind the fact they cross-connect in downtown Milwaukee)
Going north, the intra-city rail that was in Racine has been torn up for the last 25 years. The lines that serviced the south side, Spring Street, and the 20/11/31/32 area have been totally destroyed. The only surviving track runs through Sturtevant Amtrack station. (Hiawatha) This track goes from Chicago to Milwaukee ANYWAY! Not only that it only runs at 9% capacity! But on top of that... THAT line is owned by Pacific Northwest, and once again, all non-passenger rolling stock has precedence over the line.
The proposed KRM line was going to extend the already shitty Metra. If we so much as asked if we could roll on Union Pacific or Pacific Northwest track, they would of told us to fuck off at least, or made us pay for all the track maintenance at most. We already do this for the Amtrack Hiawatha line. It's bullshit that we don't own any of the track, but we have to cover 100% of the maintenance costs. So Pacific Northwest gets to roll their stock over the track on the taxpayer's dime.
Because we couldn't use any of the existing track, we would of laid our own. But you know what the kicker was. The track we would of laid would of run next to I94! If you have ever gone down the interstate, you know that there isn't shit around there, except the highway 20 junction, which is full of gas stations! So where would the passengers come from?
I'm glad it was killed. It was a terrible idea...
Now If I had my way, I would of done it like this....
New line - Electric train. The station would be right in Gurnee Mills mall. The next stop would of been at the Kenosha station to cross-link with Metra with a local loop down the trolly tracks to the Kenosha downtown/lakeside area. From the Kenosha station, the train would go north and hub at Regency Mall, and have another local loop to Racine Downtown. The train would then cross link at the Sturtevant station (So you can go on Amtrack). The KRM would then head to Milwaukee and terminate at Mayfair Mall.
That is light rail. If you have to go to more than three cities, you are not light rail anymore. Light rail is basically a subway above ground. It's *DEFINITELY* not pulled by diesel.
Sorry about the Rant, I'm just as peeved that the KRM was killed too. But when I looked into how much of a clusterfuck it became, I'm glad it's dead.
Unions are similar to insurance companies. You shouldn't get mad at the union not doing anything for you when there was nothing to be done. That said just because you didn't see the unions doing something in your benefit doesn't mean they didn't and that said Unions as an institution are more important then failings of a few shitty corrupt unions.
Also are you aware the Unions agreed to all the budgets cuts Walker wanted? He handed them a list of concessions and they agreed. Then he stripped them of their rights anyway.
I don't get how people can complain about unions making it hard for governments to do things... and also complain about governments being boneheaded and stupid. It's because governments are boneheaded and stupid, that unions make it hard for them to do things. Are people just supposed to work for idiotic politicians who have no long-term vision and no management expertise without trying to defend themselves in any way? Maybe if politicians could be TRUSTED to do the right thing, unions wouldn't feel the need to bargain for policies to prevent the wrong things from being done.
I mean, doesn't someone like Walker demonstrate why unions are necessary? Because without unions, someone would have Walker-ed the damn government years ago. (And also, when your employer is the same body that you would report employer malfeasance to, yeah, you need a union. Because otherwise, you have the Communist Party of China.)
People did Walker the government, this country used to be a terrible place to work, corrupt politicians would send soldiers with machineguns mounted on armored cars if you striked
people gave their lives for collective bargaining in this country
override367 on
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited February 2012
I've never seen a single history book in this country detail that. It's funny, it's a huge part of our modern working history, but most kids are going to grow up and know nothing about it, same with the last generation. Instead, they get Fox News "LIBERAL UNION WORKERS ARE STEALING OUR JOBS! AMERICA! EAGLES!" instead.
Pretty sure that's damn well part of the problem. Especially since I think Texas (Whose members of their educational board are completely batshit and want to say things like evolution doesn't exist, and certain founding fathers just don't count.) are one of the big producers of educational materials for the US.
Archonex on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
people gave their lives for collective bargaining in this country
This needs to be repeated. When I was in Madison during the original set of protests, you literally had people with signs stating that people had died over this in the past and, if necessary, they were willing to die as well. That is how seriously this is being taken. Walker, as one of his first acts in office, took something that people are willing to DIE in order to get back.
I say once again. Don't talk to me about fading enthusiasm.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
1) He refused a $800 million dollar grant to put in a light rail system from Chicago to Milwaukee and then Madison, which would later be expanded to Minneapolis. The reason he declined it is because Wisconsin would have to pay up to $5 million to maintain it, but probably less due to other grants from the feds. If you don't see how pants on head retarded this is during a recession (JOBS!), well, it is.
2) While that union was taking money from your ex, had she been fired for absolutely no reason it would have gotten her job back, possibly with back pay as well. Or had she been asked to do something she wasn't qualified to do (moving stock in the backroom and then getting injured doing it, something I saw happen at non-union grocery stores when I worked there in high school) the union could have gotten her medical leave with pay
3) Keeping taxes down is not the be all, end all the right likes to make it seem it is. We in Wisconsin like the services we have, and some communities would have liked to vote to raise their local taxes (property tax) to keep them after Walker slashed the budget (almost entirely in education, which is also pants on head retarded) but that was also made illegal by Walker.
4) HE DIDN'T CAMPAIGN ON DOING ANY OF THIS FUCKING SHIT. However, I will admit that this is also a problem with Barret (a man who is a literal hero and was beaten in the head with a rock for defending a women being attacked in the street while mayor of Milwaukee) running an ineffective campaign.
there's more, and I'm sure others can fill that in
Late to the party on this, but I'd like to add that during this "Budget shortfall", he gave away an absurd ammount of money in tax breaks to Chevron and google. I can wrap my head around giving chevron a tax break (It's a gas company, it has an actual physical product and considerable infrastructure/human employment) but google? It's product (along with the majority of it's infrastructure) is virtual.
Further, after he got done fucking over the unions He
1. Discovers that there was no budget shortfall. At all.
2. Gives away hundreads of millions in to out of state banks in the most ridiculous investment scam I've ever heard; As I recall It called for the banks to only pay back 20% of the investment, which would (for those of you who suck at math) require the bank to have quintupled the investment after so many years in order to break even.
Right he drummed up a phony crisis, and then when his phony crisis still wasn't a crisis, he gave money away to banks so we still had a crisis
If instead of what he did we raised taxes by 1% and accepted the $800,000,000 from the feds, Wisconsin would have continued to be one of the best in the nation for job growth and lowest unemployment
I've never seen a single history book in this country detail that. It's funny, it's a huge part of our modern working history, but most kids are going to grow up and know nothing about it, same with the last generation. Instead, they get Fox News "LIBERAL UNION WORKERS ARE STEALING OUR JOBS! AMERICA! EAGLES!" instead.
Pretty sure that's damn well part of the problem. Especially since I think Texas (Whose members of their educational board are completely batshit and want to say things like evolution doesn't exist, and certain founding fathers just don't count.) are one of the big producers of educational materials for the US.
American history as taught in this country is basically: Columbus found it, religious freedom created colonies (ignoring all the economic reasons), fuck the English (times two), expansionism wooooo, Civil War (totes not about slavery), nothing happened until WW1, Depression, WW2, MLK.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I've never seen a single history book in this country detail that. It's funny, it's a huge part of our modern working history, but most kids are going to grow up and know nothing about it, same with the last generation. Instead, they get Fox News "LIBERAL UNION WORKERS ARE STEALING OUR JOBS! AMERICA! EAGLES!" instead.
Pretty sure that's damn well part of the problem. Especially since I think Texas (Whose members of their educational board are completely batshit and want to say things like evolution doesn't exist, and certain founding fathers just don't count.) are one of the big producers of educational materials for the US.
Back in high school I had a US history book that spent a bit of time on labor, but it was done almost entirely without context. Basically, it gave the reader no idea what unions did or what they wanted besides that they were associated with unrest and radical politics.
The $800 million would of been a waste. See Re: Train situation above.
Dude, That's one of those things which could have been addressed either before or after work had begun, Work which would have employed thousands of Wisconsinites for years. Further, Scottie ran on a platform of job creation and this would have shown him to be legitimately concerned about the welfare of the state.
Frankly, your arguement falls apart when one realizes that scott isn't concerned about the technicalities of projects (Which may very well be valid), but rather that the funding being consistently rejected is federal funds.
Threads like this remind me of how blessed I was with the some of the teachers I had in High School; especially, my AP Government teacher, who was liberal and was the head of the social science and history departments. I don't know if how shitty the other teachers were but that teacher made sure to get some decent text books that didn't gloss over the labor unions, slavery, the civil rights movement or the negative parts of American history regarding isolationism, treatment of native Americans and whatever else I might have missed.
Moving back to Wisconsin politics, what's the general consensus that this whole recall will have on the elections in fall? Or is it too early to make such a call because of the recall elections?
The $800 million would of been a waste. See Re: Train situation above.
That's not really how the train was planned, though. They were going to upgrade the existing freight lines to add a dedicated commuter line, plus a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Chicago (connecting from there to the cities in the midwest), plus a light rail system within Milwaukee. Whatever money it cost to maintain would have easily made up for in decreased highway maintenance costs. They weren't going to just run some giant light rail monstrosity from Milwaukee to Chicago, or run high speed trains on freight tracks.
Moving back to Wisconsin politics, what's the general consensus that this whole recall will have on the elections in fall? Or is it too early to make such a call because of the recall elections?
Negligable. Most news networks haven't paid any real attention to wisconsin in the last 9 months, and unless this turns into a grandstanding spectacle where Walker rips off his skin and reveals that he is in fact a balrog that isn't likely to change.
Well what about the Wisconsin political stage? Does the whole spectacle make it very likely that they'll go straight democrat on everything for the national elections?
I wasn't expecting this to be more than negligible for the national stage before the recall elections. I could see the outcome of the recalls election being more than negligible.
The $800 million would of been a waste. See Re: Train situation above.
The $800 million would have produced more in state taxes than the train would have cost to maintain. Frankly I don't buy the assertion that the plans would have been wasted (see Pi-R8's post), but lets just assume they are. Lets assume the government is offering us $800 mil to dig holes and fill them (with the understanding that some state is going to do this, the money is already allocated to spent).
It would still be a fucking fantastic idea to take the money. Instead we got Walker's budget and several months of leading the nation in job losses. Walker's policies have demonstrably not worked.
Edit: this is just assuming the project added zero dollars in value to Wisconsin and caused zero increase in GDP, which is impossible
The $800 million would of been a waste. See Re: Train situation above.
That's not really how the train was planned, though. They were going to upgrade the existing freight lines to add a dedicated commuter line, plus a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Chicago (connecting from there to the cities in the midwest), plus a light rail system within Milwaukee. Whatever money it cost to maintain would have easily made up for in decreased highway maintenance costs. They weren't going to just run some giant light rail monstrosity from Milwaukee to Chicago, or run high speed trains on freight tracks.
I would like to compare those ideas with an actual functioning commuter rail line. Because I'm rather familiar with Japanese lines, I'm gong to use them as an example.
I'm going to use a few lines from the East Japan Railway Company (also known as JR) as an example, because if it's diverse types of rolling stock, and it's known world-wide as the most successful commuter line in the world.
Now, a little history. JR was the local commuter rail monopoly that was owned by the Japanese government. It did not become completely privatized until 2002. This means that the Japanese taxpayer was subsidizing the cost of the rail line. I have no problem with this, as I think it's government's responsibility to foster infrastructure though taxes.
In the U.S., Amtrak is a government-owned company that exists because of taxpayer subsidies. Much like JR before 2002.
Here's where things get dicey. Amtrak only owns the Northeast Corridor and all other lines are leased from private companies. Amtrak gets a raw deal because on the leased lines, they have to give right-of-way to non-passenger rail, and pay for the maintenance of the track.
Now the Northeast Corridor is a success story of sorts. Not only is it properly strung for electricity, it also runs a high speed line that is comparable to JR's Akita_Shinkansen. However that Amtrak's Acela Express runs though New York. One of the biggest cities in the world.
Running a bullet train from Chicago to Madison would of been just stupid. Especially when we already have the Amtrak line in place. What should be ran from Kenosha to Milwaukee is something like this. A nice electric line that goes back and forth between the metropolitan areas.
Also I don't know if you have ever been in Milwaukee, but where on earth would we put a local loop that wasn't already serviced by the bus system? It would either be a subway or an elevated train. Downtown is MUCH too small of it's own loop, comparing to what I've seen in Tokyo. I can walk across the bulk of downtown.
Trains need to terminate in shopping centers or major people-gathering areas. Our convention centers are woefully underused to warrant a day-to-day train line...
But most of all. We have a perfectly functional interstate. I use it everyday...
Now, what would be really cool? When cars start to drive themselves, the whole argument will be a non-issue. Jump on I94, push the "super cruse control" and go read a book. I can't wait till that happens.
The $800 million would of been a waste. See Re: Train situation above.
That's not really how the train was planned, though. They were going to upgrade the existing freight lines to add a dedicated commuter line, plus a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Chicago (connecting from there to the cities in the midwest), plus a light rail system within Milwaukee. Whatever money it cost to maintain would have easily made up for in decreased highway maintenance costs. They weren't going to just run some giant light rail monstrosity from Milwaukee to Chicago, or run high speed trains on freight tracks.
I would like to compare those ideas with an actual functioning commuter rail line. Because I'm rather familiar with Japanese lines, I'm gong to use them as an example.
I'm going to use a few lines from the East Japan Railway Company (also known as JR) as an example, because if it's diverse types of rolling stock, and it's known world-wide as the most successful commuter line in the world.
Now, a little history. JR was the local commuter rail monopoly that was owned by the Japanese government. It did not become completely privatized until 2002. This means that the Japanese taxpayer was subsidizing the cost of the rail line. I have no problem with this, as I think it's government's responsibility to foster infrastructure though taxes.
In the U.S., Amtrak is a government-owned company that exists because of taxpayer subsidies. Much like JR before 2002.
Here's where things get dicey. Amtrak only owns the Northeast Corridor and all other lines are leased from private companies. Amtrak gets a raw deal because on the leased lines, they have to give right-of-way to non-passenger rail, and pay for the maintenance of the track.
Now the Northeast Corridor is a success story of sorts. Not only is it properly strung for electricity, it also runs a high speed line that is comparable to JR's Akita_Shinkansen. However that Amtrak's Acela Express runs though New York. One of the biggest cities in the world.
Running a bullet train from Chicago to Madison would of been just stupid. Especially when we already have the Amtrak line in place. What should be ran from Kenosha to Milwaukee is something like this. A nice electric line that goes back and forth between the metropolitan areas.
Also I don't know if you have ever been in Milwaukee, but where on earth would we put a local loop that wasn't already serviced by the bus system? It would either be a subway or an elevated train. Downtown is MUCH too small of it's own loop, comparing to what I've seen in Tokyo. I can walk across the bulk of downtown.
Trains need to terminate in shopping centers or major people-gathering areas. Our convention centers are woefully underused to warrant a day-to-day train line...
But most of all. We have a perfectly functional interstate. I use it everyday...
Now, what would be really cool? When cars start to drive themselves, the whole argument will be a non-issue. Jump on I94, push the "super cruse control" and go read a book. I can't wait till that happens.
Well, first of all I would argue that it's not very useful to compare the Midwest United States to Japan, since Japan has something like 20 times our population density. Then again I'm not sure why you're even bringing up Japan here at all , unless it's just to show that you're not totally anti-train. Let's ignore Japan and focus on whether a rail system can be useful for Wisconsin. It's important to not just look at how one particular rail line might do right now by itself, but how the system as a whole would benefit the state over the long term. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
As you mention, a big problem with Amtrak is that it's forced to share lines with freight, and doesn't get the right-of-way, so it's slow as hell. That's why they want to build a high-speed rail line to Chicago, so that it would actually become faster than driving or flying. And right now there isn't any passenger rail from Madison to Milwaukee at all, even though they're at the perfect distance for it (you could arrive by train before your plane had even taken off). You're right that Milwaukee is not exactly New York City, which is why the initial plan was for a fairly modest 110 MPH train- not exactly a bullet train. You can see the plan here.
One disadvantage with traveling train instead of by car of course is how you get around once you're there. That's why it makes sense to develop high-speed rail in combination with intracity light rail. A good light rail system can actually increase bus ridership, since it makes it easier for residents to live without a car and encourages high-density urban development. Right now Milwaukee is growing fast, but in a really inefficient suburban sprawl. A good public transportation system is a good way to reverse that pattern and save money in the long run (not to mention the environmental and cultural benefits). There's also I think some cultural inertia in the US, where it takes some time for people to learn how to use public transit and get used to it, and get rid of their car. It's a long-term project (although the short-term stimulus benefits would have been considerable, which is why it makes sense to build it during a recession).
I admit, I have never been to Milwaukee and don't know the area. But this sounds like a reasonably good route:
Had plans unfolded on schedule, the starter light rail, with an estimated 21,000 riders on weekdays, would have opened in 2006 and run about 10 miles from the Third Ward to Summerfest, downtown, Miller Park, the Milwaukee County Zoo and the County Grounds.
Talk about a missed opportunity. It would have provided Milwaukeeans with a spiffy transit option in the face of $4-a-gallon gasoline, with higher eventual prices predicted.
The system would have benefited from the city's condo-and-loft boom, a resurgent Milwaukee Brewers' ballclub, the successful Potawatomi Bingo Casino and an expanding Milwaukee Regional Medical Center.
Extensions to Milwaukee's north side and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee would have generated support, and light rail could have assisted Waukesha County commuters because years of Zoo Interchange and I-94 reconstruction are planned west of Milwaukee.
If it duplicates bus routes, that's OK. You can either sell the excess buses, or double service on existing routes. It's not like it's too hard to change a bus route!
As for the commuter rail line, how about this study from the University of Wisconsin?
The proposed project will support, and bring about significant development and
redevelopment around its nine stations. Based on experience across the nation and an in-depth review of the area around each of the nine KRM stations including existing land use and real estate market, estimates of potential development/redevelopment and land use plans have been developed and endorsed by each station’s community. The estimated development/redevelopment within one-half mile of the nine KRM stations includes:
· 23,000 residential units
· 7.6 million square feet of retail space
· 4.7 million square feet of office space
· 71,000 jobs
· $7.9 billion increase in property value
Without KRM commuter rail, 20 to 50 percent of this potential development would not be expected to take place.
Sounds like a bargain to me! I agree that an electric line would have been nice, but hey, you can't always get a perfect solution. A lot of people live there, and it would have had it's own special tracks with right-of-way so it wouldn't have to stop for freight. It would have been faster, cheaper, and more reliable than driving. It's not intended to compete with Amtrak, because you're not supposed to use it to go all the way, just short distances. Why would you want to drive along Lake Michigan in the winter when you could take the train instead? It's also kind of weird that you brought up the Google car, since commuter trains already offer that advantage- you can do your homework on the train! I've often found that, even when public transit takes longer to get somewhere, it still saves me time overall because of that.
This rail project was a golden opportunity to create jobs in the short term, save money in the long term, reduce pollution, and build real cities instead of the endless suburban sprawl that blights most of the country. Walker stopped all of that so that his lobbyists from the oil industry could continue making more money by gouging every single American for gasoline.
It should be noted that in ten years gas could be anywhere from $6 to $infinity, which changes the cost benefit metrics significantly.
There's going to come a time when we're going to be falling over ourselves to build mass transit and reverse suburban sprawl. Sure would be great to get started on that during a period of prolonged joblessness
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Nothing is as important as getting Obama out of office, obviously. That'll fix everything!
The $800 million would of been a waste. See Re: Train situation above.
That's not really how the train was planned, though. They were going to upgrade the existing freight lines to add a dedicated commuter line, plus a high speed rail line from Milwaukee to Chicago (connecting from there to the cities in the midwest), plus a light rail system within Milwaukee. Whatever money it cost to maintain would have easily made up for in decreased highway maintenance costs. They weren't going to just run some giant light rail monstrosity from Milwaukee to Chicago, or run high speed trains on freight tracks.
I would like to compare those ideas with an actual functioning commuter rail line. Because I'm rather familiar with Japanese lines, I'm gong to use them as an example.
I'm going to use a few lines from the East Japan Railway Company (also known as JR) as an example, because if it's diverse types of rolling stock, and it's known world-wide as the most successful commuter line in the world.
Now, a little history. JR was the local commuter rail monopoly that was owned by the Japanese government. It did not become completely privatized until 2002. This means that the Japanese taxpayer was subsidizing the cost of the rail line. I have no problem with this, as I think it's government's responsibility to foster infrastructure though taxes.
In the U.S., Amtrak is a government-owned company that exists because of taxpayer subsidies. Much like JR before 2002.
Here's where things get dicey. Amtrak only owns the Northeast Corridor and all other lines are leased from private companies. Amtrak gets a raw deal because on the leased lines, they have to give right-of-way to non-passenger rail, and pay for the maintenance of the track.
Now the Northeast Corridor is a success story of sorts. Not only is it properly strung for electricity, it also runs a high speed line that is comparable to JR's Akita_Shinkansen. However that Amtrak's Acela Express runs though New York. One of the biggest cities in the world.
Running a bullet train from Chicago to Madison would of been just stupid. Especially when we already have the Amtrak line in place. What should be ran from Kenosha to Milwaukee is something like this. A nice electric line that goes back and forth between the metropolitan areas.
Also I don't know if you have ever been in Milwaukee, but where on earth would we put a local loop that wasn't already serviced by the bus system? It would either be a subway or an elevated train. Downtown is MUCH too small of it's own loop, comparing to what I've seen in Tokyo. I can walk across the bulk of downtown.
Trains need to terminate in shopping centers or major people-gathering areas. Our convention centers are woefully underused to warrant a day-to-day train line...
But most of all. We have a perfectly functional interstate. I use it everyday...
Now, what would be really cool? When cars start to drive themselves, the whole argument will be a non-issue. Jump on I94, push the "super cruse control" and go read a book. I can't wait till that happens.
Well, first of all I would argue that it's not very useful to compare the Midwest United States to Japan, since Japan has something like 20 times our population density. Then again I'm not sure why you're even bringing up Japan here at all , unless it's just to show that you're not totally anti-train. Let's ignore Japan and focus on whether a rail system can be useful for Wisconsin. It's important to not just look at how one particular rail line might do right now by itself, but how the system as a whole would benefit the state over the long term. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
As you mention, a big problem with Amtrak is that it's forced to share lines with freight, and doesn't get the right-of-way, so it's slow as hell. That's why they want to build a high-speed rail line to Chicago, so that it would actually become faster than driving or flying. And right now there isn't any passenger rail from Madison to Milwaukee at all, even though they're at the perfect distance for it (you could arrive by train before your plane had even taken off). You're right that Milwaukee is not exactly New York City, which is why the initial plan was for a fairly modest 110 MPH train- not exactly a bullet train. You can see the plan here.
One disadvantage with traveling train instead of by car of course is how you get around once you're there. That's why it makes sense to develop high-speed rail in combination with intracity light rail. A good light rail system can actually increase bus ridership, since it makes it easier for residents to live without a car and encourages high-density urban development. Right now Milwaukee is growing fast, but in a really inefficient suburban sprawl. A good public transportation system is a good way to reverse that pattern and save money in the long run (not to mention the environmental and cultural benefits). There's also I think some cultural inertia in the US, where it takes some time for people to learn how to use public transit and get used to it, and get rid of their car. It's a long-term project (although the short-term stimulus benefits would have been considerable, which is why it makes sense to build it during a recession).
I admit, I have never been to Milwaukee and don't know the area. But this sounds like a reasonably good route:
Had plans unfolded on schedule, the starter light rail, with an estimated 21,000 riders on weekdays, would have opened in 2006 and run about 10 miles from the Third Ward to Summerfest, downtown, Miller Park, the Milwaukee County Zoo and the County Grounds.
Talk about a missed opportunity. It would have provided Milwaukeeans with a spiffy transit option in the face of $4-a-gallon gasoline, with higher eventual prices predicted.
The system would have benefited from the city's condo-and-loft boom, a resurgent Milwaukee Brewers' ballclub, the successful Potawatomi Bingo Casino and an expanding Milwaukee Regional Medical Center.
Extensions to Milwaukee's north side and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee would have generated support, and light rail could have assisted Waukesha County commuters because years of Zoo Interchange and I-94 reconstruction are planned west of Milwaukee.
If it duplicates bus routes, that's OK. You can either sell the excess buses, or double service on existing routes. It's not like it's too hard to change a bus route!
As for the commuter rail line, how about this study from the University of Wisconsin?
The proposed project will support, and bring about significant development and
redevelopment around its nine stations. Based on experience across the nation and an in-depth review of the area around each of the nine KRM stations including existing land use and real estate market, estimates of potential development/redevelopment and land use plans have been developed and endorsed by each station’s community. The estimated development/redevelopment within one-half mile of the nine KRM stations includes:
· 23,000 residential units
· 7.6 million square feet of retail space
· 4.7 million square feet of office space
· 71,000 jobs
· $7.9 billion increase in property value
Without KRM commuter rail, 20 to 50 percent of this potential development would not be expected to take place.
Sounds like a bargain to me! I agree that an electric line would have been nice, but hey, you can't always get a perfect solution. A lot of people live there, and it would have had it's own special tracks with right-of-way so it wouldn't have to stop for freight. It would have been faster, cheaper, and more reliable than driving. It's not intended to compete with Amtrak, because you're not supposed to use it to go all the way, just short distances. Why would you want to drive along Lake Michigan in the winter when you could take the train instead? It's also kind of weird that you brought up the Google car, since commuter trains already offer that advantage- you can do your homework on the train! I've often found that, even when public transit takes longer to get somewhere, it still saves me time overall because of that.
This rail project was a golden opportunity to create jobs in the short term, save money in the long term, reduce pollution, and build real cities instead of the endless suburban sprawl that blights most of the country. Walker stopped all of that so that his lobbyists from the oil industry could continue making more money by gouging every single American for gasoline.
I support getting rid of public unions, and do not support pointless government projects just designed to hire people, and based on what I have read in this thread, even I think the rail seems like a good project, or at least one that is not harmful and therefore is worth pursuing if the money was already on the table.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
The money was. When Walker refused it, it didn't mean the money wasn't getting spent. It just meant the money got reallocated to the rail projects of other states; I think California got the bulk of the money Walker turned down.
Then a few months later, Walker asked for money for a smaller Milwaukee-to-Chicago project after Rick Scott turned down Florida's money. (Basically, what this showed was that he didn't like the rail project because it had Jim Doyle's name on it, and he wanted a rail project with Scott Walker's name on it.) The response he got was 'you had your chance, now you can just suck it'.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
The money was. When Walker refused it, it didn't mean the money wasn't getting spent. It just meant the money got reallocated to the rail projects of other states; I think California got the bulk of the money Walker turned down.
Then a few months later, Walker asked for money for a smaller Milwaukee-to-Chicago project after Rick Scott turned down Florida's money. (Basically, what this showed was that he didn't like the rail project because it had Jim Doyle's name on it, and he wanted a rail project with Scott Walker's name on it.) The response he got was 'you had your chance, now you can just suck it'.
Minnesota actually got most of it, if I remember correctly, and they were going to use it to make a line from Minneapolis to Chicago surpassing Wisconsin entirely. The Hiawatha train revamp was included in the 800 he turned down, but yeah, it was really just politicking to an extreme level.
I still can't fathom how the train's upkeep would have been anything but a benefit to Wisconsin.
You get jobs for repair and as operators, you collect fees from the tickets... where's the problem exactly? I would assume it would pay for itself, and if it didn't you subsidy the rest off with raised taxes (that I assume people would be more than willing to pay for).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I still can't fathom how the train's upkeep would have been anything but a benefit to Wisconsin.
You get jobs for repair and as operators, you collect fees from the tickets... where's the problem exactly? I would assume it would pay for itself, and if it didn't you subsidy the rest off with raised taxes (that I assume people would be more than willing to pay for).
To be fair, even the NYC public transit system runs at a loss. I you are going to commit to operating a transit system that may run a a loss forever, you should be very confident in the need for it. It's the same with job creation. If we are going to commit to hiring lots of new workers, we should be sure we are getting a useful service, instead of moving money from the taxpayers' pockets into the new workers' pockets.
I still can't fathom how the train's upkeep would have been anything but a benefit to Wisconsin.
You get jobs for repair and as operators, you collect fees from the tickets... where's the problem exactly? I would assume it would pay for itself, and if it didn't you subsidy the rest off with raised taxes (that I assume people would be more than willing to pay for).
To be fair, even the NYC public transit system runs at a loss. I you are going to commit to operating a transit system that may run a a loss forever, you should be very confident in the need for it. It's the same with job creation. If we are going to commit to hiring lots of new workers, we should be sure we are getting a useful service, instead of moving money from the taxpayers' pockets into the new workers' pockets.
NYC's trains are old and inefficient, right? Minneapolis installed a commuter train between the Twins stadium in downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America, and it runs on massive surplusses, last time I checked. I know that cross country trains are different than metro trains, but the same basic principles are at work.
I'm not convinced that Wisconsin's high speed rail would have operated at much of a loss. It would've been a win/win, if you ask me.
I still can't fathom how the train's upkeep would have been anything but a benefit to Wisconsin.
You get jobs for repair and as operators, you collect fees from the tickets... where's the problem exactly? I would assume it would pay for itself, and if it didn't you subsidy the rest off with raised taxes (that I assume people would be more than willing to pay for).
To be fair, even the NYC public transit system runs at a loss. I you are going to commit to operating a transit system that may run a a loss forever, you should be very confident in the need for it. It's the same with job creation. If we are going to commit to hiring lots of new workers, we should be sure we are getting a useful service, instead of moving money from the taxpayers' pockets into the new workers' pockets.
NYC's trains are old and inefficient, right? Minneapolis installed a commuter train between the Twins stadium in downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America, and it runs on massive surplusses, last time I checked. I know that cross country trains are different than metro trains, but the same basic principles are at work.
I'm not convinced that Wisconsin's high speed rail would have operated at much of a loss. It would've been a win/win, if you ask me.
In FY 2010, Amtrak earned approximately $2.51 billion in revenue and incurred approximately $3.74 billion in expense. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without some form of public support for capital costs and/or operating expenses. In 2009, the most recent year for which data for other railroads is available, Amtrak's farebox recovery (percentage of operating costs covered by revenues generated by passenger fares) was the highest reported for any U.S. passenger railroad.
Amtrak has the highest ticket revenue to cost ratio of any passenger rail in America and still runs only covers 2/3rds of its costs. I love trains, and wish we had a more expansive rail system, but I do think that you need to take a hard look at a project before deciding if it makes sense. This project may well have made sense (I don't have enough information) and if it did, it is a shame it was killed by political scheming, but I just think that it is really important that we make sure we don't pursue "shovel ready" jobs that will cost us money indefinitely, or to hire people to make those projects happen.
On the MTA trains being old and inefficient, a lot of the trains have been replaced with newer, higher efficiency trains in recent years. But costs are just hard to control when it comes to public works. We have robot trains on one line now, but because of the union contract (see, this is on topic) those trains still have to have a conductor, in addition to the tech who is there in case their is a problem. If computerized trains result in paying more people, not fewer, then how can you ever hope to create a more efficient system?
Spaceman, regarding your disagreement with "temporary work", you do realize that unemployed people would be ecstatic to work right? and that even if the work constructing a new rail line didn't transfer into permanent employment it would be a noteworthy addition to a resume.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Spaceman, regarding your disagreement with "temporary work", you do realize that unemployed people would be ecstatic to work right? and that even if the work constructing a new rail line didn't transfer into permanent employment it would be a noteworthy addition to a resume.
Of course its good for the workers. The question is just if it is a good use of public dollars to pay people to dig holes and fill them in, just to employ them. Personally, I think we are better off using that money to retrain workers to get jobs that actually still exist.
Spaceman, regarding your disagreement with "temporary work", you do realize that unemployed people would be ecstatic to work right? and that even if the work constructing a new rail line didn't transfer into permanent employment it would be a noteworthy addition to a resume.
Of course its good for the workers. The question is just if it is a good use of public dollars to pay people to dig holes and fill them in, just to employ them. Personally, I think we are better off using that money to retrain workers to get jobs that actually still exist.
And I'd agree, but in the meantime what are these people supposed to eat?
Spaceman, regarding your disagreement with "temporary work", you do realize that unemployed people would be ecstatic to work right? and that even if the work constructing a new rail line didn't transfer into permanent employment it would be a noteworthy addition to a resume.
Of course its good for the workers. The question is just if it is a good use of public dollars to pay people to dig holes and fill them in, just to employ them. Personally, I think we are better off using that money to retrain workers to get jobs that actually still exist.
Those "hole digging & filling" jobs are going to exist in greater abundance if this whole train thing takes off.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Spaceman, regarding your disagreement with "temporary work", you do realize that unemployed people would be ecstatic to work right? and that even if the work constructing a new rail line didn't transfer into permanent employment it would be a noteworthy addition to a resume.
Of course its good for the workers. The question is just if it is a good use of public dollars to pay people to dig holes and fill them in, just to employ them. Personally, I think we are better off using that money to retrain workers to get jobs that actually still exist.
And I'd agree, but in the meantime what are these people supposed to eat?
Well, that's why I think we need to reimagine unemployment. There are states (actually, Wisconsin might even be one of them) where the state gives big tax breaks to employers who hire unemployed people and pay for them to be retrained at a community college and to do on the job training. This way, you are supported while you train, and then you go right into a job where you are needed. It also helps to bring jobs to your state.
Spaceman, regarding your disagreement with "temporary work", you do realize that unemployed people would be ecstatic to work right? and that even if the work constructing a new rail line didn't transfer into permanent employment it would be a noteworthy addition to a resume.
Of course its good for the workers. The question is just if it is a good use of public dollars to pay people to dig holes and fill them in, just to employ them. Personally, I think we are better off using that money to retrain workers to get jobs that actually still exist.
Those "hole digging & filling" jobs are going to exist in greater abundance if this whole train thing takes off.
But does that mean we are just hurting ourselves more, by spending more on them? Japan built a ton of public works projects, and it did not help them get out of recession.
I thought you wanted to pay for people to work rather than to laze around.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Eh spending more doesn't usually hurt more. The great thing about taxes not working anything at all like personal budgets is you can almost always make up a deficit.
As long as they're a demand for it, the public work will usually help recessions, at the least not worsen.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The major reasons that the MTA runs at a loss isn't due to infrastructure, but corrupt officials and frivolous lawsuits. Numerous cases have been filed against the MTA because the plaintiff was drunk and got hit by a train, and they won. Sorry, if you got hammered and decided to ride your bike down a subway tunnel, you're taking your life into your hands.
I don't have the source on hand, but there was a pretty big story about people claiming to work over time on days they never showed up for work, higher ups stealing large amount of money, etc.
As far as inefficiency goes, it really depends on what line you're riding. I take the G, which runs very well during work hours (but very poorly at night), and the L train, which is pretty dependable all around. If I get stuck waiting for 20 minutes on a platform, I can't really complain. That shit cost me $2.25 to go anywhere in the city one way.
And the reason the computerized trains won't be accepted is because the city remembers the massive crashes due to untrained conductors a century ago. Which, by the way, is why a trained conductor is required.
Posts
I meant I was being terse. :P
Also, yeah, you guys got rocked. By the Fightin' Mollys! Sad.
Right to work laws are a horrible idea. Sure on paper it sounds good, you don't have to join union to get a job. Sure that means you won't end up in a situation where you are paying fees backing a union that supports politicians or candidates that you don't agree with. You also won't end up being inconvenienced by strikes that won't directly benefit you. Those gains just aren't worth it when you consider that it makes it easier for a business to treat their employees like crap because if you someone objects they can just turn around and hire someone who won't complain about being screwed over. Sadly most people don't get that because they still think that the honor system works amongst business leaders that only care about the bottom line.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I don't get how people can complain about unions making it hard for governments to do things... and also complain about governments being boneheaded and stupid. It's because governments are boneheaded and stupid, that unions make it hard for them to do things. Are people just supposed to work for idiotic politicians who have no long-term vision and no management expertise without trying to defend themselves in any way? Maybe if politicians could be TRUSTED to do the right thing, unions wouldn't feel the need to bargain for policies to prevent the wrong things from being done.
I mean, doesn't someone like Walker demonstrate why unions are necessary? Because without unions, someone would have Walker-ed the damn government years ago. (And also, when your employer is the same body that you would report employer malfeasance to, yeah, you need a union. Because otherwise, you have the Communist Party of China.)
I want to address this... I think killing this was a very good thing to do...
Here's a little backstory.
I grew up in Japan, and I *LOVE* light rail. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed my teen/young adult years crisscrossing the Japanese countryside. It was a complete dream to get anywhere. The train system is one of the fondest memories I have of that country.
The light rail system they had planned here would of been a complete disaster. Let me tell you why
Let's start with the basics. The Metra coming up from Chicago to Kenosha is absolute shit. First of all it's a goddamned EMD F40PH diesel with 5 cars as rolling stock. So we have this huge inefficient engine designed to pull over a mile of rolling stock connected to just 5 cars. That's frigging pathetic. It's also operated by Union Pacific, which means that non-passenger trains have priority. That's not a commuter line, it's a joke.
In Kenosha proper, there are two sets of Union Pacific lines that run North/South (Minus the good-for-nothing unconnected trolly line that runs East/West to the lakeside). The UP lines just serve as coal runners for P4 (Pleasant Prairie Power Plant) and there would be no way in hell that UP would allow commuter rail on those (Never mind the fact they cross-connect in downtown Milwaukee)
Going north, the intra-city rail that was in Racine has been torn up for the last 25 years. The lines that serviced the south side, Spring Street, and the 20/11/31/32 area have been totally destroyed. The only surviving track runs through Sturtevant Amtrack station. (Hiawatha) This track goes from Chicago to Milwaukee ANYWAY! Not only that it only runs at 9% capacity! But on top of that... THAT line is owned by Pacific Northwest, and once again, all non-passenger rolling stock has precedence over the line.
The proposed KRM line was going to extend the already shitty Metra. If we so much as asked if we could roll on Union Pacific or Pacific Northwest track, they would of told us to fuck off at least, or made us pay for all the track maintenance at most. We already do this for the Amtrack Hiawatha line. It's bullshit that we don't own any of the track, but we have to cover 100% of the maintenance costs. So Pacific Northwest gets to roll their stock over the track on the taxpayer's dime.
Because we couldn't use any of the existing track, we would of laid our own. But you know what the kicker was. The track we would of laid would of run next to I94! If you have ever gone down the interstate, you know that there isn't shit around there, except the highway 20 junction, which is full of gas stations! So where would the passengers come from?
I'm glad it was killed. It was a terrible idea...
Now If I had my way, I would of done it like this....
New line - Electric train. The station would be right in Gurnee Mills mall. The next stop would of been at the Kenosha station to cross-link with Metra with a local loop down the trolly tracks to the Kenosha downtown/lakeside area. From the Kenosha station, the train would go north and hub at Regency Mall, and have another local loop to Racine Downtown. The train would then cross link at the Sturtevant station (So you can go on Amtrack). The KRM would then head to Milwaukee and terminate at Mayfair Mall.
That is light rail. If you have to go to more than three cities, you are not light rail anymore. Light rail is basically a subway above ground. It's *DEFINITELY* not pulled by diesel.
Sorry about the Rant, I'm just as peeved that the KRM was killed too. But when I looked into how much of a clusterfuck it became, I'm glad it's dead.
People did Walker the government, this country used to be a terrible place to work, corrupt politicians would send soldiers with machineguns mounted on armored cars if you striked
people gave their lives for collective bargaining in this country
Pretty sure that's damn well part of the problem. Especially since I think Texas (Whose members of their educational board are completely batshit and want to say things like evolution doesn't exist, and certain founding fathers just don't count.) are one of the big producers of educational materials for the US.
This needs to be repeated. When I was in Madison during the original set of protests, you literally had people with signs stating that people had died over this in the past and, if necessary, they were willing to die as well. That is how seriously this is being taken. Walker, as one of his first acts in office, took something that people are willing to DIE in order to get back.
I say once again. Don't talk to me about fading enthusiasm.
Late to the party on this, but I'd like to add that during this "Budget shortfall", he gave away an absurd ammount of money in tax breaks to Chevron and google. I can wrap my head around giving chevron a tax break (It's a gas company, it has an actual physical product and considerable infrastructure/human employment) but google? It's product (along with the majority of it's infrastructure) is virtual.
Further, after he got done fucking over the unions He
1. Discovers that there was no budget shortfall. At all.
2. Gives away hundreads of millions in to out of state banks in the most ridiculous investment scam I've ever heard; As I recall It called for the banks to only pay back 20% of the investment, which would (for those of you who suck at math) require the bank to have quintupled the investment after so many years in order to break even.
If instead of what he did we raised taxes by 1% and accepted the $800,000,000 from the feds, Wisconsin would have continued to be one of the best in the nation for job growth and lowest unemployment
American history as taught in this country is basically: Columbus found it, religious freedom created colonies (ignoring all the economic reasons), fuck the English (times two), expansionism wooooo, Civil War (totes not about slavery), nothing happened until WW1, Depression, WW2, MLK.
Back in high school I had a US history book that spent a bit of time on labor, but it was done almost entirely without context. Basically, it gave the reader no idea what unions did or what they wanted besides that they were associated with unrest and radical politics.
Edit: Oh, and that most of them were segregated.
Dude, That's one of those things which could have been addressed either before or after work had begun, Work which would have employed thousands of Wisconsinites for years. Further, Scottie ran on a platform of job creation and this would have shown him to be legitimately concerned about the welfare of the state.
Frankly, your arguement falls apart when one realizes that scott isn't concerned about the technicalities of projects (Which may very well be valid), but rather that the funding being consistently rejected is federal funds.
Moving back to Wisconsin politics, what's the general consensus that this whole recall will have on the elections in fall? Or is it too early to make such a call because of the recall elections?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Negligable. Most news networks haven't paid any real attention to wisconsin in the last 9 months, and unless this turns into a grandstanding spectacle where Walker rips off his skin and reveals that he is in fact a balrog that isn't likely to change.
I wasn't expecting this to be more than negligible for the national stage before the recall elections. I could see the outcome of the recalls election being more than negligible.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The $800 million would have produced more in state taxes than the train would have cost to maintain. Frankly I don't buy the assertion that the plans would have been wasted (see Pi-R8's post), but lets just assume they are. Lets assume the government is offering us $800 mil to dig holes and fill them (with the understanding that some state is going to do this, the money is already allocated to spent).
It would still be a fucking fantastic idea to take the money. Instead we got Walker's budget and several months of leading the nation in job losses. Walker's policies have demonstrably not worked.
Edit: this is just assuming the project added zero dollars in value to Wisconsin and caused zero increase in GDP, which is impossible
I would like to compare those ideas with an actual functioning commuter rail line. Because I'm rather familiar with Japanese lines, I'm gong to use them as an example.
I'm going to use a few lines from the East Japan Railway Company (also known as JR) as an example, because if it's diverse types of rolling stock, and it's known world-wide as the most successful commuter line in the world.
Now, a little history. JR was the local commuter rail monopoly that was owned by the Japanese government. It did not become completely privatized until 2002. This means that the Japanese taxpayer was subsidizing the cost of the rail line. I have no problem with this, as I think it's government's responsibility to foster infrastructure though taxes.
In the U.S., Amtrak is a government-owned company that exists because of taxpayer subsidies. Much like JR before 2002.
Here's where things get dicey. Amtrak only owns the Northeast Corridor and all other lines are leased from private companies. Amtrak gets a raw deal because on the leased lines, they have to give right-of-way to non-passenger rail, and pay for the maintenance of the track.
Now the Northeast Corridor is a success story of sorts. Not only is it properly strung for electricity, it also runs a high speed line that is comparable to JR's Akita_Shinkansen. However that Amtrak's Acela Express runs though New York. One of the biggest cities in the world.
Running a bullet train from Chicago to Madison would of been just stupid. Especially when we already have the Amtrak line in place. What should be ran from Kenosha to Milwaukee is something like this. A nice electric line that goes back and forth between the metropolitan areas.
Also I don't know if you have ever been in Milwaukee, but where on earth would we put a local loop that wasn't already serviced by the bus system? It would either be a subway or an elevated train. Downtown is MUCH too small of it's own loop, comparing to what I've seen in Tokyo. I can walk across the bulk of downtown.
Trains need to terminate in shopping centers or major people-gathering areas. Our convention centers are woefully underused to warrant a day-to-day train line...
But most of all. We have a perfectly functional interstate. I use it everyday...
Now, what would be really cool? When cars start to drive themselves, the whole argument will be a non-issue. Jump on I94, push the "super cruse control" and go read a book. I can't wait till that happens.
Well, first of all I would argue that it's not very useful to compare the Midwest United States to Japan, since Japan has something like 20 times our population density. Then again I'm not sure why you're even bringing up Japan here at all , unless it's just to show that you're not totally anti-train. Let's ignore Japan and focus on whether a rail system can be useful for Wisconsin. It's important to not just look at how one particular rail line might do right now by itself, but how the system as a whole would benefit the state over the long term. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
As you mention, a big problem with Amtrak is that it's forced to share lines with freight, and doesn't get the right-of-way, so it's slow as hell. That's why they want to build a high-speed rail line to Chicago, so that it would actually become faster than driving or flying. And right now there isn't any passenger rail from Madison to Milwaukee at all, even though they're at the perfect distance for it (you could arrive by train before your plane had even taken off). You're right that Milwaukee is not exactly New York City, which is why the initial plan was for a fairly modest 110 MPH train- not exactly a bullet train. You can see the plan here.
One disadvantage with traveling train instead of by car of course is how you get around once you're there. That's why it makes sense to develop high-speed rail in combination with intracity light rail. A good light rail system can actually increase bus ridership, since it makes it easier for residents to live without a car and encourages high-density urban development. Right now Milwaukee is growing fast, but in a really inefficient suburban sprawl. A good public transportation system is a good way to reverse that pattern and save money in the long run (not to mention the environmental and cultural benefits). There's also I think some cultural inertia in the US, where it takes some time for people to learn how to use public transit and get used to it, and get rid of their car. It's a long-term project (although the short-term stimulus benefits would have been considerable, which is why it makes sense to build it during a recession).
I admit, I have never been to Milwaukee and don't know the area. But this sounds like a reasonably good route: If it duplicates bus routes, that's OK. You can either sell the excess buses, or double service on existing routes. It's not like it's too hard to change a bus route!
As for the commuter rail line, how about this study from the University of Wisconsin?
Sounds like a bargain to me! I agree that an electric line would have been nice, but hey, you can't always get a perfect solution. A lot of people live there, and it would have had it's own special tracks with right-of-way so it wouldn't have to stop for freight. It would have been faster, cheaper, and more reliable than driving. It's not intended to compete with Amtrak, because you're not supposed to use it to go all the way, just short distances. Why would you want to drive along Lake Michigan in the winter when you could take the train instead? It's also kind of weird that you brought up the Google car, since commuter trains already offer that advantage- you can do your homework on the train! I've often found that, even when public transit takes longer to get somewhere, it still saves me time overall because of that.
This rail project was a golden opportunity to create jobs in the short term, save money in the long term, reduce pollution, and build real cities instead of the endless suburban sprawl that blights most of the country. Walker stopped all of that so that his lobbyists from the oil industry could continue making more money by gouging every single American for gasoline.
There's going to come a time when we're going to be falling over ourselves to build mass transit and reverse suburban sprawl. Sure would be great to get started on that during a period of prolonged joblessness
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I support getting rid of public unions, and do not support pointless government projects just designed to hire people, and based on what I have read in this thread, even I think the rail seems like a good project, or at least one that is not harmful and therefore is worth pursuing if the money was already on the table.
Then a few months later, Walker asked for money for a smaller Milwaukee-to-Chicago project after Rick Scott turned down Florida's money. (Basically, what this showed was that he didn't like the rail project because it had Jim Doyle's name on it, and he wanted a rail project with Scott Walker's name on it.) The response he got was 'you had your chance, now you can just suck it'.
Minnesota actually got most of it, if I remember correctly, and they were going to use it to make a line from Minneapolis to Chicago surpassing Wisconsin entirely. The Hiawatha train revamp was included in the 800 he turned down, but yeah, it was really just politicking to an extreme level.
You get jobs for repair and as operators, you collect fees from the tickets... where's the problem exactly? I would assume it would pay for itself, and if it didn't you subsidy the rest off with raised taxes (that I assume people would be more than willing to pay for).
To be fair, even the NYC public transit system runs at a loss. I you are going to commit to operating a transit system that may run a a loss forever, you should be very confident in the need for it. It's the same with job creation. If we are going to commit to hiring lots of new workers, we should be sure we are getting a useful service, instead of moving money from the taxpayers' pockets into the new workers' pockets.
NYC's trains are old and inefficient, right? Minneapolis installed a commuter train between the Twins stadium in downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America, and it runs on massive surplusses, last time I checked. I know that cross country trains are different than metro trains, but the same basic principles are at work.
I'm not convinced that Wisconsin's high speed rail would have operated at much of a loss. It would've been a win/win, if you ask me.
Something so I can pay like $15 to get to Albany, or $100 to go to Florida from NY.
Amtrak has the highest ticket revenue to cost ratio of any passenger rail in America and still runs only covers 2/3rds of its costs. I love trains, and wish we had a more expansive rail system, but I do think that you need to take a hard look at a project before deciding if it makes sense. This project may well have made sense (I don't have enough information) and if it did, it is a shame it was killed by political scheming, but I just think that it is really important that we make sure we don't pursue "shovel ready" jobs that will cost us money indefinitely, or to hire people to make those projects happen.
On the MTA trains being old and inefficient, a lot of the trains have been replaced with newer, higher efficiency trains in recent years. But costs are just hard to control when it comes to public works. We have robot trains on one line now, but because of the union contract (see, this is on topic) those trains still have to have a conductor, in addition to the tech who is there in case their is a problem. If computerized trains result in paying more people, not fewer, then how can you ever hope to create a more efficient system?
Of course its good for the workers. The question is just if it is a good use of public dollars to pay people to dig holes and fill them in, just to employ them. Personally, I think we are better off using that money to retrain workers to get jobs that actually still exist.
And I'd agree, but in the meantime what are these people supposed to eat?
Those "hole digging & filling" jobs are going to exist in greater abundance if this whole train thing takes off.
Well, that's why I think we need to reimagine unemployment. There are states (actually, Wisconsin might even be one of them) where the state gives big tax breaks to employers who hire unemployed people and pay for them to be retrained at a community college and to do on the job training. This way, you are supported while you train, and then you go right into a job where you are needed. It also helps to bring jobs to your state.
But does that mean we are just hurting ourselves more, by spending more on them? Japan built a ton of public works projects, and it did not help them get out of recession.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As long as they're a demand for it, the public work will usually help recessions, at the least not worsen.
I don't have the source on hand, but there was a pretty big story about people claiming to work over time on days they never showed up for work, higher ups stealing large amount of money, etc.
As far as inefficiency goes, it really depends on what line you're riding. I take the G, which runs very well during work hours (but very poorly at night), and the L train, which is pretty dependable all around. If I get stuck waiting for 20 minutes on a platform, I can't really complain. That shit cost me $2.25 to go anywhere in the city one way.