I was *** when Wisconsin governor Scott Walker stopped the extension of the Hiawatha, but this article really draws the line!
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/02/Wisconsin%20Republicans%20pla
n%20shutdown%20of%20Milwaukee%20commuter%20rail%20plan.aspx
Due to this response by republicans, it would be smart for a non-government railroad company, like WSOR to take on the responsibilities of a Commuter Railroad like Metra.
I know which political party is going to win next election in Wisconsin
Was the commuter RR proposal just going to be financed by the county(s) and cities involved? The article did not clarify that point. That will certainly clarify the subject title. however the answer all of these actions (including the present discords) appear to be political pay back of the rankest stink.!!
The NH effort by republicans to cancel the unpaid rail transit committee appears to be another!!!!!!!!
Mr. Railman I was *** when Wisconsin governor Scott Walker stopped the extension of the Hiawatha, but this article really draws the line! http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/02/Wisconsin%20Republicans%20pla n%20shutdown%20of%20Milwaukee%20commuter%20rail%20plan.aspx Due to this response by republicans, it would be smart for a non-government railroad company, like WSOR to take on the responsibilities of a Commuter Railroad like Metra. I know which political party is going to win next election in Wisconsin
The article does not show a detailed analysis of the reasons for rejecting the proposed Milwaukee commuter rail project. Perhaps it is the future costs that would be hung around the necks of the taxpayers. Perhaps the opponents took a look at the financials associated with Austin's new commuter rail line and were shocked by the numbers.
The capital costs to upgrade Capital Metro's Austin & Western Railroad line from Leander to Austin, the route the commuter rail trains run on, was $105 million or approximately $3.3 million per mile. Or was it $140 million, as claimed by some, because of questionable accounting? In any case, it was a large amount of money. Assuming the $105 million number is the better of the two numbers, it along with interest will bring the total estimated capital cost to approximately $236 million. In addition, there is the annual operating cost of approximately $9.5 million.
In January Capital Metro increased the frequency of the Red Line commuter trains. They now operate throughout the day and even have a few special runs on Friday nights and Saturdays. As a result, average ridership increased from approximately 450 passengers per day to 596 (19.8% of capacity). The average daily taxpayer provided subsidy per passenger will be approximately $111.36 or $3.48 per passenger mile. It did not change much because 2011 operating costs are projected to increase by approximately 44 per cent. What a deal! If Austin's commuter rail line was a business, the owners would shut it down and sell the assets for their salvage value.
Rail is not always the best solution for commuters. In many instances, especially for smaller cities, Rapid Bus Technology probably is a better way to go. It is much cheaper. The estimated cost to build a 20 mile RBT route in Austin is roughly $3.5 million. RBT would have been a more cost effective solution for Austin.
Like it or not those of us who like trains should make sure it is a good solution to the transport problem being addressed. And we need to keep in mind that governments at all levels in the U.S. are facing serious fiscal problems.
I don't think Scott Walker is so much anti train but anti taking more from the tax payers and the state spending more than it can take in.
I like trains and I like passenger trains and the Chicago Metra too. But I don't think the state should be in the railroad business. I would like to see the state do things that would make a private railroad want to run passenger trains because they could make money doing so.
I do not know the proposed financial setup. But if the state is not going to be on the hook for construction or operating expenses why Scott's effort to kill the proposed MKE commuter rail?? Someone know?? Cannot comment until we know if this is political pay back or not?
Given the number of railroad employees on these forums, I am surprised no one mentions Scott Walker's anti-union efforts.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
expresslane400 I don't think Scott Walker is so much anti train but anti taking more from the tax payers and the state spending more than it can take in. I like trains and I like passenger trains and the Chicago Metra too. But I don't think the state should be in the railroad business. I would like to see the state do things that would make a private railroad want to run passenger trains because they could make money doing so.
Then the State can either ban or restrict private automobile ownership and use or pay the private railroads a subsidy..
That is the only way passenger service will make money.
I've occasionally read posts where folks try to imply that the government ruined the passenger business for the Railroads..
That of course is 100% true, it happened when the interstate highway system was built.....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 expresslane400: I don't think Scott Walker is so much anti train but anti taking more from the tax payers and the state spending more than it can take in. I like trains and I like passenger trains and the Chicago Metra too. But I don't think the state should be in the railroad business. I would like to see the state do things that would make a private railroad want to run passenger trains because they could make money doing so. Then the State can either ban or restrict private automobile ownership and use or pay the private railroads a subsidy.. That is the only way passenger service will make money. I've occasionally read posts where folks try to imply that the government ruined the passenger business for the Railroads.. That of course is 100% true, it happened when the interstate highway system was built.....
expresslane400: I don't think Scott Walker is so much anti train but anti taking more from the tax payers and the state spending more than it can take in. I like trains and I like passenger trains and the Chicago Metra too. But I don't think the state should be in the railroad business. I would like to see the state do things that would make a private railroad want to run passenger trains because they could make money doing so.
One of the things I've often noticed on these forums is that the discussion seems to revolve around the question of whether rail passenger service is "bad" or "good", or whether it should be "subsidized" or not, without regard to where it is being proposed.
There's a saying in real eastate that "location, location, location" is everything. The same is true with proposed rail services. Just because commuter rail services may be a pretty important in some areas doesn't mean that other commuter rail services in other areas (particularly if they are "new starts") would ever make any sense.
I live in the Chicago metro area. Metra commuter service, while it loses money, handles huge numbers of riders and is obviously a vitally important part of the Chicago area economy, But that doesn't mean that a Milwuakee-Kenosha commuter line makes any sense. Where's the market? Is it really reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of people will abandon their automobiles to commute by rail from Kenosha or Racine to Milwaukee? For that matter, would rail even be a reasonable option for most of the auto commuters in this corridor? I seriously doubt it. For one thing, is the Milwaukee central business district even nearly as viable an employment center as downtown Chicago? If most people commuting to "Milwaukee" from the south are actually traveling to locations outside the CBD (which is probably the case), rail is not going to be an option for them. To me, it seems that the MRK commuter service would be a huge boondoggle, sucking up public funds for small number of commuters for little benefit. I'm not surprised the governor wants to kill it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Amtrak has shown that operating intercity passenger trains (at least the way they do it) is a very expensive proposition.
The current round of HSR and HsSR proposals have generally shown that new service (at least the way these proposals have gone about it) is a very expensive proposition.
Maybe being on the hook for these big, expensive passenger train projects, with the prospect of continued ongoing operating subsidies is more than the their budgets can support and/or the probability of achieving the stated soft benefits is so risky that they just can't say "yes"?
Perhaps we need, cheaper, less risky passenger rail projects that can pave the way for later, larger projects.
Falcon48 I live in the Chicago metro area. Metra commuter service, while it loses money, handles huge numbers of riders and is obviously a vitally important part of the Chicago area economy, But that doesn't mean that a Milwuakee-Kenosha commuter line makes any sense. Where's the market? Is it really reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of people will abandon their automobiles to commute by rail from Kenosha or Racine to Milwaukee? For that matter, would rail even be a reasonable option for most of the auto commuters in this corridor? I seriously doubt it. For one thing, is the Milwaukee central business district even nearly as viable an employment center as downtown Chicago? If most people commuting to "Milwaukee" from the south are actually traveling to locations outside the CBD (which is probably the case), rail is not going to be an option for them. To me, it seems that the MRK commuter service would be a huge boondoggle, sucking up public funds for small number of commuters for little benefit. I'm not surprised the governor wants to kill it.
Very good observation, and though neither of us is absolutely sure about how many drive from Kenosha and Racine to Milwaukee daily, nor how many work downtown, my observation agrees with yours.
Given the political climate in Wisconsin and Walker's attitude toward the "great unwashed", I would suggest the the last person to leave Wisconsin turn the lights out. Train's Magazine might consider relocating to Illinois, a rail friendly state. Too cold up there anyway!
From the prank call Walker unknowingly participated in....he comes off sounding like a toy for the ultra-right ultra wealthy....not much of a original thinker at all.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Walker may well be toast after all this.
schlimm Falcon48: I live in the Chicago metro area. Metra commuter service, while it loses money, handles huge numbers of riders and is obviously a vitally important part of the Chicago area economy, But that doesn't mean that a Milwuakee-Kenosha commuter line makes any sense. Where's the market? Is it really reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of people will abandon their automobiles to commute by rail from Kenosha or Racine to Milwaukee? For that matter, would rail even be a reasonable option for most of the auto commuters in this corridor? I seriously doubt it. For one thing, is the Milwaukee central business district even nearly as viable an employment center as downtown Chicago? If most people commuting to "Milwaukee" from the south are actually traveling to locations outside the CBD (which is probably the case), rail is not going to be an option for them. To me, it seems that the MRK commuter service would be a huge boondoggle, sucking up public funds for small number of commuters for little benefit. I'm not surprised the governor wants to kill it. Very good observation, and though neither of us is absolutely sure about how many drive from Kenosha and Racine to Milwaukee daily, nor how many work downtown, my observation agrees with yours.
Falcon48: I live in the Chicago metro area. Metra commuter service, while it loses money, handles huge numbers of riders and is obviously a vitally important part of the Chicago area economy, But that doesn't mean that a Milwuakee-Kenosha commuter line makes any sense. Where's the market? Is it really reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of people will abandon their automobiles to commute by rail from Kenosha or Racine to Milwaukee? For that matter, would rail even be a reasonable option for most of the auto commuters in this corridor? I seriously doubt it. For one thing, is the Milwaukee central business district even nearly as viable an employment center as downtown Chicago? If most people commuting to "Milwaukee" from the south are actually traveling to locations outside the CBD (which is probably the case), rail is not going to be an option for them. To me, it seems that the MRK commuter service would be a huge boondoggle, sucking up public funds for small number of commuters for little benefit. I'm not surprised the governor wants to kill it.
Dan
BINGO! The other problem with this line is Chicago Metra's unwillingness to play ball but rather Metra appears to see this as a way to fleece Wisconsin.
CNW 6000 schlimm: Falcon48: I live in the Chicago metro area. Metra commuter service, while it loses money, handles huge numbers of riders and is obviously a vitally important part of the Chicago area economy, But that doesn't mean that a Milwuakee-Kenosha commuter line makes any sense. Where's the market? Is it really reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of people will abandon their automobiles to commute by rail from Kenosha or Racine to Milwaukee? For that matter, would rail even be a reasonable option for most of the auto commuters in this corridor? I seriously doubt it. For one thing, is the Milwaukee central business district even nearly as viable an employment center as downtown Chicago? If most people commuting to "Milwaukee" from the south are actually traveling to locations outside the CBD (which is probably the case), rail is not going to be an option for them. To me, it seems that the MRK commuter service would be a huge boondoggle, sucking up public funds for small number of commuters for little benefit. I'm not surprised the governor wants to kill it. Very good observation, and though neither of us is absolutely sure about how many drive from Kenosha and Racine to Milwaukee daily, nor how many work downtown, my observation agrees with yours. I'll add my +2 here.
schlimm: Falcon48: I live in the Chicago metro area. Metra commuter service, while it loses money, handles huge numbers of riders and is obviously a vitally important part of the Chicago area economy, But that doesn't mean that a Milwuakee-Kenosha commuter line makes any sense. Where's the market? Is it really reasonable to expect that tens of thousands of people will abandon their automobiles to commute by rail from Kenosha or Racine to Milwaukee? For that matter, would rail even be a reasonable option for most of the auto commuters in this corridor? I seriously doubt it. For one thing, is the Milwaukee central business district even nearly as viable an employment center as downtown Chicago? If most people commuting to "Milwaukee" from the south are actually traveling to locations outside the CBD (which is probably the case), rail is not going to be an option for them. To me, it seems that the MRK commuter service would be a huge boondoggle, sucking up public funds for small number of commuters for little benefit. I'm not surprised the governor wants to kill it. Very good observation, and though neither of us is absolutely sure about how many drive from Kenosha and Racine to Milwaukee daily, nor how many work downtown, my observation agrees with yours.
I'll add my +2 here.
You make a vaer valid point sir. Maybe they should run a survey to see how m any people would actually ride the train btween Kenosha & Milwaukee, even Chicago and Milaukee. I back passenger rail for three reasons: Fuel efficient, Time efficient (not all cases), and Time efficient.
One can get work done or do homework while riding a train. Listening to the radio is all that is possible while driving.
daveklepper One can get work done or do homework while riding a train. Listening to the radio is all that is possible while driving.
Or music CDs. Or books on CDs.
In my part of the world (Texas) most people drive because of convenience and comfort. They can listen to their favorite radio station or pop in one of the aforementioned CDs, set the temperature control to their liking, and avoid putting up with people who are strangers to good hygiene and manners.
I rode public transport for more than 35 years in Dallas. And I still take it to and from the University of Texas in Austin. But waiting for a bus or train when the temperature is 105 degrees is not an attractive proposition. It is a major reason people head for their air conditioned cars in Texas in the middle of the summer. Even less appealing is being seated next to someone who is yelling into a cell phone whilst I am trying to read.
Surveys to judge the effectiveness of a transportation medium, before the actual existence of that medium, are wildly inaccurate. People generally can't envision how a new medium will work for them until it actually exists and the become familiar with the schedules and procedures to use that medium....schedules & procedures that work for people cause the users escalate....bad schedules and hassle prone procedures and people stay away in droves.
Mr. Railman You make a vaer valid point sir. Maybe they should run a survey to see how m any people would actually ride the train btween Kenosha & Milwaukee, even Chicago and Milaukee. I back passenger rail for three reasons: Fuel efficient, Time efficient (not all cases), and Time efficient.
Funny thing: when Ben Heinemann (former C&NW president) rid the railroad of all things unprofitable (i.e., steam, intercity passenger trains, branch lines, etc.), he kept the suburban passenger service. That should say something. Basically, the C&NW turned it over to the RTA because they could reap a profit without any capital costs involved, something that successor UP still does. IMHO, what makes it so expensive is government involvement. As for traffic between Kenosha and Milwaukee, I know we get a substantial amount of people who commute by automobile from up north to catch the train to Chicago. Perhaps a study of the passengers that ride the Hiawathas would also give some clue as to the potential, but I still feel that there would be a large amount of people who would use service on the MRK portion (sorry to you TMER&L fans for borrowing that moniker). If anyone wants to know my credentials, I work as an engineer on trains 326/349 between Kenosha and Chicago.
Under current funding conditions, private business or operators will never get involved because there is no chance of making money because of the vast amount of money the federal and state governments pour into highways---far above what is collected from gas taxes.
I have no problem if Metra expands its service as far as Racine Wisconsin. That cost should be paid by the state of Wisconsin. If the people of Wisconsin through their elected representatives want this service; do it. They have chosen Scott Walker who is anti-rail. Those who want high speed rail and a pro rail legislature have the 2012 election coming. Scott Walker is up for election in 2014.
Those of us who like trains and wish to see commuter rail and high speed rail need to communicate our message to the taxpayers better than we are now. Why do we need commuter rail, Amtrak, and high speed rail? I hope the answer is more than we like to watch and photograph them.
I,for one, do not want to see high speed rail built with a huge taxpayer subsidy; then be turned over to private operators. Let the investors buy the land, hire the contractors, build it and operate it. Of course, that is a fairy tale! Government is part of the equation whether we like it or not.
That's because truckers make up the difference with all the taxes they pay.
I know because I pay those taxes.
I think it will be the other way around. Our gov has rasied our taxes at a bad time for everyone. Many buisnesses have voted with thier feet and moved away from higher taxes. Like Texas. Not as cold there.
Gov. Walker along with Kasich, Scott and Christie had strong anti-rail platforms, but promised to create more jobs ( as did every other candidate). Going to be interesting to see how many jobs they create. Wonder if anybody is keeping tabs? Will the powerful industrialists and corporations who put them in office create jobs in their respective states or in India and China?
uphogger Funny thing: when Ben Heinemann (former C&NW president) rid the railroad of all things unprofitable (i.e., steam, intercity passenger trains, branch lines, etc.), he kept the suburban passenger service. That should say something. Basically, the C&NW turned it over to the RTA because they could reap a profit without any capital costs involved, something that successor UP still does. IMHO, what makes it so expensive is government involvement. As for traffic between Kenosha and Milwaukee, I know we get a substantial amount of people who commute by automobile from up north to catch the train to Chicago. Perhaps a study of the passengers that ride the Hiawathas would also give some clue as to the potential, but I still feel that there would be a large amount of people who would use service on the MRK portion (sorry to you TMER&L fans for borrowing that moniker). If anyone wants to know my credentials, I work as an engineer on trains 326/349 between Kenosha and Chicago.
Heineman "kept" the C&NW suburban service, but he also trimmed it back consderably from what it had been (he discontinued a lot of in-city services and statiions). His rationale for investing in the suburban service was not so much that the service it made a true profit, but that a comfortable and reliable suburban service patronized by potential freight customers would pay off on the freight side of the house. It's debatable how much of a "profit" the Heineman era suburban service actually made. It likely covered its operating costs, but it's very unlikely that it covered capital costs. As time went on, the operating cost covereage would have become thinner and thinner. There wasn't any possibility from the mid-60's on that the revenues from the service would cover capital costs. Without RTA, the service wouldn't exist today.
Extending the service to Racine without providing commuter service into Milwaukee is a negative for Wisconsin, benefiting commercial and educational Chicago without benefiting Milwaukee.
As far as Heineman's CNW commuter rail goes, the discontinuation of in-city stations made a lot of sense, given parallel CTA 'L' lines. But a bad rail strike in 1962(?) caused many displaced commuters to never return as did frequent fare increases. Falcon is totally correct: without the RTA, suburban service would have suffered a slow death.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.