Too bad I can't make it to wisconsin at all. I'm in favor of the WI HSR plan. are you?
On another forum, the issue of HSR (110 mph) between Chicago and the Twin Cities is being mixed with the issue of Madison service. A proponent is advocating a Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison/Twin Cities route.
That approach strikes me as a mistake. Especially considering the proposed location of the station in Madison, it amounts to putting a long dog leg in an existing route and a stub end station on the dog leg. It's difficult to advocate for upgrading speed when you are adding 60 (?) miles and a backup move to the route.
It seems to me the issue of Madison service ought to be approached seperately from upgrading the speed and frequency over the Empire Builder's route. Of course, given the attitude of the incoming Wisconsin administration, the upcoming hearings essentially amount to bureaucratic thumb-play.
There's a lot of vocal "I won't ride it so my taxes shouldn't pay for it" folks in this neck of the woods. I can see and agree with points both pro and con with this issue. My main thought would be to extend extant service first and then maybe try something new but then you've hit another issue: a (very likely) uncooperative host railroad in CN. I would have a hard time buying that CN would welcome passenger rail traffic between Milwauke/Green Bay/Stevens Point. I am basing that opinion on the generally adversarial mentality CN has taken with many local shippers who may have been "spoiled" by WC's treatment. Whether or not that will play with pax rail is another question for someone more informed than I.
Dan
Mr. Railman I'm in favor of the WI HSR plan. are you?
I'm in favor of the WI HSR plan. are you?
It's the old 'catch-22" issue: I'm not going to take the train anywhere because there is insufficient infrastructure to get me to the train station, and when I get to my final stop there is insufficient infrastructure to get me to my final destination. And no one will invest in the infrastructure until enough people are taking the train and would be willing to use it. Of course, if (when) gas hits $5-6/gallon......
Look how long the Lake States Limited (Chicago to Janesville) ran.
Dan mentioned the likelyhood of CN not wanting to host passenger trains. If that is true, then the only other viable rail service would never get going. I am referring to a train to catering to the Illinois tourists heading up to northern Wisconsin to places like Minoqua and Eagle River. Or perhaps service to Fond du Lac, Green Bay, Oshkosh, etc.
Bottom line is that it would be FAR cheaper to run nice buses to those locations, compared to all of the $ it would take to get the track fixed up such that the travel times would be even slightly competitive with auto travel; to make it HSR would take an absurd amount of cash. There would likely be a niche market for such rail service, but I doubt there would be sufficient revenue to justify the huge outlay in cash.
Perhaps when the world economy settles down our species can start looking ahead again. But it's difficult to worry about what's ahead of you when you're still trying to outrun what chasing you from behind.
zardoz It's the old 'catch-22" issue: I'm not going to take the train anywhere because there is insufficient infrastructure to get me to the train station, and when I get to my final stop there is insufficient infrastructure to get me to my final destination. And no one will invest in the infrastructure until enough people are taking the train and would be willing to use it. Of course, if (when) gas hits $5-6/gallon...... (snip-bold emphasis mine)
zardoz Dan mentioned the likelyhood of CN not wanting to host passenger trains. If that is true, then the only other viable rail service would never get going. I am referring to a train to catering to the Illinois tourists heading up to northern Wisconsin to places like Minoqua and Eagle River. Or perhaps service to Fond du Lac, Green Bay, Oshkosh, etc.
Does CN offer passenger services?CN is a freight railroad. For information about passenger services, please contact VIA Rail Canada at www.viarail.ca or call 1-888-VIA-RAIL.
That is pretty telling right there. Not knowing much about the relationship between the Canadian Gov't, CN, and VIA...I can't say if CN was forced to accept VIA trains on its rails or if there was another arrangement. What could the US Gov't (AMTRAK?) say to 'encourage' CN if they're less than willing to roll with any plan?
zardozBottom line is that it would be FAR cheaper to run nice buses to those locations, compared to all of the $ it would take to get the track fixed up such that the travel times would be even slightly competitive with auto travel; to make it HSR would take an absurd amount of cash. There would likely be a niche market for such rail service, but I doubt there would be sufficient revenue to justify the huge outlay in cash.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.