https://www.fastcompany.com/90980252/the-us-is-having-a-rail-travel-renaissance-but-you-probably-didnt-notice?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=keywee_tb&kwp_0=2317617&kwp_4=6530373&kwp_1=2794850&fbclid=IwAR0_X_oUr23zIBAZEP-eUnvAh4kJ1LgUIXeg90o8leD-QBYZ6-_ebR-JqVc_aem_AbkfYZPYk4fEAvLKIbOLEgRlwXXf2cW1YnEjDRwWd3Dy5rPbvhB-Es6S2hcwrIQbcnMXNGasoP5M3j3NhAlYJjq2
I notice that with the exception of Florida, all of the states listed in the article have Democratic Governors.
Ohio is not listed, despite having a route from Cleveland to Cincinnati that Amtrak would like to operate trains on. But in Ohio we don't even talk about passenger trains--ever. Guess which party controls Ohio.
It seems even passenger train service is political.
For Michgan, the Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids corridor would make sense since it is low density CSX track that is in good shape. The Ann Arbor-Traverse City route is currently operated by Great Lakes Central and is much slower and would fill a very limited niche. I don't see it happening.
NKP guyIt seems even passenger train service is political.
Only if you look at it through that type of lens. New rail service is not like an old Chevy where you jump in, turn the key and off it goes. It take min of 10 years in a lot of cases and even longer than that to get it setup and established. Which is why looking at who is in what political seat currently is rather misleading.
As I stated many times before, new rail passenger service comes about via grass roots support. Politician in office is not relevant. You have a strong grass roots support and diverse grass roots supports (ie: not a bunch of crazed railfans), then you get good results. Heartland Flyer is case in point. Chicago-Milwaukee service is another case in point.
BTW, roughly akin to railroad museums and excursion lines, which live or die on local support of people in the community (volunteers). Once that support erodes and the NIMBY's take over.........off those museums and excursion lines go into the sunset. Kettle Moraine Railway in SE Wisconsin case in point there.
CMStPnP NKP guy It seems even passenger train service is political. Only if you look at it through that type of lens. New rail service is not like an old Chevy where you jump in, turn the key and off it goes. It take min of 10 years in a lot of cases and even longer than that to get it setup and established. Which is why looking at who is in what political seat currently is rather misleading. As I stated many times before, new rail passenger service comes about via grass roots support. Politician in office is not relevant. You have a strong grass roots support and diverse grass roots supports (ie: not a bunch of crazed railfans), then you get good results. Heartland Flyer is case in point. Chicago-Milwaukee service is another case in point. BTW, roughly akin to railroad museums and excursion lines, which live or die on local support of people in the community (volunteers). Once that support erodes and the NIMBY's take over.........off those museums and excursion lines go into the sunset. Kettle Moraine Railway in SE Wisconsin case in point there.
NKP guy It seems even passenger train service is political.
Political support is requried even when there is grass roots support for a line. Officials at both state and local levels can 'pigeon hole' the efforts and keep them from being funded. Without funds, nothing goes anywhere.
In my area, a change in Governor has revivied actions to a line that the previous Governor had worked against for 8 years.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Backshop For Michgan, the Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids corridor would make sense since it is low density CSX track that is in good shape. The Ann Arbor-Traverse City route is currently operated by Great Lakes Central and is much slower and would fill a very limited niche. I don't see it happening.
I agree that the Detroit-Grand Rapids would be a worthy corridor. Also the Detroit-Traverse City does seem to be a pie-in-sky dream. The group advocating for both is based in Ann Arbor (it seems like all of the midwest rail advocacy groups are located in the major university towns.) The problem is that they route all of their projected services thru Ann Arbor, with no practical junction to the connection railroad, and which would result in dog legs thru their town.
Traverse city is a top tourist destination in the midwest, and often makes the top ten tourist lists in the US. It has the 3rd busiest airport in the state (after Detroit and GR). But as you point out it is about 200 miles of slow track, and would require a rental car when you get there.
Right now Michigan seems to have turned attention to a cross border Detroit-Windsor service as part of a Chicago-Toronto revival.
BaltACDPolitical support is requried even when there is grass roots support for a line. Officials at both state and local levels can 'pigeon hole' the efforts and keep them from being funded. Without funds, nothing goes anywhere. In my area, a change in Governor has revivied actions to a line that the previous Governor had worked against for 8 years.
Not all grass roots efforts are effective or broad based. So maybe I should have stated STRONG grass roots support. Point to NARP as an example or whatever it is called today. Weakly funded and never seems to have a plan to engage more than railfans and their fundraising always seemed to be weak at best and at other times almost invisible.
Never saw WisARP attend a Chamber of Commerce meeting nor attempt to really persuade the Business Community. I gave up on the group after 1-2 years of meeting attendance. Shoestring budget and no real plan at building support.
Someone mentioned another group which is active now which I won't mention by name and honestly it is more or less an operation run out of someones garage. I will give them more credit than WisARP though because at least they have podcasts and some quotes in the press by reporters.
In stark contrast and far more effective......it amazes me what a husband and wife team accomplished so far with the Amtrak Crescent Extension to Dallas proposal. Just two influential people driving that for the most part. Very effective at influencing others though. They were driven by the issue and not a lot of slide show meetings to go down memory lane. They were focused on the objective and achievement of it.
One of the first high-speed routes to get funding, back during the Obama administration, was the Twin Cities-Chicago line. However it was provisional on the affected states agreeing to provide some funding. Minnesota and Illinois agreed right away, but Wisconsin (GOP governor) refused so the project died. As Walter Mondale said at the time, "unfortunately, you can't build a bridge over Wisconsin".
Deleted by York1
York1 John
wjstix One of the first high-speed routes to get funding, back during the Obama administration, was the Twin Cities-Chicago line. However it was provisional on the affected states agreeing to provide some funding. Minnesota and Illinois agreed right away, but Wisconsin (GOP governor) refused so the project died. As Walter Mondale said at the time, "unfortunately, you can't build a bridge over Wisconsin".
You should be able to do the math in your head on the $800 milion and what needs to be built and upgraded. Also it was a GRANT that turned into a LOAN if project deadlines were not met. Pretty sure Illinois exceeded those deadlines and needed a waiver or additional Federal Money to complete Chicago to St. Louis.
I am not going to invoke specific politician names because I feel they are all chowder heads in the Midwest. I will say this though. The decision made to not go ahead with the $800 miilion given the budget situation at the time and the terms of the grant/loan seems perfectly sound and based on a solid business decision. Even though people think otherwise (which I interpret as superficial examination of the issue out of context).
While it is true Wisconsin still got stuck with a Talgo plant in the process. I think that was cheaper than the other funds Wisconsin would have been on the hook for if it proceeded with that project.
Most of Watertown to Madison is 10 mph track. Additionally new depots and parking have to be built, signaling systems upgraded, etc. Also, you might want to take a gander and look what the cost estimates are for upgrading Chicago to Milwaukee to higher speed. There was a lot of confusion on the Milwaukee to Madison segment as well. It was sold as high speed but the price tag probably would have barely covered new depots and 79 mph speeds or the signalling for that. So voters had this ridiculous vision in their heads of an ICE train speeding between Milwaukee and Madison when in reality it was probably just the price for extending a regular conventional Amtrak train to Madison and adding new depots as well as the subsidy, etc.
The WI governor (Scoots) at the time preferred highway projects. Wonder why?
At least some Midwestern governors are getting rail stuff done. IL lost some ground because of Rauner, despised by both parties. In TX what has been accomplished other than giving bus companies some moolah?
The Madison politicos had the prospective station location to be off the square downtown with no parking. No clue regarding the future route turning north on the east side, tieing in with the airport, and then to Portage and the Twin Cities.
Gramp The Madison politicos had the prospective station location to be off the square downtown with no parking. No clue regarding the future route turning north on the east side, tieing in with the airport, and then to Portage and the Twin Cities.
What I find entertaining is that Madison feels it has been prejudiced or discriminated against because it primarily leans one way poltically. From where I sit (now in Texas but used to be Wisconsin)...........not true. None of the folks in Madison that post these manifestos on social media about how rail passenger service always seems to exclude them, ever show up for a meeting by WisDOT to gauge public interest nor do they respond to repeated survey attempts (WisDOT's point of view as well, btw). Further, they are all over the place with what they want and it is like herding cats to get a single focus or direction. Their support is inconsistent and lacks any kind of meaningful financial backing. Political support is like a reed bending in the wind. For a state agency like WisDOT they see all this and think: "Do we really want to waste our time with Madison?".
So that in my view is what is going on here bottom line first and foremost.
Secondly, high speed rail between Madison and Milwaukee will only be car competitive if there are very few stops and this is not really what Madison wants. Madison wants a hybrid high speed commuter rail option to Milwaukee not really a high speed intercity rail service. They want stops in every berg along the way like the Chicago to St. Louis corridor. So the cost of that is much higher as it involves more land acquisition, more stations and more rail equipment and much slower speed (normal speed rail). If Madison was OK with just regular Amtrak service (60-79 mph) on somewhat respectable schedules as a starter system the cost would be a lot cheaper than the pie in the sky dream they currently have. No other city in the state acts this way in my opinion and thats why the other rail corridors are given priority.
As crummy as some of the track is between Chicago and Madison (North of Fox Lake), the charter trains can make the trip in a fairly decent timeframe right now (hour longer than car?) and they sell pretty well when they happen and WSOR is willing to run them. So why not do that corridor first over the much higher risk Milwaukee to Madison? The priority seems skewed to me as well there.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.