thebruce44

Gary Howard with a terribe article today about how Prince must be signed for 5 yrs 100 mil, how the payroll must be raised $15 mill because the fans deserve it, and how Mark can afford it because of "the money in the vault at the bottom of that spacious Southern California palace you and Debbie and the A-Kids call home." A new low for the JS, but what I have come to expect from Mr. Howard. I especially like the very objective poll that is included. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/84071437.html

The cost savings on road maintenance could be done much cheaper. According to the linked report (this is an older report - Robert or Bruce would you have a more updated report?), you would just have to remove 2-3 semis per week to negate the potential savings from people riding the trains. I'm sure that could be done for cheaper than $1 billion over the next 10 years. That 9,600 figure sounds about right to me even to this day (I thought it was 10,000 cars = 1 truck off the top of my head). Anyway, it seems to me the best way to remove 2-3 semis per week from Madison to Milwaukee would be to upgrade the existing rail line, no? I believe the report mentioned increased freight as a fringe benefit of this project, so the potential maintenance savings to the interstate could greatly exceed their estimates. How will this ease any congestion in Milwaukee or Madison? People will still have to drive into Milwaukee to get to the station, and drive from the Madison airport into the city. Some traffic can be alleviated by shuttles, but that would primarily be at the destination side. Robert is right on with the MKE stop. Madison I am not too sure. That is a good question and one the report doesn't adress very well. Robert has brought up numerous concerns about that. I imagine they are planning something in terms of inter-modal transportation (which many will probably disagree with at this point but it is going to become more popular in the near future). They could easily have a second report just on what they are planning to do with the Madison area of this project. In regards to the 30% increase in popution, there will also be a great increase in technology. Many more people will be able to work from home, or alter their travel times to work by being able to do some things at home. There will also be increased technology as far as vehicle mileage efficiency, and road construction, to make them last longer. While true that technology will make it possible for more people to work from home, it seems impossible at this point to predict anything but a rise in vehicular traffic over the next 20 years. I have no doubt vehicle mileage will become more efficient, but so will these train engines. In terms of roadway construction, Wisconsin just plain sucks to build roads in. It would take some major breakthroughs to really help roadway construction. That being said, we have come a long way in the last 20 years, so I am sure some advancements will take place. Anyway, you raise some really good points here that hopefully will be addressed as the funding comes through and the engineering becomes more precise.

What is I-94's profit margin? And that is the second point that I said above that the detractors seem to conveniently dismiss. The report says this will save money overall through estimated models and formulas based off of scientific research and historic data, the detractors say it wont because they know more than the people who did the report.

You should have moved to Waukesha than. It was your choice to live in Grafton. It actually wasn't my choice, but thats besides the point. I was offering that information in terms of the traffic situation during nightly rush hour now and how much worse it will be 20 years from now. And the price listed for the train ticket is a one way ticket which is not mentioned. They mention the cost of a round trip ticket for the bus and a one way ticket for the train. You don't think that is misleading? Not at all. It is pretty clearly stated. If you read that and think the train is going to be cheaper than a bus thats your own fault with how well it is spelled out. Anyway, thats relatively besides the point. Did you just read the narrative of the report or the actual report itself? Again this is you just flat out ignoring what we are saying. Nobody is saying the engineers are wrong (except rider estimates) or that they don't know what they are doing. You have claimed that the ridership estimates are wrong and that this will cost tax payers more than it will save them each year. That right there is disagreeing with 2 of the 3 most important figures of the report that the engineers and planners put together (the third being the total cost of construction which many have disagreed with over the course of this thread). You have continually said the report is wrong and now all of a sudden are saying you didn't? If you want people to take your opinion seriously this seems like an odd way to do it. State what about the report you disagree with in a logical, mathematical way instead of your emotional opinion and then back it up. Otherwise you are just going to get frustrated responses.

Bruce, I have actually stated that I'm in favor of some types of commuter rail. But particularly in the Milwaukee area where ridership could offset bus usage and reduce congestion on the freeways. Isn't that what the Watertown, Oconomowoc, Brookfield, and Milwaukee stations will do? For a specific, I used to live in Grafton and work in Waukesha. I know people say the traffic isn't too bad in Milwaukee, and they are right for the most part, but from 4:30 to 5:30 the drive from Waukesha to the MU interchange up to Bay Shore where it goes down to 2 lanes was hell. 20 years from now I don't even want to think about how bad it is going to be.

I couldn't agree more, but the problem is we live in a right now society and most of everybody wants this or that right now. They definetely don't want to wait for a train, or have the inconvienence of station to station than bus to final destination. They just want to jump in their cars and get where their going asap. This train system is not a "High Speed Rail" in the original form. Changing the populations habits, the freedom of their cars, I believe is almost impossible in the state of wisconsin since were NOT densly populated!!! Will they 20 years from now when the population of SE WI has increased 30% and there is traffic?

Project Badass back on the island!

They are misleading everyone who reads it into thinking that it will be cheaper than taking the bus. Why is that not a credible flaw? I can't seem to find that part. Where do they say that taking the train will be cheaper than taking the bus? I see where they state: "Bus transportation is provided by Greyhound and Badger Coaches with a total of ten round trips daily for $28 to $40..." Not sure how that is misleading. They clearly state that price is for a round trip ticket. This is how I view this entire thread. I compare it to the Brewers signing a free agent, we'll call him John Smith. You are some big time baseball guy who studies stat after stat after stat and I am a casual fan who follows the team and goes to a few games. The Brewers go out and spend $100 million to sign Smith, and in turn ticket prices go way up. I tell you, you know this is a bad signing. We could have used the money elsewhere, or not at all because the team was pretty good to begin with, and then we wouldn't have had to raise ticket prices. You come back with, well I know a lot more about baseball than you do and this is a good signing. Definitely worth the ticket price increase. Except, it would be more like 2 or 3 people who have never watched a baseball game sitting in on a press conference with Doug Melvin after his big signing and telling him he doesn't know what he is doing. Posters here besides me aren't saying "I know more than you and you are just wrong." Those posters are saying that this report seems correct and the people who put it togeather know what they are doing. They are saying that if you are so against it then please point out the flaws. Saying you just think the numbers are wrong with no evidence or methodology isn't very convincing. You are obviously also one of the small % of people that ride a train, more power to you. Your choice to go to and fro from Chicago and Milwaukee, but keep the cost of you riding a train off my taxes!!! No, I have lived and worked in Chicago for the last 2 years. The fact is we have an opinion as well. We may disagree with both Robert and Bruce...but that's our right too. It absolutly is your right and I have said that before. My goal was to get people to understand what they are so against though instead of just hating it from the start. That seems impossible though when it comes to taxes.

Oh man, it sure was nice riding the train this morning. Right on time for work as usual.

Man, thats a tough one. Who knows if we will have hover cars or something crazy by then. Personally, I truly feel as though we will be moving away from dependence on oil...how that effects cars I am not too sure. I think more people will be living in cities, not necessarily because they will be moving into cities, but because the less dense areas will keep getting more dense. That is when public transportation will get more and more valuable. If the state plays its cards right now, they can have everything in place to keep expanding public transportation. I think this train is a great first step for SE WI in that regard. Also, I hope by then they have advances in concrete and hot mix asphalt that makes roads last a lot longer in Wisconsin's freeze/thaws. They have come a long way in the last 40 years, no reason to think that wont continue. Anyway, this is a question an Urban Planner could probably answer a lot better than me. I am just a grunt at this point, doing whatever pays in this economy.

This is a statement I have a problem with. Nobody here is claiming to be an expert and nobody here is claiming to be smarter than the people who plan this. The people who did this report likely have a college degree in Civil Engineering or Planning. They likely have 10+ years of experience putting together or reviewing similar reports. The people who checked and signed off on this report likely have 20-30 years of experience each. You have 0 years of experience in this field. Yet you think they are wrong and you are right. It sounds to me as though you think you are smarter in this aspect than the people who put together the report. And yet you have not pointed out one single, creditable flaw in the report. You just don't think its right...you just don't see yourself using it...you don't see anyone else using it. You think they "worded" it a certain way. This tells me you got too hung up on the short narrative instead of reading the proof behind their summary. I have not heard one person claim that this will turn a profit, which means we will need yet another fee or tax to continue to pay for it. Then you have not read my posts or are incapable of understanding how the train will save on maintenance or provide other sources of revenue. I don't believe anyone flat out lied about anything on the report, but I certainly think they worded it in a way that makes it seem like a much better idea than it really is. As an objective 3rd party civil engineer, I am telling you that I think this report is actually quite conservative in terms of ridership and construction costs. Now I know that probably doesn't mean much to you, but thats my opinion. If you disagree with the report and have read it, thats fine. I don't expect everyone to like it. I just want people to have all the facts (or estimates from the experts) before they form their opinion. I do think you have made an effort to understand it, but I personally feel as though you did so trying to find holes in something you were never going to like. So be it. I hope once the train is completed you again try to use it sometime with an open mind. It looks like this thing is going to be built sooner than later and I am excited to see it go forward.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! That is all.

Yes, but currently he doesn't seem to be able to lay off the outside slider. His "better" plate discipline last year seemed to just be taking more pitches instead of actually identifying pitcher's pitches. It also robbed him of his power. He doesn't work the strike zone, spoil pitches, and then drive his pitch like Prince will do. At this stage of his career, it doesn't seem likely he will suddenly learn this skill.

Seth does seem like an awesome guy, but before we go crucifying Macha there are reasons Seth isn't back. McClung mentioned how Sabre guys can spin numbers; I am guessing the coaching staff was getting on him about the number of guys he was putting on base (high WHIP). He had some success, but with his peripherals it was going to be hard to maintain as we found out. They needed him to eat innings, and its hard to do that when your pitch counts jump up. I know its easy for us to criticize him on a message board, but unfortunately I think this bullpen is better without him. That being said, I would love to have Seth back if the money is right and he is not needed to carry a bullpen. If he by chance reads this (I doubt it) I hope he doesn’t take the criticism personally. I would love to have a beer with him at Guillies more than any player on the current team.

See the Hart discussion in the MLB forum. Pitchers have stopped throwing him fastballs and have started throwing him more sliders since his 2007. He seems unable to adjust. In response to BREWERPRIDE, I personally think Gerut alone could probably out produce Hart this season. Besides, Gerut and Edmonds wouldn't be platooned togeather since both are lefties.

I would be shocked if he won, but stranger things have happened. Add me to the list of people who think he may struggle with taking the criticism. I have heard these hearings can be pretty nasty for the player to sit in on. I am glad the Brewers hired a law firm to present the case instead of Doug or Ash doing it.

They were the one rock bad I thought of immediatly after my previous post. I was just trying to say that there are litterally tons of modern rock bands that could perform without offending anybody and are extreamly popular. In my opinion, rock has made a major rebound in the last decade. I personally can't stat Bon Jovi, Radiohead, or Coldplay, but they would be pretty realistic selections.

I think there are lots of choices. Coming into the game, I was excited to see The Who. They have really aged these last couple of years though. Just going off the list of U2's related acts on lala, I think you could make a case for: Kings of Leon, Pearl Jam, The Killers, Billy Joel/Elton John, Bon Jovi, David Bowie, The Cure, Radiohead, and Coldplay (I hate the last 2, but would still at least watch). Didn't they have Foo Fighters just 2 or 3 years ago? Like I was saying before, I didn't think the Who was a bad choice until I heard them sing.

I don't do a lot of budgeting, but I don't believe it is at all unheard of to add bump up the numbers by 20% in your preliminary estimates. I don't know if its butt covering or simply that they can ask for this money now and give it back later if/when everything goes according to plan.

Anybody read the business section of the journal sentinal yesterday. The original report of this project creating 13k jobs, is now revised to about 1/3. hmmm, these reports are never wrong right? Are you refering to this article: http://www.jsonline.com/business/83698652.html It pretty clearly explains the difference in figures. Had you read the article correctly you would have noticed that the report hasn't changed. The press release added all the jobs togeather. Different interpretations of the same numbers. The people who put the report togeather did nothing incorrect here. Here is part of that article: But the job-creation figures listed in the grant application reflect total employment during each year of construction: 1,281 this year, 4,060 next year, 5,535 in 2012, 1,847 in 2013, 621 in 2014 and 250 in 2015. Only by adding all of those annual figures together would one reach a total of "nearly 13,000 jobs" - 12,723, to be precise - by 2013, or 13,594 by the time construction ends.

Because the evidence you seek is what is what's non-quantifiable. The only evidence you believe to be pertinant to any discussion is information that can be viewed in a stat line. Seeing every pitcher work him the same way, with the low & away slider strike three as the knockout punch, showed me that the pitchers had figured out how to get him out. Anyway, I just wanted to show that this observation, which I have also had, can in fact be quantified and backed up with stats. I am also sure Corey is aware of this issue. He needs to make adjustments to be successful again. He didn't make them last year, so I really don't think a light bulb is going to go on at this point or it already would have.

We all know Hart is a freeswinger who doesn't have much plate discipline. He never has. The question is whether pitchers are exploiting that weakness better over the last two years than they did in 2007. I think its pretty obvious Corey hasn't been seeing as many fastballs as he did in 2007. Fangraphs backs that up. The number of sliders he has seen has dramatically risen as well.

I'm trying really hard not to offend you as engineer, but I just don't see how so many cars will now be off of I94 that its going to postpone or prevent any major road projects and in turn save all that much money. Of course the state's report is going to say it's going to save money. Do you expect them to fill out a report saying "yeah this is going to cost people millions of dollars more each year". Problem is these agencies are paid to create a report and who is their employer? The people that want the rail system, which is in itself a natural bias. They would not get future contracts if they didn't create reports in the favor of the guys hiring them. For that reason it's always tough to have an independent 3rd party do any report like this. The planners have a job whether this train is built or not. The people that stand to benefit are the construction workers and any independent contractors who will be bidding to work on this...and of course the citizens of SE Wisconsin. The planning and estimations in the report are all based on established math equations and computer models. There isn't a lot of room to add in "bias." Furthermore, manipulating any report like this would go against all engineering ethics. When it involves public funds, such actions would not only cause you to loose your job and face law suits, but are actually punishable by jail time. At this point I think its safe to say that you both are so ignorant on the whole process and your political bias is so strong that you will do whatever it takes to convince yourselves this is a bad idea.

I am not as familiar with Madison as I used to be, but I will say that the trend right now in urban planning is intermodal integration. Wisconsin cities are lagging well behind while Chicago and the Twin Cities are moving forward with this quickly. I know its kind of a foreign concept to some, but in 10 years it will probably become a way of life for a lot of people. Milwaukee's Train Station is billed as an Intermodal Station though I don't know how aggressively they are pushing it. In Chicago, they are integrating the Metra and El so that one card will work for both. The bus lines and El already work that way. Minneapolis has its new Target Field Intermodal station that connects the Lighrail system to the Commuter Rail and is right next to the new stadium. I could see this being the destination of this high speed rail line. My point is that Madison may want to integrate the station near the airport this way. If you have to get dropped off at the edge of the Isthmus and take a shuttle to the capital or university, why not get dropped off 2 miles away from there and take a waiting shuttle. The idea is that its as seamless as possible...you walk off the train onto the platform and onto one of several waiting shuttles that go to the key points around the city. Being out of the congestion between the lakes may make this a lot easier to accomplish and easier for passengers to follow. It may even be faster in the end than having the train travel slowly through the dense final 2 miles of the city.

Keep in mind though that we already have in place two ways to collect money to pay for the highways...the registration fee and the gas tax. If certain politicians didn't continually raid these funds to pay for things completely unrelated to transportation there would be a lot more money to pay for highway maintenance and/or they wouldn't have to constantly raise the fees. In order to subsidize the train, we're going to have to come up with a whole new tax or fee or both to pay for it. Huh, what does this have to do with anything? The train saves the State government money. Isn't that the point? Your point about the politics raiding funding doesn't change that. I don't believe this will "save us" anything overall. It may save us money on highways, but that money and more is going to be used to pay for the train. The state's report and common knowledge among any engineer/builder/planner says the opposite...especially when factoring in all the fringe benefits. If you disagree so be it, I won't try to change your mind at this point.