thebruce44

thebruce44 --- I just want to let you know that your input & perspective on this topic has been appreciated. Thanks, its good to know someone is using my input to help formulate their ideas. If someone thinks I am bias or just doesn't believe the points I am making I really encourage them to read the report Robert linked to. There is just so much incorrect assumption or wild exageration on here that I worry people are taking for fact. Even with the $15.6 million estimate, does it make sense to spend $800 million in order to lose $15.6 million per year? The $15.6 million will more than be made up for in maitenance savings on the roadways and the local economic impact. Think big picture. The report outlines and attempts to quantify just how much money this could save immediatly as well as in 2030.

thebruce44, I have a question for you. Being an engineer, would you personally benefit (job wise or career) by having this rail system? Not this rail system, no...not in any way. The line between Chicago and St. Louis possibly. I hope my company is trying to get their foot in the door for that job. So the two points, you pay more, and you spend more time on your travels. Please answer how you convince us to do this. I don't know how and thats not my job. But the planners are not pulling this information out of thin air. It costs more to travel by rail from Chicago to Mke then by driving, yet the ridership is climbing every year and is already very high. The rail service was already in place before the construction delays started and that combinded with rising gas prices are probably why it continues to get more popular. Furthermore, price points haven't been decided on and final speeds could very well be faster than driving at some point in the future. Also, this is proceeding ahead right now with the idea that the population in the Mke to Mad area will increase 30% by 2030. By then the train may be a great way to travel if the traffic follows the projections. The idea with these large scale projects is to fix something before it becomes a problem, but then that just seems to anger people for spending the money. If you wait to fix it when the problem is obvious, they get even angrier. Sometimes you just can't win. I am not trying to convince anyone here how they should travel, I am simply asking people to be a little open minded and not just assume the study is wrong, or worse yet, that no study has been done.

At the best estimate peak, we have: 28000 riders/wk * 52 weeks *$33/ticket = $48 million revenue $48 million/5500 workers (your estimate) = $8736 per worker (YIPPEE!!!) That 5500 figure is during the second year of the construction phase. When the train is in operation after construction it will have 55 full time employees for the Chi-Mke-Mad line. The trains will most likely lose billions of dollars per year. Seriously?! I mean really? You think the operation will lose more each year than its total construction cost? You think their figure of $15.6 mil is off by that much?

Okay, skimmed through the DOT link at lunch and will just make a few points that address some issues people have raised so far: 1 - This will not be done along I-94, it will just be upgrading the existing rail lines between MKE-Watertown-Madison. Right now trains are limited to under 79 mph along those tracks, and there is no passenger travel between Watertown and Madison currently. 2 - The $800 mil price point is a bit misleading. $320 mil is needed to upgrade track. A lot of the rest goes towards stations, the trains themselves, incidentals, and inflation. It appears they are spending more now so that they will spend less later when the whole Midwest system is in place. Thats a good thing in my mind. 3 - There has in fact been planning done on this. It isn't in any way being thrown together. The planning has been going on since 1997 and has gone through many updates on the Federal Level and the State Level. 4 - At the height of the project they plan to directly create 5,500+ jobs. 5 - In the first full year of operation, they are projecting a ridership of 22,500 per week. Now I know some of you thought this number was absurd, but this is the ridership of the entire project, from Chi-Mke-Mad. By the 10th year of operation they are projecting a weekly ridership of almost 28k. This seems entirely reasonable. The current weekly ridership between Chi-Mke is heavily limited by the number of trains and operation speeds, yet it was still 14,500 in 2008 and trending upward greatly. All of these projections were done by Amtrak planners who should be pretty experienced in this regard. 6 - Ticket prices will be set to maximize ridership and revenue. Its not set in stone. 7 - Stations will be made in downtown Watertown, Oconomowoc, and Brookfield. This is essentially the light rail system they have been talking about for a while. Their cost is included in the total price. 8 - The operating subsidy for both completed lines is projected to be 15.6 mil. I hate to say it since I know that sounds like a lot, but this is nothing compared to the potential saving along I-94. 8 - The cost savings on I-94 for maintenance and congestion is amazing. This is being built with the 2030 population projections in mind. It is not a solution but will help out greatly.

I really am trying to play nice here, but it seems as though instead of responding to my points you are just using personal shots and trying to downplay the points I have made by acting as though I am completely ignorant on the subject. I am reacting to the fact that you admittedly know nothing about the project but decided that whoever did the work was bias and the results absurd. You have a laundry list of questions. Before making up your mind maybe you should find the answers. Why make definitive statements or claim that ridiculous alternatives are better and continually slam WisDOT? Thats the point I am trying to make, and its not just towards you. When further information is released I fear you will not even look at it or try to understand because of some of the incorrect conclusions you have already drawn. If you are open minded, then wait and make your decision at a later time. Its perfectly understandable to be confused, have questions, and want further information. The idea that this is being thrown together without a plan or that the information released so far is bias and absurd is, well, absurd. And I am not trying to pick on you in particular since others have posted similar thoughts. Its just the aqusatory tone and that the points you have made are completely insane to anyone who has even a little bit of experience in public works and development. I continue to ignore any comparisons between this and Metra because they serve two very different purposes. As I said before, the reason I posted that information isn't as a direct comparison, but because I don't think many people have a concept of what ridership means, especially when numbers get that high. The fact that you will ignore information pretty much confirms my fears that you have made your decision without any of the facts and are not open to further explanation. I skimmed through the DOT link Robert posted and will expand on a few points in my next post. I sincerely hope that you and others read it with an open mind.

At the same time it just makes his salary demand all the more ridiculous. If anyone was thinking about taking advantage of Doug for not wanting to go to Arby hearings they may end up thinking twice after the team makes an example out of Hart.

Obviously I have no engineering training, but I did get a B- in common sense in high school. Well then I am sure the study that you have never seen and have no knowledge of how it was put together is, as you said, absurd. I think the Metra will be much more popular than this train will be so even 15,000 a week may be high. My point was that you have no concept at all of what a ridership of 22,000 means, especially on an entire line that will be carrying riders from Chicago to Minneapolis by way of MKE to Madison. The 15,000 figure I provided was for a single stop on one of the less busy Metra lines. This is covered by 2 parking lots...its essentially a large park and ride for a city of 50,000. The busiest Metra line actually has an average weekly ridership of 327,000. 22,000 or whatever for this line actually seems conservative to me despite your common sense.

MSU has a rough stretch coming up too. Bucky could actually make up some ground or catch them here in the coming week. And count me in a someone who was impressed with the way the team played without Hughes. If Leuer can comeback and be effective, they could have a pretty dynamic offense with 4 players who could conceivably carry the offense in a game.

Yea, it would be interesting to see rough ML equivalents.

Hart 2010 Projections: CHONE: .271/.333/.456/.789 Fans: .269/.329/.40/.779 Taking the average of the two, Hart is projected to be about a .785 OPS and .342 wOBA hitter for 2010. He's also seen as an average defender. Using CHONE, I'm only finding 37 corner OFers that project to have 400+ AB and an OPS over .785. This is terribly quick and dirty but it suggests Hart is a little below average starting corner OFer. I think he's pretty far from being a platoon player. Rluz, do you honestly expect Hart to put up a .785 OPS? Those projections seem to put too much stock in his 2007 and normal growth and progresion of young players. Hart hasn't followed the standard model for a while now. And besides 2007, his defense has been pretty below average. In fact, the defensive metrics backup what I have said before in this thread...that he has seriously regressed. I would be very happily surprised to see him be average defensively in RF next year. All this leads me to the conclusion that he has been a fringe starter the last two years. I have a difficult time expecting or projecting it to be any different next year.

What a start for Bucky.

What you need to do is make a projection for Hart and estimate what a free agent would make with those numbers. Then you take something like 60% of that (to adjust for him being in his second year arby) and that's what Hart is "worth". Correct me if I am wrong, but arby players are paid based on how they performed the last couple of years in relation to how similar FA signings are going that season. As I said before, with the way FA contracts are going he would be lucky to get a 1 yr 4+ deal. So lets say he gets 5 mil somehow. I was thinking this was his 3rd arby year, but you are right, its his 2nd. So he should be making around $3 mil and personally I don't even think he is worth that. I don't want to get into the whole me being upset he thinks he is worth more than he really is argument, but as I have said before I can completely understand where fans come from. It also appears to me the Brewers treat their players extremely fairly though there arby years and Hart is trying to work that. Good for him, but it may mean that he isn't around much longer. I get the feeling he isn't fully aware of the consequences his actions can have but its a business and I am sure he will accept what happens to him this year and next salary and team wise (hopefully with the Brewers).

Yea Stevo. I really hope they can pull this off at home. The crowd is going to be crazy.

Those numbers thrown out earlier in this thread are absurd....something like 22,000 fares a week? Whoever came up with that number is obviously biased. Paul, again, I would love to see some of your independent calculations if you are going to accuse the planners who came up with this as being biased and their work absurd. Do you actually have any concept of how many people 22,000 a week is because its actually not very much. A suburban Metra station I am working on right now has 15,000 just during the work week. For the record, no I am not an engineer and such. But the point I am attempting to make with the 3rd lane-- not that that is even a great idea, is this is like adding an outdoor swimming pool to a house in Wisconsin when they don't even fix or claim they don't have the money to fix broken windows. Fixing the broken windows would serve far better than coming up with something new like the swimming pool. Next we will hear that more bridges are falling apart yet, guess what, we will not have budgeted one dime for their repair. The government set aside this money for high speed rail. It can't be used for "broken windows" and it goes to another state if WI doesn't want it. What specifically about the State Hwy system do you consider broken? The bridge issue is way overblown in my opinion though I am sure there is money budgeted for inspection after what happened in Minn.

SherryBaby and Secretary seem to be the roles that she's gotten the most acclaim for, have you seen them? I tend to agree that she's hardly the greatest actress of her generation. That said, for the most part, I find her to be a solid performer. Robert I thought she was really good in Stranger Than Fiction as well. I really enjoyed Avatar and 5 years from now I think I will look back and really remember it over all the other movies that come out this year. That being said, I don't think it was actually the best picture to be made this year. It should rightfully win every technical award out there, but best picture should go somewhere else. I wouldn't mind Cameron winning best director though. What a massive undertaking that must have been.

Bruce you might know this. Would this new track use the same exact railroad lines that the Amtrak use, or would an entirely new system be built? With the caveat that I have never worked on a high speed rail line (for obvious reasons) I will try to add my two cents engineering wise. Rail lines have speed limits on them just like roadways do. Roads and rail lines are both designed to a certain design speed (which often is higher than the posted speed limit). What does the design speed effect? On a road mainly traction and sight distance. This is why curves are super elevated and why a hill can only crest so sharply. Now when you are talking about high speed rail, or really any train traveling at a decent speed, the issues become not only traction (more like derailment) but also passenger comfort. At 150 mph, you can't have a very sharp horizontal or vertical curve. The main issue with building high speed rail lines has nothing to do with technology (it is easier to just slap more power on an engine) and everything to do with the route the track must take. So would the new track use the same rail lines that Amtrak use? Well first, the new lines will still be used by Amtrak. The high speed rail cars will be owned and operated by Amtrak. Right now Amtrak actually uses a lot of line that is owned by other freight companies (often with very low speed limits). This new line being proposed would probably be a combination of both. Going from Chicago to Mke, the train would probably get a new high speed line (track with a much higher speed limit) once it is between both cities. When it got to the more metro areas it would probably be forced to slow down and use existing freight lines. For between Milwaukee to Madison, I assume a lot of new line would be built, but I am not too sure. There is plenty of open space for a high speed line, so I would imagine eminent domain wouldn't be a huge hindrance once you get past Waukesha County. The line from Madison to Minn would probably be the same. So hopefully that background helps people make a little more sense out of what is being proposed here. Now I feel like ranting a little so please bear with me. A better use of the money would be to add a third traffic lane from Milwaukee to Madison. Yet, because that is not the "cool" thing to do, it will never happen until they have wasted this money. Then they will need to spend more money to fix the real problem. I will ask this, if it is such a great idea, why hasn't this been done by the private sector business. The answer-- it is a waste of money and will be a 'Money Pit". TabbertBB, I am curious what your background is in planning, engineering, and large scale public works projects. I am curious what type of decision process you used to discover that adding a third travel lane from Milwaukee to Madison would be a better decision both economically and for the general public. Also, how do you know what WisDot planners think is "cool?" In addition, you answered your question incorrectly. The private sector has not undertaken this project because (a) no private companies have the kind of capital for a project of this magnitude and (b) no private company would be able to profit from the side benefits of this project such as increased commerce, cost savings on the current interstates, and job creation. Sorry to specifically address you, but as an engineer is always pains me to see people who decide that they know more than senior engineers who have been working in this business for 40+ years (not me specifically but my bosses and the bosses at WisDOT). The average person has no idea the planning and thought process that goes into this type of work, yet when presented with a vague plan they have already decided that the people who are preparing it are wrong. In this thread alone I have seen people claim that the projected ridership is wrong, that the estimated cost is wrong, and even that it would be cheaper to construct and maintain 160 miles of new lanes than rail (try taking care of pavement through a WI winter). To those of you who have suggested these things, I would love to see some of your independent calculations. Now I am not saying the plan is perfect and there very well could be errors, but some of the responses here are people who have more than jumped to conclusions. All that being said, I am happy to offer my opinion as someone who has done similar design work to what is being proposed. I will stop trying to convince people one way or another though as I have made my case and I think some have already made up there mind. I don't meet to come off too strong either. As an engineer I need to grow thicker skin. When tax money is involved everyone is going to have an opinion of your work and thats just something I have to get used to. End rant.

I do have a beef though among some of the very pro-mass transit folks that like to harp on those who would just prefer driving their cars and thus that those people need to get out of their car liking "mentality" and instead start hopping on buses or trains. Well said, I completely understand that there are many people who simply can't take mass transit for whatever reason. I was one of them for quite a while. I also know some people who will drive simply because they are too lazy to figure out how the bus works when transit may be a much easier option for them. In my mind there is a negative stigma against public transit in this country and I really don't get it. Are you saying that it would cost $810 million to add an Amtrak Route from Milwaukee to Madison? I can't imagine that to be the case. The basics of the line from Chicago to Minn will be the same high speed or not. I think what a lot of people are missing is that both high speed or regular speed lines would be Amtrak lines. Both will require similar land acquisition and materials to construct (rail, ballast, earth, and concrete). I don't know exactly how much each one would cost at this point and I haven't seen the studies, but if they are going to build a line they might as well build one that wont be obsolete in a couple of years so long as the funding is being provided. Politics aside, the money is available and WisDOT/IDOT have to take advantage of it when they can.

lcbj68c, Have you read any of this thread. Your argument was already made several times and responded to.

Um, thats exactly what this is. The difference in cost between standard track and high speed rail will be extremely minimal.

His only success came in 2007 though so who cares if his velocity came back up since a year ago? Also, his fastball has lost some movement since that 2007 and his change up has come up in velocity for some reason. His pitchfx stats are much easier to follow since nate's chart doesn't seem to be able to differentiate his changeup from his splitter (does he even throw both or maybe thats why his CU velocity has risen). http://www.fangraphs.com/...playerid=3273&position=P As I said before, that jump in innings killed him. It looks like he is slowly regaining some of his form, but he may be a lost cause.

The offensive difference between Cabrera and Janish is considerable. Cabrera is a run producer. He has more RBI over the last 3 seasons than Mike Cameron, including last year when he had 77, which would have been 3rd on the Brewers. Janish had just 16 in over 250 AB's. Janish can now be used as late inning defensive replacement. This is a great deal for the Reds. They got a starting SS and upgrade to their lineup for barely more than the Brewers are paying their utility infielder. Thats like judging a pitcher based on wins.

Gabe Gross had a WAR of 2.4 in '08 and 0.8 in '09 vs. Hart's 1.0 and 0.7. He just got a 1 yr $0.75 mil deal while Corey is going into his Arby hearing trying to get an extra $0.65 over the $4.15 offer from the Brewers. I just don't see how anyone can side with Hart on this one. I know it isn't going to be a popular opinion and I doubt it happens, but I wouldn't mind cutting him at the end of ST if he isn't doing well. It could very well come back to bite us, but he is gone anyway after this year and that money could be so much better spent in my mind.

Sorry if I was not clear enough. Chicago needs local rail service for the city. If you work in the loop, it is almost impossible to drive. Of course this isn't the case in MKE and certainly not in Madison. The twin cities do have a public transit system though I have never ridden it. The metro area there is roughly 3 times the size of MKE off the top of my head, so I am guessing it is important there. Now you said there is already a line from Chicago to the Twin Cities via MKE. That is true, but this would drasticly cut down travel time. It would also be much cheaper than flying obviously. And that is where the real need for this line comes from. I keep seeing people say how there just isn't demand for travel between Madison and MKE. Great. That section of the line will be subsidised by the travel between Chicago and the Twin Cities where there is a large demand. You are talking about connecting the 3rd largest Metro area to the 16th largest in the US. Milwaukee and Madison happen to be somewhat on the way and can take advantage of that. If I traveled back and forth between Madison and Mke I would be pretty excited to have this option available. As I said before, if the state doesn't want the funding I am sure a more direct route can be found and Madison could be skipped. It would probably cut the total travel time between Chicago and Minn down 20-30 min, so I don't think anyone would be too upset. If you want to keep this thread specifically about Milwaukee to Madison thats fine, but you are then missing the whole point of this project since nobody in the federal government is itching to get a high speed line between the 39th and 89th largest metro areas in the country.

Why? If you don't want to drive your car much, hey, more power to you. Nearly everyone i know likes the convenience of their car and have no plans on deviating from that. Trains run on rigid time frames and run in a rigid direction, cars offer the ability to adjust to changes in plans time wise or changes where you need/want to go. All of the inconveniences you spoke of are made up by the fact that I am never in traffic. In fact, I am posting this right now while I zoom into Chicago at 45 mph on a train. I have my feet up on a railing and my laptop on my lap. Tonight on the way home I will do the same and may enjoy a tall boy too.

Even at the low price of $40 per roundtrip, it's not going to work for commuters. Do you know anyone that's going to spend $800 per month PLUS taxis/buses/parking to go back and forth to Madison? Madison to MKE is around 80 miles? Most people probably average something like 20 miles to the gallon. A round trip would then be 8 gallons. Say gas is $3.50 a gallon ($28 round trip). Say gas gets up to $4.00 a gallon ($32 round trip). How much is parking in Mke? $10 or $15 for a day in the city? Then you have also saved 160 miles on your car. It could be pretty even for one person when looking at it like that if everything else it considered equal. Then factor in that you are not actually driving. When I last took the train from Chicago to MKE I actually billed an hour of my time since I was working. I am assuming most people get paid over $20/hr. Well at that point I think its pretty obvious which is the better value but I know not everyone can work on the train.