Bucky370

Isn't that what the Watertown, Oconomowoc, Brookfield, and Milwaukee stations will do? No, trains won't run frequently enough. I would comparing this more to a system like the L in chicago. 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. You should have moved to Waukesha than. It was your choice to live in Grafton. And their were options to drive west and pick up 45 south and skip going thru downtown Milwaukee. No reason that you need to go thru downtown on that route. I work in Mequon and live in Brookfield. The only freeway I see is from Good Hope to Mequon road on I-43. It's still a 25 to 35 minute drive, but I don't complain because it was my choice to take a job in Mequon, my previous job was in St. Francis, the reason I bought my house closer to the city of Milwuakee.

Will they 20 years from now when the population of SE WI has increased 30% and there is traffic? 20 years from now you probably will have much more efficient electric cars and can use the most up to date technology to build a true high speed rail system based on a different power source other than fossel fuel. Not to mention the currently proposed system will have probably lost more just to operate semi empty than it would take to build the entire system new in 20 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. 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. I am not a hater of mass transit, but want to spend the money in a manner that makes sense for the population of the state of Wisconsin and a system that can finanically run on it's own. If this will be anything like the Hiawatha rail line between Milwaukee and Chicago, it will be a drain on the taxpayers to operate.

One thing people who talk about how this won't be any faster than driving miss is that it will be much, much safer than driving. Amazing how many people are willing to take such a huge risk for granted. 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!!! We don't live in chicago where you can easily sit in traffic for several hours. Nowhere in Wisconsin does that happen other than a car accident taking place, but even then their are many side road options.

Oh man, it sure was nice riding the train this morning. Right on time for work as usual. I drove my gas guzzling SUV to work today, snow didn't bother me one bit. Also got to work early. Now I have the flexibility to go to the store for lunch or any of my favorite restaurants since nothing is closer than 1 mile away. And yes, I get to enjoy by XM radio to and fro. Wait I'd miss Belling this week...oh who cares. I'd rather listen to MLB.com. Paul you make a lot of good points and no matter what either of us say they will put it down. The fact is we have an opinion as well. We may disagree with both Robert and Bruce...but that's our right too. Too bad we can't control opting out of paying thru our taxes, the potential tax h e double hockey sticks it could create. Our state and Dept of transportation is broke due to our current administration shifting the money to the general fund, than spending it. Nobody is answering to that being the cause of our roads falling apart and the significant future costs to rebuild the funds, and fix our roads. Not to mention after raiding the transportation fund they pushed back the repair time of the zoo interchange, which is now going to be fixed twice and cost way way more than it should have from day 1. Bruce, since you ride the train to work, I'm guessing you live in milwaukee area and work in chicago right? Either way it doesn't matter, but Yes, traffic in Chicago is out of control. As you also know milwaukee traffic is a piece of cake for the most part except for when their's accidents. But it's our choice to work downtown, and our choice to drive thru that traffic. If I don't like it, I'll take a job somewhere else or move closer to work. It's called the free market!!! I choose to live in Milwaukee instead of Arizona where it's warmer and I wouldn't have to deal with snow. But it's my choice. At some point though, if the state continue's to shove higher fees and taxes down my throat, I will move out of state. If they lose the wealthy of this area, that leaves basically nobody to pay for our state debt. Nobody wants that, but without some fiscal responsibility the next few decades, it's going to happen. (state of NY) 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!!!

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?

No political undertones are necessary or inherently implied. Dude, whether it's radio or tv talk shows, their all politically motivated. I've made it very clear that I believe when the owner pays for a report to be done, it's automatically slanted, especially in our political climate. I'm taking my particular point of view because I don't think it will be used very much. I've also along with others suggested that this rail system is far from adequette to a be high speed rail system that it is being called. My point of view is this money can be used more wisely for other forms of mass transit that will have a lot better, longer reaching effect. I'm a fiscally conservative person and have no interest in supporting a rail line that in my opinion will be a burden on the tax payers.

It bothers me that people can state with authority that they know more than the engineers. Who actually did studies and documented them. Without a hint of self doubt. 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. What is this, talk radio? This one came out of left field. But this is a forum and a disussion about the proposed rail line addition from Milwaukee to Madision. Last time I checked I'm an american citizen that has a voice just like you do. Talk radio has nothing to do with my viewpoints. Can I assume you don't like talk radio? If not that tells me what side you lean immediately since their are really not any left leaning talk shows in existance anymore. I would love their to be, but for some reason they don't get an audience to keep them afloat. Let's end this discussion right now because too me this isn't about politics, this is about what I think is an very inefficient use of tax payer money. Robert, I am not totally against rail transportation like republicans are. I've been very clear that I don't think this line solves any problems on our freeway system as I don't believe the ridership will even warrent the system to be in place. I've made many recommendations that if your going to do this, do it right. Problem is Madision is only open to their ideas and nobody else's. Did they do a study that would show severl different options to reduce highway traffic. Probably not. How about a light rail system around the city to the city of milwaukee. That will eleviate the high traffic (the highest traffic freeway in the state btw). Why don't we make this a true high speed rail line that is at or over 100mph where it actually cuts down time on the trip, thus creating a demad? Why don't we make it an electric system instead of fossil fuel, going green is part of the point right? Why don't we get madision to stop raiding the transportation fund for the general fund. Our roads wouldn't be in disrepair, since the transportation fund is broke from the re-delegation of funds.

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". Maybe if you look far enough into the future you'll start seeing some savings, but that still doesn't take into account the added costs of the train. I know my opinion is frustrating to you, and I really do feel bad that you seem to be the one who has to keep defending this, but I just can't see that many people using this thing. Thank you Paul, I've been saying exactly what you have. Only thing is maybe you said it more eliquently. I too don't see enough people using this train, nor am I convinced it will pay for itself once up and running. It's been very well know the milwaukee to chicago hiawatha amtrak route is heavily subsidised by the fed.

The question is what will be the most cost-effective method over time, both for the government/taxpayer and the consumer. Someone quoted the cost of just adding another lane to the freeway to be a massive amount. If this rail line can cut down on vehicle travel enough so that an extra lane isn't needed, or expensive maintenance is reduced, and the overall amount spent on transportation is less, then it is a good deal and saves the taxpayers money. That is what needs to be determined. Completely agreed. I personally don't think we need to add a lane from the west burbs to Madison, just do a better job of maintaining what we have. The bottom line I've been trying to point out is their has to be a better more cost effective way to fix congested areas, not necessarily open road areas. If those fixes are in place it makes traveling for work etc significantly easier for everybody who still choose to use the freeways. We know their will always be a dependency on the freeways, just way too many of us like our freedom than being put on mass transit. But we can be significantly smarter about it than what is currently being proposed. Just adding this train on as it's a good starting point is not about being smart. Very few business's I know want the 1/2 way solution to a problem, they want it fixed for good. Can you imagine how more efficient our public systems would be if this money was used to upgrade government computer technology? Most agencies are still on a paper environment (not green..LOL) and are very slow because of this. HMMMM

2) If you think that gas is getting any cheaper in the long run you're a fool. And if Gas isn't getting any cheaper neither is Diesel!!! 1) Fewer people are getting married, and people are having fewer children. Families are in the minority. Sad state of affairs, isn't it? 4) When gas gets back up to $5/gallon people will be complaining, "Why wasn't the rail line built years ago??" And the price of Diesel will corresponently rise making your fairs increase. Why not build a high speed electric system? Oh wait, our electric prices are going up as well. 8) Being able to work on your laptop, use WiFi (my Verizon Blackberry can get internet anywhere there is a cell phone signal), read a magazine/newspaper/book, talk on your cell phone while traveling... getting more done instead of sitting behind the wheel, thus saving time because you won't have to do those things when you get there or before you leave. I don't disagree with this at all. But I just don't believe a high % of people travel for work regularly in state. My company of about 400, maybe 5 travel, and only 1 regularaly, but it's not to Madison, it's out of state. 9) Bring food with you and eat on the train, eliminating the need to stop somewhere. Buy cheaper (and healthier) food at a grocery store and not garbage at a fast food restaurant. I don't disagree, but it's pretty easy to pack a sandwich in a brown bag, but who really does this anymore. I havn't come on this board to offend anybody or put anybody down. I don't know many of you and asking Bruce a few simple questions was more about why he is so supportive of this idea. I for 1 am not, and never will be. To answer the earlier question if it's 800m or 0, I'd rather it be 0. Why, because if it's federal money, it's still coming out of our pockets. We don't live in a densely populated area. I don't know many that would really use it at all. After posting a few days ago, I too starting asking friends co workers etc who would use this system and what they thought, the consesus and not even close (99 to 1) said they would never use it nor would they support it. Too bad it's already out of the taxpayers hands. Bottom line, I was trying to point out is that if it is running at a deficit, we the state tax payers will pay to support it. Something very similiar to what is happening with the hiawatha amtrak route. Without federal assistance, that route would have already been shut down. (I have taken the Hiawatha for work in the past, it's nice, but when traveling for work I need more flexibility on times, on a few occasions I'm still in chicago at 11pm, too late to train it back home) The state of Wisconsin is already financially a complete mess, adding another potential burden upon the state will not help at all. How about the 800m going towards a rebuild of the zoo interchange??? Right now their wasting our tax money by doing a quick fix on the interchange, and will eventually be totally wasted since they are still planning a complete rebuild in the near future. I did get a couple of great ideas from the people I talked too. Most were in favor of a light rail system from downtown to the suburbs. We would all agree that an awful lot of people travel from the waukesha area to downtown. A light rail system from Waukesha or a little bit west to downtown would be a great idea. It would significantly cut down on traffic on 94, save the system from wearing down so fast. Would have to have many stops on the way. Add hi fi and everybody could do their own thing on the way. Part of my whole argument is that this is not answering what we really need. 1. a true high speed rail line between milwaukee and madison (100mph +) 2. Doesn't take any stress off 94 around milwaukee since locals won't use this system at all, especially for the price. 3. I'm not sold it doesn't create a dependency on the tax payers of Wisconsin.

$800 million for 55 full-time jobs?? Can't they find another way that would add more jobs, in this high unemployment state. That $800 million could pay a salary of $40,000 this year to 20,000 people (not taking into account payroll taxes). Plus, that $40,000 per person would result in more income taxes paid to both the state and federal governments. And those 20,000 people would have money to spend, which would result in more sales tax collected by the state. Doesn't that seem to make more sense than a train that loses $15+ million/yr, and creates a whopping 55 full-time jobs? Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding. Jobs creation is the name of the game right now. Not fruitlessly spending money for infrastructure that I believe the masses will never use. I was trying to give Bruce a shot to convince me the masses would use this system. Bruce, I read this entire thread earlier today and you do not have me convinced that we really really need to spend 800m (even if it's from the fed, it's still tax payer money coming from where, your gov't debt or your federal taxes). This 800m could be spent in a significantly more effective manner to restart the economy, not just 55 or so jobs in the long run. I'll answer this for you bruce.....How to you convince people to use this system. 1. make is cost effective, which means you have to charge relatively low rates for the system, problem is, it is almost impossible to do that just of the nature the cost of the fuel etc etc etc. 2. make it faster than what my current travel plans would be, that would mean making it true high speed rail that goes over 100mph as an average. You should be able to build the system between west / east traffic along 94 without having to any purchasing of land rights etc. The whole plan I know has good intents but doesn't make fiscal sense at all and is not an effective use of our tax dollars.

A point that I think is being constantly overlooked. This isn't a line just connecting Milwaukee to Madison. It's part of a line connecting Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to the Twin Cities. And I think that's part of what makes the ridership figures reasonable. You get not only Milwaukee / Madison ridership but also Chicago / Madison ridership on top of existing Chicago / Milwaukee ridership. Not to mention new stations in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown which makes it more accessible instead of just a downtown station. (And I can see both Brookfield Square and Johnson Creek outlets running shuttles to the train stations.) I don't think the stations out in the suburbs are a coincidence at all. They're hubs. And a considerable part of the cost of the project. Does this mean that amtrak goes broke or shuts down their line? Or is this just a amtrak from chicago to milwaukee, than jump on another train milwaukee to say waukesha? Does the ticket allow for transfers? If so the costs to ride from milwaukee to chicago are free essentially. If it's part of 1 network, than amtrak probably should cease to exist as the ridership will corresponently decrease!

At what cost though is it really a nice addition to our infrastructure. As you said it's not for everyone, but if it runs as a deficit, now everybody is paying for something they will never use. Using other train services (and I won't say high speed rail, because that it is not) almost all run significantly as a loss. If it wasn't for the government funding Amtrak would have gone broke a long time ago. If you traveling from madison leaving even at 5, live in milwaukee, your lucky to be home in a car by 6;30. That's well before kids are home after soccer practice. Most schools are out at what, 2:30, they practice for about 1 to 1 1/2 hours, usually home by 5 or 5:30 at the latest. And again as I stated, most people with families probably would just move instead of make the daily trek back and forth. My point of this is I think the #'s of 22.8k users annually are quite inflated. I can't imagine that many users especially if the cost is higher to ride a train over driving. Bruce, even if you won't answer your bias question, please answer the other two. I do thank you for your input, but I obviously do not share your opinion that this is a cost effective addtion to our infrastructure. Not to mention I'm not convinced that it creates more than 500 to 1000 jobs. But that being said, it's 500 or 1000 jobs on the taxpayers dime if it doesn't run as at least as break even entity.

Bernie, I wouldn't imagine children would pay full price. Most trains i have ridden have kids under 17 usually 1/2 price. Metra(different i know) has a deal where one adult ticket gets you 3 kids tickets free. As well as weekend passes, where you ride all weekend for $7. I can see how it would be a problem during the week, but if you were going to madison for the weekend, it would be a huge savings($7 for the whole family, both ways). Now obviously, this is all hypothetical, but i would imagine this train service would have similar price deals. And if you are going to be using it for work, there are usually rail passes, which offer discounts as well. If this is the case that discounts and monthly / weekly passes are cheaper, that blows the budget out of wack even more. Now technically you can take the 22k estimate of riders down for revenue's. How many though? I don't know, nor do I know that the estimate of 22k is realistic. Expenses won't go down, but the budgeted revenues will avg more like what, 15 to 20 per rider instead of 25 to 35? Just a guess, that's a big difference right? So who pays this difference, yes, the taxpayers of the state, and those that will never use the system. To some, yes. To others, no. The rail isn't going to be for everyone. If you are the type of person who likes to rush home and do what you need to do ASAP, then you obviously want to take a car. I personally, wouldn't mind relaxing a little bit on a train and unwinding before i get home. Same thing in the morning. I would easily say that majority if not almost everybody thinks the extra 35 to 45 minutes with their family is a big deal...right? How many of the people that travel to and fro have families? I have 2 young ones and want to spend as much time as I can with them. Back to the costs, if I was being offered a job in madison at say 40k a year, and my costs are expected to rise, odds are I would move to madison before commuting. Even if I made 80k a year, odds are I would move to madision. I really think their is a misconception of how many people commute between the two cities for work. I personally, over the last 20 years, only know of 1 person that has. And like I stated above, he couldn't stand it and eventually moved.

thebruce44, I have a question for you. Being an engineer, would you personally benefit (job wise or career) by having this rail system? My point is if you do, you have a natural bias and should not be realistically included in this conversation. That would be like asking me, if I was a government worker to vote for a raise. Their are a few bigger points that I also would like you to answer. 1. How do you convince those that perfer the freedom of driving, to ride a train that decreases their flexibility. How will you convince those with children that paying for fair of 3 or 4 at $25 or even $35 each direction, per person ($75 - $100, or $100 to $125) is cost effective. You know us here in wisconsin are generally more conservative and cost minded. To jump in the family car / mini van or even SUV, and at worst have 15 miles per gallon for 80 miles, That comes out to 80 / 15 * current price of about 2.70 to $14.40 one way. The argument doesn't change materially if you have a passenger car that gets 30mph, and quite a few of them today do, it just cuts it from $14.40 to $7.20. Ok, maybe you have to pay $10 for parking in madison, which is only if your downtown. In the burbs you won't have to pay for that. So $24.40 max, versus $75 to $125. Again, the question is how to you convince those in the state of Wisconsin to pay the addition $50 etc. I understand this will be used mostly by the younger 20's crowd or those working in one or the other. But again, having the flexibitiliy if you have to work late, or get in early is something difficult to dispute. Unless your an 8 to 5 worker, the rail line is incredible un-flexible if their not running enough trains. But if they run too many trains, they will run more and more empty. I concur with other here that we're not chicago and not as densly populated. Traffic between these cities is not bad and very uncomparable to chicago. So please keep the chicago comparison out of this, even the milwaukee / chicago amtrak comparison is fruitless since it includes the traffic in rush hour in chicago. 2. Please explain how some will be willing to schedule their commute on the timetable of the rail system over just jumping in their car and leaving when they want too? If the rail leaves on the hour, and I get off work at 5:30, now I have to bus it from some spot in Madison to the station, 10 to 20 minutes each side of the trip (location to station, and station to destination), than take a train that arguably will be a bit slower than driving. Now my time of just leaving at 5:30 driving, an avg easily of 60mph, will now be reduced to probably 40mph. (how do I calculate this, the train will avg about 50 at most for 80 miles (max distance) that's 1 hour 36 minutes plus 20 to 40 minutes, so 1 hour 56 minutes to 2 hour 06 minutes). If I jump in my car you can easily average 60 (with slower driving thru any of the city) and at the fastest 65 (like we all drive the speed limit, haha) that is 1 hour 20 minutes to 1 hour 14 minutes. Difference is 36 minutes to 46 minutes. In our society today, 36 to 46 minutes is a huge inconvience. How do you sell this to people? So the two points, you pay more, and you spend more time on your travels. Please answer how you convice us to do this.

Anybody own a Poulan? Any comments?

I'm looking at new snowblowers and really don't know that much. When you go to a dealer that has 1 brand, they only talk that brand and can't give you an honest opinion of best bang for your buck. The power centers are too busy to sit and chat with yah. This is how I understand it so far. Top Tier: Toro, Honda, Ariens, Simplicity Middle Tier, Craftsman, Sno-tek, MTD I'm not sure where Poulan or John Deere rate, but Poulan seems to be priced reasonable, that probably means middle tier. I am already assuming I need a 2 stage, my driveway is 5 cars in length, 2 wide at the bottom and 3 at the top. I don't have a sidewalk to speak of. At the top I have to blow the snow west or north which is right into the wind usually and not to mention away from the house 30+ feet either direction at some spots. I wanted to stay under 1k, but it's looking like I will be over if I want the top names. Any thoughts on the above?

You are absolutely correct. Not to mention the differences in TV revenues from Say Boston or NY to Milwaukee and regular advertising. The combination of the low ticket prices on average, and the other revenue sources will not put Milwaukee = to #9 in revenue in baseball. I will admit though, I'd love to see their financials, but being under private ownership, their in business to make money and keep their info private. Some of you forget the days of Selig, or are too young to know. Those were the cheap years, being #13 in payroll is a far cry from being #30 every year!!