Warning: The Right, Phobic About Trains, Is About To Derail Itself
Tip of the hat to Larry Sandler at the Journal Sentinel, the dean of transportation reporters, for a solid summary of the politics and financial issues surrounding three potential train projects- - high-speed rail between Chicago and Madison (and running eventually the Twin Cities' high-tech business cluster), commuter rail through the suburbs and counties south of Milwaukee, and a downtown streetcar system.
It would make Milwaukee a passenger rail hub - - and also the site for the assembly of high-speed train sets for the US market, says Talgo, the Spanish train manufacturer setting up shop in Milwaukee.
So come Tuesday, Milwaukee's legion of right-wing talk radio hosts, dedicated to snuffing out any rail initiatives so commuters will stay trapped in their cars - - with their radios on - - will take note of Sandler's story, rustle soma papers and foam themselves comatose over the cost of these projects.
Even though the total for the three rail projects, at just under $1.2 billion, is less than 20% of the projected $6.4 billion cost for the regional freeway reconstruction plan.
The rail projects' total cost would be more than $700 million less than what is being spent right now rebuilding and widening just 35 miles of Interstate 94 - - along with ramps and other amenities - - between the Illinois state line and Mitchell International Airport.
Next up: The Zoo Interchange reconstruction and widening, now ticketed at even more - - $2.3 billion - - or more double the cost of the three train systems.
And there are billions more to be spent on I-43 southwest through Milwaukee County across Walworth County; I-43 north to the Sheboygan County line; I-94 from Wauwatosa through Waukesha County to the Jefferson County line; many smaller segments throughout the seven-county regional freeway zone, and the Granddaddy of them all - - I-94 past Miller Park and Story Hill, though there are three cemeteries in the way.
The rail projects would put a bit of balance into the region';s transportation choices.
The right-wing is as stuck in its anti-rail position as commuters on the freeways at rush hour.
Balanced transportation, anyone?
13 comments:
And the ridership of rail does not even approach the freeway...
thus your comparison is silly.
So while we taxpayers are subsidizing Amtrak we are building more tracks to Madison to subsidize? probably not much worse than spending unnecessary dollars to widen I94 to Chicago.
Does anybody ever correlate the campaign dollars from the road builders? Is THIS why we need to build more roads?
The rail line will provide service between Chicago and Madison.
The Milwaukee-Chicago line keeps a lot of traffic off I-94 everyday, which is great for the passengers, other motorists and people who live along the corridor.
It will be a boon for Madison.
The highway lobby connection to local and state politicians is deep and bi-partisan.
The rail service from Milwaukee to Chicago stops where you want to be - smack-dab downtown.
The line from Milwaukee to Madison will stop at the airport.
Of what utility is that? Would you pay $70 to get to the airport in Madison, only to have to pay more to get from the airport to where you actually need to go?
I won't, and I don't think that there are many others that will either. The numbers that the rail proponents use to "justify" the ongoing costs of this project are not only fiction, but they don't cover the costs.
How many people will pay $87 to get to the airport SLOWER than they could drive there, EVEN IF THAT'S WHERE THEY WANT TO GO?
This is NOT high-speed rail. This is car-speed rail, with stops in between Milwaukee and the Madison airport.
Let's talk about the points made in the post - initial costs of the rail project compared to maintenance and expansion costs of various freeway projects.
Okay, so the rail project is estimated to cost $1.2 billion. Who among us believes that estimate? Go ahead, raise your hands....anyone?
Didn't think so.
Further, what will the ongoing maintenance costs of the rail line be? Unknown. Who will pay the annual operational costs? Well, that has already been answered - the State of Wisconsin, or more accurately, the TAXPAYERS in the State will pay them.
Have we learned nothing from Amtrak? Ticket prices do NOT cover operational expenses. Haven't for decades.
Further, can you accurately compare initial costs of rail to maintenance and upgrade costs of highways on a dollar-for-dollar basis? How about passenger miles? That seems to me to be a better metric to use.
I have no idea what the numbers are, but it would be interesting to see the comparison:
The State is estimating that 360,000 people will take the train to Madison or Milwaukee the first year. That comes out to $3,333.33 per passenger the first year.
How many cars use the section of I-94 between Milwaukee and the Illinois state line? well, at $1.9 billion for the upgrade, it would only have to be 570,000 in a year to equal the cost per user (one car = one person on the train) to come out the same.
Can you honestly say that only 570,000 trips per year happen on I-94 between Milwaukee and the state line per year?
That upgrade will last for quite a while (I have no idea what the DOT plans).
I will admit that there are many conservatives who oppose rail systems out-of-hand. That's not being intellectually honest. If the project makes sense and can pay for its own operating expenses and *GASP even make a profit, more the better, and private industry has probably already done it - see the Badger Bus line.
Just because some politician says it should be done does not make it a good idea.
To Anonymous: The Madison rail stop has been moved from the airport to downtown.
You say the rail estimates will rise. Same for the highways? Remember that the cost of the Marquette Interchange was reduced by reducing the definition of the interchange - - thus increasing the cost of the later segments.
Are you aware of the subsidies in the highway budgets. And the operating costs - - repairs, maintenance, patrolling, plowing.
And rail contributes to cleaner air. Very important in a dirty air area.
Amtrak is subsidized at about .30 per passenger mile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak Cars subsidized at about .01 per passenger mile. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2199. I also think that anyone more than 30 miles or so from either city will drive it instead of the riding the train. I also think that people who won't use the train will object from the continuing drain from the transportation budget that will take away money from their own road and bridge needs.
To the last Anonymous: I disagree. People don't necessarily want to always get in the car and make the drive.
Plus - - there are plenty of people who do not drive, cannot drive, or use train time to work, read, etc.
People who do not drive or cannot drive also pay for highways and roads through state income tax (bond payments) and property taxes.
These arguments cut both ways, which is why a balanced transportation system is more fair.
With ticket prices possibly as high as $50-60 one way between Madison and Milwaukee, only the well off can afford to take the train on a regular basis. Let me just suggest that instead of taking the train, they just conduct more business using technology like video conferencing. I also don't think its "fair" for the well off to have a train that takes away from the rest of the infrastructure dollars that everybody uses, even those who don't drive or don't use them. Yes, everybody uses roads and highways. How else are you able to purchase your food and other goods? Finally, we have buses that travel between Madison and Milwaukee. Finally, I don't see my anti rail position about to derail itself. You see "fair" in much different way than I do.
Two words/phrases to the pro-highway "Anonymous" hacks populating this comment thread: Hidden subsidies, and peak oil. Both disprove the substance of the comments, for they know not how to subtract, only add in favor of their beloved oil guzzlers. One only needs to know one fact, not discussed on this thread: Deepwater Horizon, as evidence of the horrendous cost of our asphalt (made from oil) obsession. The final cost of the oil gusher in the Gulf, which is likely to destroy over 1/3 of the US seafood industry, is incalculable. Aside from that, we have other hidden subsidies; hundreds of billions in military spending to ensure access to cheap oil, pollutants from cars, runoff from impervious surfaces that is ruining aquatic ecosystems with excess water volume and pollutants such as road salt (not to mention the corrosion to the vehicles themselves), and shipping by truck which pounds the roads to pieces while the truckers don't pay enough in tax to cover the upkeep costs. All in all, the quantifiable hidden subsidies to roads total roughly $5 to $10 a gallon of gasoline. Just the direct economic penalties (importing oil, military expenditures) total over $300 billion per year http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html and add about $2.40 per gallon to the real cost of oil. What do you deficit hawks have to say about that?
And, there are even small things, like biological pollution (invasive species) that are a direct result of our highway fetish. The short-sighted Wisconsin DOT, despite voluminous scientific evidence, continues to plant invasive non-native weeds such as birds foot trefoil, since they are "salt tolerant". Unfortunately, such species have little use for native wildlife, and invade and displace native vegetation when they inevitably escape from roadside plantings.
You Anonymous folks who refuse to sign your name to your one-sided commentary fail to realize that redundancy and choice make a more robust system. A transportation monoculture based on highways is a road to ruin, given the devastation to the planet and our finances as a result of our petroleum economy. Global Peak oil is here, and its only going downhill from here on in. The easy oil is gone, only the environmentally ruinous and expensive sources (tar sands, Deepwater Horizon) are putting it out. Oil output has not increased since 2005, despite skyrocketing prices, which would, in my mind, be an incentive to produce more. Oil is only relatively cheaper because of the bad economy that is reducing demand.
As for transportation versatility and timings, rail is cheaper to maintain per mile than roads,and is less vulnerable to delays due to weather, an important factor in snowy Wisconsin.
Railroads don't require salting in the winter-and what happens when it snows or rains, traffic snarls and airports are closed, but trains often still run, even on time, in bad weather, I know, I ride Metra which usually runs flawlessly during snowstorms.
I frankly dispute most of your assertions as to cost and subsidies for the auto vs. train. As fuel costs rise for the car, they will also rise for the train. We have buses, which I believe, are far more efficient and flexible in moving people than the train. Redundancy and choice are fine, but not when the economic disparity between trains, buses, planes and cars are so great that it places a burden on transportation budget that the choices are raise taxes or not fund something that may benefit more people. Why do we drill off of the coast? Because govt regulation makes it difficult to drill on land where such a problem as the Deep Water Horizon would have been easier to control and fix. As to being anonymous, this has a long tradition in American politics. Tuff.
To the last "Anonymous", it appears that your commentary is, as usual, a collection of fact-free assertions without any data to back them up. While there is a role for bus transit, and it can be more flexible than rail, your assertion that it is more efficient than rail simply doesn't hold up. Trains, in particular high capacity bilevel trains such as Metra, and electrified rail, which can be powered by renewable energy, are up to ten times more efficient than cars and trucks, three times more efficient than conventional diesel buses, and 1.5 times more efficient than electrified trolleybuses (which are what we should be using; they were ripped out by Firestone, GM, and Standard Oil (the predecessor to BP) in order to promote more profits through oil consumption and planned obsolescence (rail rolling stock and electric trolleybuses outlast diesel and gas powered vehicles by a factor of at least 2). www.strickland.ca/efficiency.html
Furthermore, if you want to promote less waste, compact development, and other side effects of our transportation system, rail is the way to go. Rail is far better than buses in getting people out of their cars and has a much higher farebox recovery ratio (read needs less subsidization for operating costs): actual research is bearing this out.www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf. Frankly, the Milwaukee public transit system sucks because it has no rail; there are good reasons why Chicago and Minneapolis, and Portland Oregon, for that matter have much higher transit ridership and less need to drive: all of these metros have rail. Portland is a good comparison since its metro and Milwaukee Metro have comparable populations; Portland has a vibrant public transport system with excellent ridership and transit oriented development thanks to its rails; Milwaukee's is going through a death spiral thanks to the lack of rail and the anti-transit ideology of Scott Walker
Your thought process on this topic assumes that we will always be dependent on cars and semi trucks and that transportation model will always exist; the data suggests it will be doomed. Remember in 1900, the horse and buggy dominated transportation other than on steam railroads; nobody advocated stopping the infant car industry or fighting wars to protect horse breeders and buggy whip manufacturers in 1900.
As for the right-wing oil industry apologist canard that states we are not drilling on land because of tougher regulations on surface drilling, I say hogwash. The reason oil companies are drilling in deep waters is because that is one of the few places there are still large untapped oil reserves. The only land area that is untapped that is constantly brought up is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; even that only has one year of oil reserves at current US consumption levels.
James, this is too bad. We are spending too much on an inefficient and unbalanced transportation system.
Post a Comment