It’s unfortunate that whomever wrote that article is so politically slanted. The Walker administrations position on the Madison’s service represented in that article is note exactly correct. First these were the conditions of the $810 million offered to Wisconsin and while I am not quoting the terms verbatum I am summarizing them accurately.
-
The $810 Million was to be considered a loan not a grant until system completion and the HSR was fully operational. Illinois is under the same terms with Chicago to St. Louis. The Governor thought at the time and correctly so the project would probably take longer than his term in office (note the Illinois project has) and he thought $810 million would not cover the full cost of the project. So looking at the big picture, Wisconsin be on the hook for a $810 million plus any other costs born by Wisconsin indebtedness if they missed the target date of operation of the HSR system. This is the main reason he declined the money and project. He stated publicly if it was an outright grant he would have taken the money and applied it.
-
The notion the Governor attempted to apply it to highway funding is totally false because it was written into the loan /grant that it had to be used for high speed rail and the Governor would have known this on first read of the terms as with point #1. Regardless of that provision it is true that several Council members in Milwaukee, that were ignorant of the terms laid out by Ray LaHood attempted to redirect to Highway. They were informed of the terms of the money and that ended their efforts. This attempted redirect did not happen at the Governor level as far as I am aware.
Milwaukee to Madison route was not really on the Amtrak restoration of passenger service plan that I am aware of. This was an entirely new bolt out of blue project in which no planning or pre-engineering work had
Service on these routes still depends on Amtrak getting an increase of total operational inventory of cars and locos. That increase has to be parceled out to the many US short distance services that need more cars and more locos in some cases.
If CHI <> MKE goes to 10 RT trains will Amtrak need anothe train set for example ?
Some additional information: The Walker 2010 campaign, through its PAC “Friends of Scott Walker” repeatedly quoted candidate Walker as saying he would prefer to see the money spent on roads and bridges.
WisDOT officials stated that they hoped that federal funds would cover 90% of the HSR service’s operating costs, as was already the case for the existing Milwaukee–Chicago Hiawatha service. This meant that, of the projected $7.5 million additional state HSR subsidy for the Milwaukee-Madison segment, state taxpayers might only pay $750,000.
Additionally, the cancellation cost the state ~$51.9 mil because of the Talgo fiasco, although it had the potential to recover 30% (up to a maximum of $9.7 mil) of the Talgo costs. It also cost the state and MKE the Talgo manufacturing plant and the employment there.
Yes, though because the Wisconsin contract is a Legacy contract not sure it will fall under the new requirements and it might be grandfathered. Note that Amtrak added new cars to the existing consists and Amtrak did not charge Wisconsin for new cars it added from the pool of old cars.
They did mention the purchase of an additional trainset though for the increase to 10 RT’s per day and that was included in the cost of the expansion.
Terms of the stimulus program and which state won the loan / grant were not public until late in the political campaign. So the timeline is off there.
I find this very hard to believe or the information is another timeline issue as you will note with all the stimulus funds they are targeted to construction or physical line improvment only and not ongoing subsidy. In fact this was another reason the HSR proposal was rejected. It was not certain what the subsidy or ridership would be since this corridor was not previously studied prior to the Doyle initiative. Further, there was a concern Wisconsin would be stuck with high operating costs and low ridership as I touched on earlier. Such would not be a concern if the Feds covered the cost of operation. However the Loan / Grant was limited to just a portion of the construction costs and no more follow-on money or so Wisconsin was told by LaHood. So I look at all this as stated again publicly before the terms of the stimulus funds were known. The stimulus was first announced, states competed for the funds…then LaHood wrote the terms of th
For 2017 the State Supported trains had an average load factor of 40 percent. The Hiawatha’s had an average load factor of 37 percent, while the Chicago to St. Louis trains had average load factor of 45 percent.
None of Amtrak’s reported numbers for the State Supported trains, including the Hiawatha’s, suggest that lack of capacity is a problem. Of course, it could be over the holidays or at select periods, but the number of holidays with heavy travel is relatively small. Maybe a better outcome could be achieved by restructuring the schedules of the existing Chicago to Milwaukee trains.
On the surface it appears that the Hiawatha’s had an operating profit in 2017 of $600,000. However, based on ticket sales, the trains lost approximately $4.7 million before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. The loss has to be made up by the state governments or the federal government.
The notion that Illinois can step its funding of passenger rail projects may be dampened by the fact that its bonds are just one tick above junk status. Moody’s rates them at Baa3. S&P and Fitch have rated them similarly.
You may find it hard to believe, but given the choice, I will trust WisDot.
There are problems here with stats gathering and they are as follows:
-
Chicago to Milwaukee Trains are fixed price, they do not use yield management pricing system which I have no freakin idea why even though I have asked officials and tried to find the answer on the Internet.
-
Chicago to Milwaukee Trains are unreserved. What that means is you only have ticket sales to GUESS what ridership actually is. The problem here is the Conductor does not always make his/her rounds in time to get all the riders on the train ticket scanned…seen it myself on one or two rides. This throws off revenue and ridership stats. Some people ride with no ticket or some buy a ticket and never ride…hopefully it is a wash b
Of the 85 route miles between MKE and CUS, about 52 are in Illinois. In the past you have complained about delays to Hiawatha riders caused by “lunch bucket” Metra train interference at the A-2 junction. Fact: In January 2017, the Hiawatha Service’s endpoint on-time performance was 97.4 percent, which was steady for the last 12 months. Train interference (48.7 percent of all delay minutes), other issues (22.0 percent), and track and signal issues (12.3 percent) were the primary causes for delay. In Illinois, Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service respectively crosses at grade the Union Pacific at A-2 and Mayfair Junction and the Canadian National at Rondout. [from the IDOT report]
I believe that he is saying not that WisDOT said it, or even believed it, but that it would be hard to believe taxpayers would pay only that amount at the ‘end of the day’. (Things being as they usually are with Government underwriting of rail service.)
I stand by my post and the only study made (by WISDOT). CMStPnP is not a more credible source than WISDOT, which he clearly said he found hard to believe.
Let’s see what he says next.
Key phrase being missed in the Charlie Hebdo quote of WisDOT is WisDot Officials HOPED it would pay a subsidy. When officials hope for a subsidy it implies they either do not know the details yet…and they didn’t in the timeline that Charlie Hebdo quoted from.
Here is what I meant and if you read the passage carefully quoted by WisDOT it is clear they are unsure what was in the proposal and have not come upon the details yet. Two of the items Charlie Hedbo quoted could have happened but would have been on a timeline where the officials did not have all the details yet and were commenting ahead of time. Much of what I wrote was based on GOVERNOR Walker, Much of what Charlie Hebdo quoted was based on CANDIDATE WALKER. There is a timing difference there. What is more accurate for the HSR Website to cite. What Candidate Walker said and did before achieving office or what Governor Walker did after achieving office. Not sure if this was deliberate by Charlie Hebdo or if it as an oversight.
Really not a case of my credibility more a case of quoting in a timeline I am not commenting on.
Factually the LaHood written stimulus did not provide for nor did it promise and opearating subsidy to any state that accepted the funds. Hence the HOPED emphasis, WisDOT had no clue at the time, that quote was made.
Previous Governor to Walker was Doyle. He jumped on the stimulus funds idea only knowing the amount and not really the terms as the terms were not released until late in the campaign. So the timeline is an issue of when those quotes were taken. &nbs
Sorry but noway is it only 33 miles to the Illinois border from Milwaukee. I think your mileage is off a little.
Since most of this was covered before in another thread I am not going to argue it again. Amtrak does not count the first 5 or 10 min a train is late for starters (Amtrak admits this in the footnotes if you check). Secondly who is at fault is never accurately attributed. Thats all I am going to comment on this since it was covered before.
But I will comment on the subsidy has Illinois well in the minority so it is either 60-40 or 70-30 (I kind of lean towards 30% because I was surprised how minimally Illinois contributes to the Amtrak service). Wisconsin pays the larger share of Chicago to Milwaukee Amtrak subsidy. Thought it was based on mileage to the State line. I don’t think it would be mileage direct from Union Station as I don’t see Wisconsin paying to upgrade the approach tracks to Union Station. Perhaps they start at where the Metra ownership starts North of Union Station and where it ends North of Union Station on the Chicago to Milwaukee Line (Rondout)…apportion that to Illinois.
Bottom line is Wisconsi
Typo. 43 miles. So based on route miles, the subsidy should be about 50/50. You provide no sources for your various guesses as to the apportionment.
Now that Illinois and Wisconsin voters have dumped their two anti-rail guvs (Walker and Rauner), it is more likely that passenger rail services can be expanded. This would include Chicago to Dubuque via Rockford. Perhaps someone will figure out that extending rail services from Rockford to Madison could be very successful and take some traffic off I 90.