Could we advocate for use of RRIF funds ?

See link, at Streetsblog.org: "In Age Of Budget Cuts, Why Are Billions Of Federal Dollars Going Unused?"

Could we in Wisconsin advocate for the use of these funds in order to improve or prepare trackage for the future re-introduction of passenger rail service in parts of Wisconsin ? Please comment & discuss.

CA High Speed Rail link:

A Blog dealing with the CA high Speed Rail blog. This blog defends the CA HSR project. http://www.cahsrblog.com/

FL governor's rejection, & some other comments.

Now that the FL governor has wrongheadedly chosen to reject the funds for his states' high speed rail project, this blogger thinks that it may have been smarter to allocate the $ 8 billion to Amtrak and other established commuter rail agencies with the conditions that:

1. the funds are to be used for infrastructure, and

2. the projects selected had the engineering & regulatory work ( EIS, et al. ) completed prior to consideration for the award. The approved projects were to have been even more ready to go, and not necessarily a "green field," " 'Cold Iron,' " absolute start. Certainly some agencies out there have some projects that are just waiting for the funds, ready to get underway (kind of like WI, except for the fact that the current governor rejected those funds, too).

The funds could have been allocated according to the relative size of the respective rail agencies. Amtrak would have received about $ 4 billion, because of the sheer size and scope of the NRPC's operations.

Projects to avoid would include, but are not limited to, (for example) HSR through Kansas, connecting to Ft. Worth.

Also, for the future, we must distinguish between Improved Intercity, or Incrementally Improved existing Service, and high speed rail. I would suggest re-defining the US definition of HSR to that of a maximum speed of at least 125 mph. We also must make sure that any future projects increase the average speed, to be at least as fast as driving -- because many passengers out there will automatically compare the travel time aboard train to the time spent driving. When incremental service improvements are labeled as "high speed rail," most members of the general public see through this, and it gives the opponents more ammunition to oppose improvements in rail service overall.

I also think the President damaged his high speed rail efforts by concentrating a lot on health care, and other aspects of the 2009 "Stimulus" bill, when he should have directed his political capital towards renewing the Transportation Bills. He could have included and sort of improved rail service in any proposed Transportation bills.

Other politicians consumed political capital and time by calling jobs efforts "shovel-ready," when there were no such things. This blogger also fears that, by making rail service improvements such a high profile item in his administration, the President has turned them into targets for the opposition. This will serve to energize rail opponents to spread even more of their misstatements, misattributions, and falsehoods.

I would give the recent efforts an "A" for intent, but a "D," possibly even a failing, grade for execution.

Responses to eight misconceptions regarding the Hiawatha service extension through Madison:

Some points to consider:  

"First, passenger rail is not some pet scheme of socialistic red termite liberals. Midwest Regional, developed by a consortium of nine states, was led by WisDOT under a Republican governor. ProRail, the large, south-central Wisconsin chapter of Wisc. Assoc. of RR Passengers, was founded by Pat Robbins, a lifelong Republican. (In fact, Mr Walker is lucky she's no longer alive, or he would be missing some skin, now.)

Second, the project has nothing to do with Amtrak, beyond the presumption that it would operate the service; but maintenance would be out of Amtrak's hands (and out of Chicago).

Third, Amtrak is in no sense a "failed system", as its growing ridership would suggest (against all odds, such as too-many-cooks meddling by politicians and aging equipment and obstructionism by its landlord railroads). All the criticism I ever see against Amtrak consists of a recycled urban myths, plus almost defiant ignorance of the fact that ALL transportation systems enjoy large public subsidies, Amtrak's being peculiar only because of its size (small) and the annual noisy spectacle of begging for support for it for another year. No such noisy and unedifying wrangling surrounds subsidies for highways, or emerged over the past two fiscal years when the federal "highway trust fund" had to be topped off by $28 billion from the general fund.

Fourth, the "high speed" plans for the MAD–MKE segment were compromised, only for the duration, by an FRA decree a couple of years ago limiting the speeds of trains until Positive Train Control was implemented. That's supposed to happen in 2015 (no one in the industry thinks that's possible). But when and if it did happen, the engineering of the Waterloo Spur and the main line between Watertown and Milwaukee would have been been ready, having been designed for 110 mph operation. Upgrading MKE–CHI for 110 mph passenger was to have been a later phase of the Midwest Regional project.

Fifth, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative was NOT cooked up by "rail enthusiasts". It was undertaken by nine state departments of transportation—effectively departments of highways under another name—most of which had little or no previous experience in or any particular enthusiasm for passenger rail, the chief exceptions being Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin (marginally), and Missouri.

Sixth, the Midwest Regional plans were essentially complete 1999, except for some ongoing tweaking. All that was needed was funding. That was never easy to see coming, and of course the Bush recession pretty much brought an end to hopes for federal involvement. Finally, after 15 years of planning, environmental studies, etc., FULL funding suddenly appeared, in a complication-free form that no one had anticipated in their wildest dreams.

Seventh, my sense is that the responsible citizens and policy makers who were in favor of this project lost control of the narrative very early on. This was probably because it had not been anticipated that a project that had been favorably and publicly evaluated, and whose need was obvious, over a period of half a generation, would suddenly be the target of a furious (if largely fact-free) assault. For example, the Madison project was mischaracterized as a "train to Milwaukee", whereas it's really multiple trains to and from Chicago. With a stop at Milwaukee (among other places). Even those who knew that there are already trains between MKE and CHI didn't seem to understand that the "train to Milwaukee" was simply an extension of that highly successful service, no one would have to change trains in Milwaukee, etc., etc. (The "future extension" to Chicago that one sometimes saw mentioned in the media coverage had to do with 110 mph operation over the route that would be covered by current 80 mph speeds until the upgrades.)

Eighth, it seemed to me from Walker's first comments on the subject that he had a very limited grasp of the bare facts. He seems to have thought, for instance, that the Madison project was something clapped up by (ugh) liberals trying to make a play for some federal money (so like a liberal). He seemed to think that there was some sort of uncertainty about "where to put the tracks" for the operation, for instance. His recent remark about supporting passenger operations on "existing tracks" suggests that he doesn't know of the existence of the Waterloo Spur between Watertown and Madison. AND as for using the funds for highways, he never somehow mentions that $700 million that Wisconsin got from ARRA funds explicitly for highway construction. And as for the economics, I somehow can't see Walker refusing construction funds for an Interstate highway, or major upgrading of a US highway, on the grounds that Wisconsin will then be stuck with the costs of maintaining it.

I don't actually remember where I saw, recently, among comments on a "Milwaukee train" story, a remark about avoiding the mistakes of "failed high speed passenger train projects". Like so many comments, it gave no specifics, and I'm at a loss to think of any.

Oh, and a final remark. I've several times seen sneering remarks about how the "train to Milwaukee" would be making "all these intermediate stops" (two, to be exact) and so would never be able to attain the promised 110 mph for more than a few miles. Well, the acceleration of a standard trainset like the ones serving the Hiawathas between CHI and MKE is 1.5 mph per second. That's far less than your grandmothers BMW, of course, but you can do the math: it would take all of 75 seconds to go from zero to 110 at that rate.

.. . . . . .

This $8 billion fund was set up for passenger rail projects. States had to apply for it, for specific projects. More than $100 billion in projects were applied for. Wisconsin got the second-largest grant of all, for the Madison project, and appropriately: the proposal rested on long and careful and detailed planning and development, had been studied by two engineering consulting firms, the environmental studies were all out of the way, and the project was not a hastily scraped-together one-off but Phase One of a major, multi-phase nine-state plan that had been developed over a period of 15 years. No one was trying to jam passenger rail money down Wisconsin's throat. Wisconsin went after the funds, and secured them by proposing an uncommonly complete and funding-worthy project.

What Walker proposed is analogous to a kid who gets a full scholarship for college and then wants to know if it would be OK with the college if he just skips school and uses the money to buy himself a Hummer. No, you can't. You asked for the money for a specific purpose, it was never in doubt that the money was being granted for a specific purpose, and if you decide you no longer want to pursue the project, the deal is off. There's nothing that's hard to understand about that. A conspiracy theory, here, like all conspiracy theories, is notably more complicated than the simple truth.

Oh, and I don't remember Walker saying anything about the $700 million in ARRA money that Wisconsin DID get for highway work. Maybe that was something else he didn't understand. Or maybe he realized that if he admitted to it, it would undercut his unethical attempt to change the rules of the game as regarded the passenger rail money."

Some reasons why Scott Walker was so successful in mischaracterizing the proposed Madison rail extension:

Cross posted from an earlier post at "Canoeing On The Waterways Of Life" :

"Walker has done a very good job in taking the Chicago - St. Paul proposed service, and characterizing it as simply a Madison to Milwaukee train. The news media have not challenged his mischaracterization in a vigorous fashion, thereby leaving large portions of the general population misinformed. This is to be one segment of an improved rail network that would connect Detroit, Kansas City, Omaha, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, St. Paul, and Chicago. By focusing upon the Madison to Milwaukee segment alone, and ignoring any mention of the other cities, Walker has prevented any discussion of the positive effects of the improved rail network.

“The crux of the problem with this framing is that MWRRS planning shows that once completed, the Chicago hub HSR will be second to only the profitable NE corridor in terms of potential ridership. While if you just look at the first link between Madison and Milwaukee, the numbers don't justify that effort in isolation.

Walker has masterfully framed this issue in a way that has prevented the public from being exposed to the information that shows the larger benefits of the system. But the irony is that in doing so, he is destroying a great opportunity to grow the regional economy. Short term political gain seems to be canceling out long term prosperity.”

If Walker is successful in his efforts, this will be a serious defeat to getting rail service to Madison, and may even result in Amtrak re-routing the Empire Builder away from Wisconsin completely. "