- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
Amen!
SOmething I didn’t realize is that 90% of the cost of operating is picked up by the feds. So that 8 million becomes 800 thousand.
Why build a train no one wants? Doyle got smart. Quit trying to force something on the people of your state that they don’t want. One minute you guys are bitching about your property taxes going up, then you are bitching because the train is shot down… a train project that would bring a .5% increase on YOUR taxes.
Walker has a good plan, and the majority of the state agrees (hence how the votes played out).
For the time being, Scott Walker looks like he means business.
Example – this is the time (every other year) that political appointees convert their cushy state jobs over to civil service positions at the same or higher salary, thus becoming tenured and protected. Scott Walker has asked the Doyle administration to freeze the current appointee positions and not allow any conversion of positions.
I am surprised that Scott Walker did not ask for am immediate hiring freeze, statewideI am cautiously optimistic that Scott Walker will actually put
state government on a SlimFast Diet, and require all state government to be fiscally responsible.Time will tell.
Who exactly will ride this train? I certainly have no need to use it. There is a reason railroads have left or shortened their service. It doesn’t make money and the government won’t want to be on the hook forever with this. Also, there will be some cost passed on to local governments and the state. All the interurban rail lines left business in the late 50 to early 60s. Ever see those walking and bike trails in the Milwaukee suburbs? Those used to be electric train lines. North Shore Lines? They are gone as well. Even the Milwaukee Road stopped passenger service because the freight side of that business could no longer support the passenger line. I rode the train when I was small because dad worked for the railroad. We rode free with our passes. Amtrak? If the fed did not subsidize that, it would be so expensive, no one would ride. The ease of private auto ownership has rendered the train obsolete. It only somewhat works in highly dense population areas like NYC or LA or Boston. Madison to Milwaukee will only attract few riders. After the initial newness wears off, it will be empty for the most part. This is like subsidizing the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the auto age.
lordairgtar wrote:
Quote:Who exactly will ride this train? I certainly have no need to use it. There is a reason railroads have left or shortened their service. It doesn’t make money and the government won’t want to be on the hook forever with this. Also, there will be some cost passed on to local governments and the state. All the interurban rail lines left business in the late 50 to early 60s. Ever see those walking and bike trails in the Milwaukee suburbs? Those used to be electric train lines. North Shore Lines? They are gone as well. Even the Milwaukee Road stopped passenger service because the freight side of that business could no longer support the passenger line. I rode the train when I was small because dad worked for the railroad. We rode free with our passes. Amtrak? If the fed did not subsidize that, it would be so expensive, no one would ride. The ease of private auto ownership has rendered the train obsolete. It only somewhat works in highly dense population areas like NYC or LA or Boston. Madison to Milwaukee will only attract few riders. After the initial newness wears off, it will be empty for the most part. This is like subsidizing the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the auto age.What about instead building a train infrastructure for delivering goods rather than passengers? Putting all of those trucks on the road has made the highways more crowded and is certainly not getting any cheaper with rising gas prices. Having more freight shipped by train as it used to be (at least to local distribution centers where trucks could take it to its final destination) would make things more efficient by transporting it en masse. Plus, trains could be set up to run on fuels other than gasoline, which would be a much more difficult task to do for the fleet of trucks currently in use.
Garibaldi wrote:
Quote:lordairgtar wrote:Quote:Who exactly will ride this train? I certainly have no need to use it. There is a reason railroads have left or shortened their service. It doesn’t make money and the government won’t want to be on the hook forever with this. Also, there will be some cost passed on to local governments and the state. All the interurban rail lines left business in the late 50 to early 60s. Ever see those walking and bike trails in the Milwaukee suburbs? Those used to be electric train lines. North Shore Lines? They are gone as well. Even the Milwaukee Road stopped passenger service because the freight side of that business could no longer support the passenger line. I rode the train when I was small because dad worked for the railroad. We rode free with our passes. Amtrak? If the fed did not subsidize that, it would be so expensive, no one would ride. The ease of private auto ownership has rendered the train obsolete. It only somewhat works in highly dense population areas like NYC or LA or Boston. Madison to Milwaukee will only attract few riders. After the initial newness wears off, it will be empty for the most part. This is like subsidizing the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the auto age.What about instead building a train infrastructure for delivering goods rather than passengers? Putting all of those trucks on the road has made the highways more crowded and is certainly not getting any cheaper with rising gas prices. Having more freight shipped by train as it used to be (at least to local distribution centers where trucks could take it to its final destination) would make things more efficient by transporting it en masse. Plus, trains could be set up to run on fuels other than gasoline, which would be a much more difficult task to do for the fleet of trucks currently in use.
I think that’s what they kind of do now. Most trains run on diesel fuel which powers the Prime Mover which then powers the electric motors that drive the wheels. Not all new industry is built near rail lines. There are no tracks in the town I live in and companies like GE have built distribution centers here to unload and load trucks with their products.
lordairgtar wrote:
Quote:Garibaldi wrote:Quote:lordairgtar wrote:Quote:Who exactly will ride this train? I certainly have no need to use it. There is a reason railroads have left or shortened their service. It doesn’t make money and the government won’t want to be on the hook forever with this. Also, there will be some cost passed on to local governments and the state. All the interurban rail lines left business in the late 50 to early 60s. Ever see those walking and bike trails in the Milwaukee suburbs? Those used to be electric train lines. North Shore Lines? They are gone as well. Even the Milwaukee Road stopped passenger service because the freight side of that business could no longer support the passenger line. I rode the train when I was small because dad worked for the railroad. We rode free with our passes. Amtrak? If the fed did not subsidize that, it would be so expensive, no one would ride. The ease of private auto ownership has rendered the train obsolete. It only somewhat works in highly dense population areas like NYC or LA or Boston. Madison to Milwaukee will only attract few riders. After the initial newness wears off, it will be empty for the most part. This is like subsidizing the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the auto age.What about instead building a train infrastructure for delivering goods rather than passengers? Putting all of those trucks on the road has made the highways more crowded and is certainly not getting any cheaper with rising gas prices. Having more freight shipped by train as it used to be (at least to local distribution centers where trucks could take it to its final destination) would make things more efficient by transporting it en masse. Plus, trains could be set up to run on fuels other than gasoline, which would be a much more difficult task to do for the fleet of trucks currently in use.
I think that’s what they kind of do now. Most trains run on diesel fuel which powers the Prime Mover which then powers the electric motors that drive the wheels. Not all new industry is built near rail lines. There are no tracks in the town I live in and companies like GE have built distribution centers here to unload and load trucks with their products.
So basically the train brings it close to the town, and then the distribution center takes it the rest of the way?
I think a combination of transportation methods will really provide the most effective/efficient system overall. Glad to hear that that is a reality near your city!
Garibaldi wrote:
Quote:lordairgtar wrote:Quote:Garibaldi wrote:Quote:lordairgtar wrote:Quote:Who exactly will ride this train? I certainly have no need to use it. There is a reason railroads have left or shortened their service. It doesn’t make money and the government won’t want to be on the hook forever with this. Also, there will be some cost passed on to local governments and the state. All the interurban rail lines left business in the late 50 to early 60s. Ever see those walking and bike trails in the Milwaukee suburbs? Those used to be electric train lines. North Shore Lines? They are gone as well. Even the Milwaukee Road stopped passenger service because the freight side of that business could no longer support the passenger line. I rode the train when I was small because dad worked for the railroad. We rode free with our passes. Amtrak? If the fed did not subsidize that, it would be so expensive, no one would ride. The ease of private auto ownership has rendered the train obsolete. It only somewhat works in highly dense population areas like NYC or LA or Boston. Madison to Milwaukee will only attract few riders. After the initial newness wears off, it will be empty for the most part. This is like subsidizing the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the auto age.What about instead building a train infrastructure for delivering goods rather than passengers? Putting all of those trucks on the road has made the highways more crowded and is certainly not getting any cheaper with rising gas prices. Having more freight shipped by train as it used to be (at least to local distribution centers where trucks could take it to its final destination) would make things more efficient by transporting it en masse. Plus, trains could be set up to run on fuels other than gasoline, which would be a much more difficult task to do for the fleet of trucks currently in use.
I think that’s what they kind of do now. Most trains run on diesel fuel which powers the Prime Mover which then powers the electric motors that drive the wheels. Not all new industry is built near rail lines. There are no tracks in the town I live in and companies like GE have built distribution centers here to unload and load trucks with their products.
So basically the train brings it close to the town, and then the distribution center takes it the rest of the way?
I think a combination of transportation methods will really provide the most effective/efficient system overall. Glad to hear that that is a reality near your city!
No train, There is no rail in or near Muskego. The closest line is in Waukesha.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.