It looks like the Walker administration has put the train that would link Chicago to the Twin Cities dead in its tracks- for good. It was recently announced that the federal government will be giving our money to other states such as New York or California for their train lines. Maybe the citizens of wisconsin will get a nice plaque or something instead of 800 million dollars, over 5,000 jobs and economic development. Blahh, who wants that I guess.
Below are some quotes state politicians on the issue:
Gov. Jim Doyle: "This is a tragic moment for the State of Wisconsin. Our team worked hard to win a national competition to make us a leader in high speed passenger rail. We were positioned to be not only a center of the line, but to be a manufacturing center as well. Now we are moving from being the leader, to the back of the line.
"Eight hundred and ten million dollars that would have gone to create thousands of jobs in Wisconsin will now create jobs in other states. Bogus arguments that this money can be used for roads have been proven false. As Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota continue to work on the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, the connection of Chicago to Minneapolis will avoid Wisconsin. Milwaukee, Madison, La Crosse, Eau Claire and other Wisconsin communities will lose the benefit of those connections. Together with many others I have worked hard to move Wisconsin into the future. I obviously am deeply saddened to see us take a major step backward."
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner: "It is to the Wisconsin taxpayers' benefit that they will no longer be required to pick-up the additional tab for a high-speed train that the majority of residents will never ride. However, with our nation facing a nearly $14 trillion debt, it is an absolute mistake for the federal government to redistribute $808 million from Wisconsin to other states, instead of returning that money to the U.S. Treasury Department and using it to help pay down our deficit, as I've called for in legislation I introduced in Congress.
Congresswoman Gwen Moore: “A month before he’s even been sworn into to office, Governor-elect Walker has lost good jobs for Wisconsinites. He’s denied our state an opportunity to be part of a new, nationwide transportation system that would have brought economic benefits along with it.
“Instead of graciously accepting a return of our hard-earned tax dollars, Governor-elect Walker’s hard-lined position is sending them somewhere else to create jobs.
“I hope to be proven wrong, but I think this will build a fence around Wisconsin. We’ll be forced to watch economic development in Illinois and in Minnesota as both states continue a commitment to a rail a line that connects Chicago and the Twin Cities. And it’s a gift we’ll have handed them.”
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett: "This is a terrible loss of family-supporting, good-paying jobs in Milwaukee and throughout the State of Wisconsin and a shameful slap in the face to all the workers who would have benefited from this significant investment in transportation and infrastructure. With so many construction workers out of work, this project could have been the perfect spark to help turn the economy around.
“Someday soon the Governor of California, New York or Illinois will christen their high speed rail line, and it will be called the ‘Badger line.’“
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Great Train Debate
Perhaps the most hotly contested issue in the state right now is the future of a high-speed railline between Milwaukee and Madison - two of the state's largest cities. This lin would if implemented form the second part of a network of high speed rail that would connect Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to Minneapolis. The building of the line would be paid for by part of the economic stimulus money- something to the tune of 800 million.
Unfortunately, for the train project and for businesses or individuals who might benefit from a faster connection between major metropolitan areas, the majority of voters elected Scott Walker - the state's new republican governor who has vowed to stop the train in its tracks. He currently wants to divert the money to roads( something the fed says cannot be done) or give it back. Ohio's newly elected governor is of a similar disposition. Meanwhile a few other states like Illinois say they would be happy to take the money that we don't want to expand their current lines. Apparently a mode of transportation that Walker calls "backward" is working for them.
Walker makes a few arguments for not supporting the high speed train (other than he thinks its backward). For one he says that the state - currently in a huge deficit cannot support the train let alone make money from it. Secondly, that this "boondockle" is not "feasible" in a state where large metro areas are so far apart.
I have great problems with his reasoning and believe his is making a huge mistake that will hinder Wisonsin's economic growth by not allowing the train to be built. For one, saying that we cannot support the train overlooks the fact that the train will attract more business people to travel and open up new areas to business. Property values around train stations rise becuase of the increased traffic flow and with that will come new business. Overall a faster connection will both help businesses and open markets adding to local and the states ecomic growth. How can you not support opening up new avenues to business?
As to the operating cost - a $7.5million dollar bill, who offiicials say could be offset up to 90% like the Milwaukee to Chicago Hiawatha line, who is to say that the remainder ($750,000) could not be offset by ticket costs? And for those who argue that the government and thus the taxpayers shouldn't pay for 90% of it, I have to ask them where they think the money comes for road repairs and construction. Yes, thats right its the taxpayers. How many people have used every highway in the state? I would argue very few, yet we all pay for it. So is the case with rail.
As of todays day Governor-elect Scott Walker says he is open to directing the money toward existing rail lines like the Hiawatha line. But I have ask, if the Hiawatha line is so popular and other exising high speed lines in other states have worked, why can't the same thing work here?
By the way, some of the 810 million is planned to go into upgrades for the Milwaukee- Hiawatha line, a line very much supported by businesses. Not allocating the money to the rail project would most likely jeapordize this route as well.
The Chicago-Minneapolis line was supposed to be the backbone of a system of highspeed rail linking midwestern cities. It appears that this will never be the case as long as we can't see past the budget deficit and look at potential lines of new growth. As the old saying goes - oppurtunity knocks, or in this case whistles only once.
Unfortunately, for the train project and for businesses or individuals who might benefit from a faster connection between major metropolitan areas, the majority of voters elected Scott Walker - the state's new republican governor who has vowed to stop the train in its tracks. He currently wants to divert the money to roads( something the fed says cannot be done) or give it back. Ohio's newly elected governor is of a similar disposition. Meanwhile a few other states like Illinois say they would be happy to take the money that we don't want to expand their current lines. Apparently a mode of transportation that Walker calls "backward" is working for them.
Walker makes a few arguments for not supporting the high speed train (other than he thinks its backward). For one he says that the state - currently in a huge deficit cannot support the train let alone make money from it. Secondly, that this "boondockle" is not "feasible" in a state where large metro areas are so far apart.
I have great problems with his reasoning and believe his is making a huge mistake that will hinder Wisonsin's economic growth by not allowing the train to be built. For one, saying that we cannot support the train overlooks the fact that the train will attract more business people to travel and open up new areas to business. Property values around train stations rise becuase of the increased traffic flow and with that will come new business. Overall a faster connection will both help businesses and open markets adding to local and the states ecomic growth. How can you not support opening up new avenues to business?
As to the operating cost - a $7.5million dollar bill, who offiicials say could be offset up to 90% like the Milwaukee to Chicago Hiawatha line, who is to say that the remainder ($750,000) could not be offset by ticket costs? And for those who argue that the government and thus the taxpayers shouldn't pay for 90% of it, I have to ask them where they think the money comes for road repairs and construction. Yes, thats right its the taxpayers. How many people have used every highway in the state? I would argue very few, yet we all pay for it. So is the case with rail.
As of todays day Governor-elect Scott Walker says he is open to directing the money toward existing rail lines like the Hiawatha line. But I have ask, if the Hiawatha line is so popular and other exising high speed lines in other states have worked, why can't the same thing work here?
By the way, some of the 810 million is planned to go into upgrades for the Milwaukee- Hiawatha line, a line very much supported by businesses. Not allocating the money to the rail project would most likely jeapordize this route as well.
The Chicago-Minneapolis line was supposed to be the backbone of a system of highspeed rail linking midwestern cities. It appears that this will never be the case as long as we can't see past the budget deficit and look at potential lines of new growth. As the old saying goes - oppurtunity knocks, or in this case whistles only once.
About this blog
Hello and welcome to ForWord Wisconsin. This is a forum where I intend to blog about issues relevent to the economic, social, and political well-being of Wisconsin. I hope with this blog to give perspective to some of the issues facing the state today and my arguements and solutions that would I believe would move the state forward. The definition of "forward" that I refer to is to increase the prosperity of all those living in this great state - and I believe this definition is one everyone can agree on, even though we may not necessarily agree on how to get there.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)