Michigan's DOT may get Wisconsin's Talgo Trains

[hybridy]

2 high-speed train sets built for Wisconsin set to leave Milwaukee courtesy of tea bagger fav Governor Scott Walker.

Michigan's Department of Transportation is looking for alternatives to Amtrak trains for its Wolverine service while it waits for the 2018 delivery of a new generation of passenger cars, which are being manufactured for several Midwestern states in Rochelle, Ill. Because of a change in Amtrak's cost methodology this year, the federal government will no longer pay for the state of Michigan to use Amtrak trains on its Wolverine service. The agency's annual costs for operating and maintaining trains on its three train routes, including the Wolverine, ballooned from $8 million to $25 million this year.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...#ixzz30UvxqooC

[mtburb]

I wonder how long this will take before I will be able to see one roll past Greenfield Village-or better yet, through Wyandotte on a new Detroit-Toledo route...

[Hermod]

"Talgo" trains sound good at first, but it is very difficult to cut out a bad order car.

[DetroitPlanner]

They have been upgrading the lines over the last several years to go with faster service. W of K'zoo its gunna fly now!

[French777]

Haha, the article picture states "Royal Creek" instead of Royal Oak as a stop.

[douglasm]

The article mentions the two trains built for Oregon. They're not the greatest looking things in the world [[at least looking at the cab.....they're nicknamed 'Mater), but they're part of a very popular Talgo service between Eugine, Ore and Vancouver, B.C. Fast and comfortable, they've made a major dent in air travel between Seattle and Portland. If you can get Illinois, Indiana and Michigan to cooperate on rail travel in the same way Washington and Oregon have, it would be a good thing.

http://www.amtrakcascades.com/default.htm

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I don't care too much about what kind of rail car the state buys. I am still convinced that all federal money dedicated to intercity rail is best spent on the relatively heavily used East coast, and to a lesser extent the West coast. And state transit money is better spent on commuter service in and around Detroit and the other cities in Michigan. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support intercity rail in Michigan [[or most of the midwest) to support a very tiny fraction of travel is a waste of money. No real harm will come, mind you, except that said money could be used to support much more heavily-used local transit improvements. $1B spent on intercity rail takes many fewer people from place to place, does little to alleviate traffic, and will spur little economic growth. The opportunity cost of that misdirected money is substantial, in my opinion. Please note: I am not anti-train. If we could have everything in the world, I would love to take a train to Chicago every now and then, Traverse City in the summer, and Grand Rapids to visit Meijer Gardens. But since we have limited transit resources, I say: KEEP IT LOCAL.

Note to my beloved liberal friends: local transit expenditures are, by far, more beneficial to the poor and struggling than Amtrak subsidies. Business people and leisure travellers dominate Amtrak. The poor don't take Amtrak, with or without the subsidy. The median income of Amtrak riders is- I would guess by those I have seen on my years of East Coast rail travelling- is a lot higher than the average income.

[oladub]

2 high-speed train sets built for Wisconsin set to leave Milwaukee
courtsey of tea bagger fav governor scott walker

The article is wrong on a couple of points. Gov. Doyle's Spanish trains were not for Chicago. The were to go back and forth between Madison and Milwaukee. It was a thoroughly stupid boondoggle because buses presently operate between Milwaukee and Madison more frequently, with more stops, and for less cost than subsidized train passengers assuming the rosy passenger projections claimed by Gov. Doyle. Gov. Doyle did get a few nice vacations to Spain though.

Gov. Walker did not even kill this plan. Gov. Doyle assumed that Gov. Elect Walker would kill the train so Doyle gave the federal money back to the government which immediately sent it to California.Walker had instead wanted to ask the federal government to reassign that money to make improvements on the much more trafficked Milwaukee-Chicago part of the line.

This sounds like a reasonable idea to sell these trains to Michigan. If Michigan, or anyone would order more trains, perhaps Gov. Doyle's train adventure will actually make sense.

While I'm at it, Gov. Doyle's other achievements included new taxes on hospital and nursing home stays.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Thank you, oladub.

[Downriviera]

I wonder how long this will take before I will be able to see one roll past Greenfield Village-or better yet, through Wyandotte on a new Detroit-Toledo route...

On July 5th and 6th you should be able to see the Norfolk Southern steam excursion roll through Wyandotte on its way to Toledo and back.

[hybridy]

The article is wrong on a couple of points. Gov. Doyle's Spanish trains were not for Chicago. The were to go back and forth between Madison and Milwaukee. It was a thoroughly stupid boondoggle because buses presently operate between Milwaukee and Madison more frequently, with more stops, and for less cost than subsidized train passengers assuming the rosy passenger projections claimed by Gov. Doyle. Gov. Doyle did get a few nice vacations to Spain though.

Gov. Walker did not even kill this plan. Gov. Doyle assumed that Gov. Elect Walker would kill the train so Doyle gave the federal money back to the government which immediately sent it to California.Walker had instead wanted to ask the federal government to reassign that money to make improvements on the much more trafficked Milwaukee-Chicago part of the line.

This sounds like a reasonable idea to sell these trains to Michigan. If Michigan, or anyone would order more trains, perhaps Gov. Doyle's train adventure will actually make sense.

While I'm at it, Gov. Doyle's other achievements included new taxes on hospital and nursing home stays.

Not entirely accurate. Talgo built these for Hiawatha Service from Chicago to Milwaukee. Walker campaigned on rejecting the $800 million in federal funds to expand high speed service from Milwaukee to madison and eventually the twin cities based on future state maintanence costs. Walker wanted to divert the money to the Highway projects even as car travel continues to decrease over time while mass transit use increases. Talgo set up shop in Milwaukee hoping to land future work on the Minnesota expansion.

[hybridy]

Thank you, oladub.

Make sure to read my response so u're properly informed

[oladub]

Make sure to read my response so u're properly informed

Whatever Governor Walker wanted including spending that money on the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor and highway improvements is irrelevant since he could not even negotiate his wishes with the federal government. He never had that opportunity thanks to spiteful Gov. Doyle. Doyle sent the money back while Walker was still Governor Elect. End of story. Also, the federal money had nothing to do with trains going to Chicago. It was only for high speed rail between Madison and Milwaukee. If you want to bash Walker, find something that he did rather than what Doyle did. There are a number of things I disagree with Walker on. This is not one of them.

High speed rail [[in Wisconsin); Worth the Price? [[no)

[ghettopalmetto]

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support intercity rail in Michigan [[or most of the midwest) to support a very tiny fraction of travel is a waste of money. No real harm will come, mind you, except that said money could be used to support much more heavily-used local transit improvements.

You do know that each railcar carries about 96 people--this means an 8-car train foregoes the need for an additional 4-12 flights [[depending on size of plane) in our congested air traffic system? The same 8-car train also takes several hundred vehicles off I-94. That's not insignificant.

And what would you do about people who can't/won't drive or fly? Or people who are travelling to smaller cities, like Kalamazoo? Should they just stay home? Or perhaps you'd like to give them a ride?

Train travel is only "a tiny fraction" because there are only three trains a day between Detroit and Chicago--and those are usually sold out. If you add more trains, that "tiny fraction" will grow, just as it has in the Northeast Corridor, where 1-2 trains an hour carry twice as many people between DC and New York as ALL of the airlines COMBINED.

The cities in the Great Lakes region are spaced comparably to cities in Europe--well within the 350 mile-radius where rail travel is more competitive than air travel. That radius, of course, increases as train speeds increase. If we had a better passenger rail system, we wouldn't have so many sardine-can 50-seat money-losing "regional" jets cluttering the airports.

I'm just curious if you made the same argument when billions of dollars were spent to construct the new terminals at Metro Aiport. After all, people who fly out of DTW are just a "small fraction" of everyone.

[ghettopalmetto]

Whatever Governor Walker wanted including spending that money on the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor and highway improvements is irrelevant since he could not even negotiate his wishes with the federal government.

The rules had been established, and Wisconsin applied under those rules in good faith. You don't get to negotiate once you win the prize. The funds had been earmarked for passenger rail...you don't get to choose to divert those funds to highways.

[oladub]

The rules had been established, and Wisconsin applied under those rules in good faith. You don't get to negotiate once you win the prize. The funds had been earmarked for passenger rail...you don't get to choose to divert those funds to highways.

How could Gov. Walker negotiate after Gov. Doyle got pissy and gave the money back to the federal government so that Walker didn't even have the option of negotiating? It's just as well. Had the new Madison-Milwaukee train service been established, it would have cost more money than a bus, been a load stone attached to taxpayers, probably would have reduced bus service and run less frequently than busses, and would not have saved time for up to half of passengers. Its average speed would have been 60mph; hardly the high speed rail service that the federal government was allegedly paying for. As far as 'once the rules are established', rules are broken all the time. Case in point: Democrats in Congress agreed to the sequestration.

[jimmyr]

Faster rail to and from Chicago benefits [[1) kids that flee to Chicago after graduating from college, so they can visit parents over Thanksgiving and Christmas and [[2) kids originally from Chicago area that attend a Michigan university and [[3) miserable 22-27 y.o. college grads in SE Michigan after college, so they can go see how friends are living in a functional major city.

Faster rail does not provide a magical economic boom for a dysfunctional region.

[hybridy]

How could Gov. Walker negotiate after Gov. Doyle got pissy and gave the money back to the federal government so that Walker didn't even have the option of negotiating? It's just as well. Had the new Madison-Milwaukee train service been established, it would have cost more money than a bus, been a load stone attached to taxpayers, probably would have reduced bus service and run less frequently than busses, and would not have saved time for up to half of passengers. Its average speed would have been 60mph; hardly the high speed rail service that the federal government was allegedly paying for. As far as 'once the rules are established', rules are broken all the time. Case in point: Democrats in Congress agreed to the sequestration.

doyle was long gone and walker was the one to turn down the money...
http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/118842999.htm

[ghettopalmetto]

How could Gov. Walker negotiate after Gov. Doyle got pissy and gave the money back to the federal government so that Walker didn't even have the option of negotiating?

Walker NEVER had the option of negotiating--It wasn't a block grant of money. Blame the legislation for that, not Gov. Doyle. Walker *campaigned* on not moving forward with high-speed rail. Gov. Doyle at least did the taxpayers of the other 49 states a favor by seeing the writing on the wall. Outgoing Gov. Strickland in Ohio did the same once Tea Party Darling John Kasich won election.

It's just as well. Had the new Madison-Milwaukee train service been established, it would have cost more money than a bus, been a load stone attached to taxpayers, probably would have reduced bus service and run less frequently than busses, and would not have saved time for up to half of passengers.

"Probably" = "I'm making shit up."

Here's a crappy-ass bus. Now shut up, and don't ask for anything else.

Its average speed would have been 60mph; hardly the high speed rail service that the federal government was allegedly paying for.

How fast is the existing once-daily train between Madison and Milwaukee?

You do know that no high-speed service in the world has been established without first upgrading rudimentary rail service, right?. France and Germany were doing this in the 1970s, so we're only 40 years behind Western Europe. Not too shabby.

How are your spending cuts and union-busting going in Wisconsin, anyway? Economy booming yet?

[oladub]

gp: Walker NEVER had the option of negotiating--It wasn't a block grant of money. Blame the legislation for that, not Gov. Doyle. Walker *campaigned* on not moving forward with high-speed rail. Gov. Doyle at least did the taxpayers of the other 49 states a favor by seeing the writing on the wall. Outgoing Gov. Strickland in Ohio did the same once Tea Party Darling John Kasich won election.

Everything is negotiable. Even the Constitution can be amended but you are right that after Doyle gave the money back before Walker entered office, it was no longer possible for Gov. Walker to negotiate its use.

"Probably" = "I'm making shit up."

Here's a crappy-ass bus. Now shut up, and don't ask for anything else.

No, 'probably' as in it hasn't happened yet but based on supply demand, if subsidized train service was introduced, some former bus passengers would take the train resulting in reduced demand for bus services so some bus runs most likely would be curtailed. I realize that supply/demand is sort of a foreign concept to liberals. Beyond that, I was using the numbers in the article I passed along. No one seemed to argue with the need to subsidize train fares enough to get any riders at all even though at still higher rates than bus fares. Hence, the "load stone" on tax payers. I'm a high speed train fan but only if it makes sense. Doyle's Quixotic Madison-Milwaukee train was neither high speed nor economically feasible. Badger bus service offering unsubsidized rides for much less than even subsidized train passengers would have paid, more convenience, WI-FI, also connects to the Milwaukee airport, and about the same speed has very nice busses. I've used them. You probably haven't.

How fast is the existing once-daily train between Madison and Milwaukee?

You do know that no high-speed service in the world has been established without first upgrading rudimentary rail service, right?. France and Germany were doing this in the 1970s, so we're only 40 years behind Western Europe. Not too shabby.

How are your spending cuts and union-busting going in Wisconsin, anyway? Economy booming yet?

The present once daily trains service from Milwaukee to Madison, Columbus, WI actually, is part of the Empire Builder line running between Seattle/Portland and Chicago. It is often hours behind schedule heading east. Doyle's train from La Mancha would have operated 6 times daily. Present Badger Bus service offers 9 daily trips. Greyhound also runs between Madison and Milwaukee. I'm all for high speed trains where they make sense. This was not one of those places.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

At least Governor Walker took a break from suppressing voter rights to take time to damage rail service.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Faster rail to and from Chicago benefits [[1) kids that flee to Chicago after graduating from college, so they can visit parents over Thanksgiving and Christmas and [[2) kids originally from Chicago area that attend a Michigan university and [[3) miserable 22-27 y.o. college grads in SE Michigan after college, so they can go see how friends are living in a functional major city.

Faster rail will not provide a magical economic boom for a dysfunction region.

I agree entirely that Amtrak improvements will lead to no economic boom, except for the contractors involved. And while faster Amtrak service [[moderately faster, by the way; it will never rival air travel- which it does on the East coast- or be much faster than driving) will benefit the few Michiganders that use it in a given year, that does not really warrant spending the money. I realize that they are spending the money anyway, but putting that money into SE Michigan transit projects would benefit many, many more people. Foolish decision. Not unlike building a very expensive train depot in Troy, that- assuming it ever opens- will slightly improve the train-going experience of up to dozens of people a day. Some people are just so happy to make bad decisions with other people's money!

[ghettopalmetto]

And while faster Amtrak service [[moderately faster, by the way; it will never rival air travel- which it does on the East coast- or be much faster than driving) will benefit the few Michiganders that use it in a given year, that does not really warrant spending the money.

You know why rail in the Midwest will never rival air travel? Because short-sighted fools don't want the government spending a damn dime on a single damn thing. That's why.

Oddly enough, European airlines have been able to cut their money-losing short-haul flights ever since high-speed rail was introduced. But hey, we'll just keep forcing our airlines to fly money-losers, and keep spending tax dollars on ever-larger airports to accommodate them, and ever-more dollars to keep widening highways. Because that fits our ideology better.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

You know why rail in the Midwest will never rival air travel? Because short-sighted fools don't want the government spending a damn dime on a single damn thing. That's why.

Our cities are less densely populated and further apart than they are on the East coast, where rail is widely used because it is more practical for many people than driving. And, although I am a crazy right winger and skeptical of spending money, I do support spending quite a lot of money on local transit [[although I oppose blank checks; specific practical projects with reasonable price tags). I support local transit because it will have many users, and would be a real asset to the communities it serves. Light rail, better buses with more frequent service, and coordinated corresponding infrastructure is just plainly a better use of finite transit dollars. There is no scenario on the horizon where rail travel to Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland or anywhere else would become a heavily traveled route. More than currently take the train? Perhaps. But still not a lot of people; a no one who couldn't take a bus, plane or drive themselves just as easily. The capital expenditures are better invested in transit, and the operating subsidy is more easily justified by a system serving many thousands a day go about their daily lives than a system that helps hundreds of people whose travel preference- but not need- is to go by rail.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

You know why rail in the Midwest will never rival air travel? Because short-sighted fools don't want the government spending a damn dime on a single damn thing. That's why.

Our cities are less densely populated and further apart than they are on the East coast, where rail is widely used because it is more practical for many people than driving. And, although I am a crazy right winger and skeptical of spending money, I do support spending quite a lot of money on local transit. Because it will have many users, and would be a real asset to the communities it serves. Light rail, better buses with more frequent service, and coordinated corresponding infrastructure is just plainly a better use of finite transit dollars. There is no scenario on the horizon where rail travel to Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland or anywhere else would become a heavily traveled route. More than currently take the train? Perhaps. But still not a lot of people; a no one who couldn't take a bus, plane or drive themselves just as easily. The capital expenditures are better invested in transit, and the operating subsidy is more easily justified by a system serving many thousands a day go about their daily lives than a system that helps hundreds of people whose travel preference- but not need- is to go by rail.