H 84°, L 63° | Tomorrow: 
H 81°, L 63°
President Barack Obama announced Thursday an $8 billion plan for funding a high-speed rail across the nation, including a track that would connect Madison, Chicago and Milwaukee.
The high-speed rail system, already in use in Europe, would be used in America to link large and small metropolitan areas, airports, bus stations and highways.
The Midwestern network of the high-speed rail would include 3,000 miles of existing tracks connecting cities with trains capable of at least 110 miles per hour. Chicago, which is bidding to host the 2016 Olympic Games, would serve as the hub of the Midwestern trains.
Application procedures for rail projects grants will be finalized this spring by the Department of Transportation, with grants awarded in late summer.
Obama sees his plan as jumpstarting a potential world-class passenger rail system, according to a statement from the DOT. In addition to the $8 billion provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the president will include $1 billion per year for five years as a down payment.
According to spokesperson Lee Sensenbrenner, Gov. Jim Doyle has been pushing for this funding for a while and is very supportive of the federal government’s recent action.
“This is something that would be a tremendous benefit to the state,” Sensenbrenner said. “High-speed rail offers strength and lasting value to our economy.”
Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson, D-Kaukauna, agreed funding for high-speed trains is a good thing, saying that the plan will most definitely improve Wisconsin’s economy.
“Our economy depends on our ability to transport goods and people safely and efficiently, and we need to bring our transportation infrastructure into the 21st century,” Nelson said.
He added that utilizing high-speed rail in Wisconsin will “prove that our state is well-positioned to compete for our fair share of federal stimulus funds.”
Republican Party of Wisconsin spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski, on the other hand, argued high-speed rail is a very unnecessary expense that will do little to benefit Wisconsin citizens.
“With new unemployment numbers reaching 9.4 percent, it’s clear: first and foremost, Wisconsinites need jobs,” Kukowski said.
She added she feels the president’s new plan is an expensive investment that leaves too many questions unanswered.
“Both the Obama and Doyle administration have been vague about how many and what kinds of jobs high-speed rail will create. How will it create jobs? Will people use it?” Kukowski said.
According to Kukowski, Republicans are looking for short- and long-term incentives for businesses to hire employees, not a huge expense that does not even guarantee job creation. She added with the state already almost $6 billion in debt, it is hard to imagine adding another expense to the future of our tax burden.
Nelson, on the other hand, argues high-speed rail will create “lots of jobs.”
Ultimately, Kukowski said she believes it depends on Doyle whether the high-speed rail venture will turn out successful.
“He actively lobbied for this money and it is his responsibility to make sure it is used as wisely as possible,” Kukowski said.
IP hash: b43eab93
I’ve used them in Italy, and this is exciting. I believe the Chicago hub will be just as popular as the eastern corridor (the caveat is mid-west prices, rather than east coast prices). If you haven’t been to the airport 2 hours ahead of time to wait in a security line, let me tell you that high speed train travel will be the preferred form of travel for regional trips (500 miles or less).
IP hash: 111ffd9a
Sionara, hungover days on the van galder bus!
IP hash: f13f4493
Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson, D-Kaukauna, ….added that utilizing high-speed rail in Wisconsin will �prove that our state is well-positioned to compete for our fair share of federal stimulus funds.�
Uhmmmmm, shouldn’t Wisconsin be competing for real advancements in technology and manufacturing, rather than living off of the public dole (Doyle?) like a hat in hand street beggar? Real production and manufacturing jobs provide real paychecks and increase local, state, and federal tax receipts. Jobs “created” by “stimulus funds” are make work jobs that consume precious tax dollars without net gain. High speed rail has never proven profitable anywhere in the world it has been tried. It always requires huge tax subsidies to give it the pretense of viability. It becomes part of the tax dollar consuming, make work system.
Fantasies like high speed rail being an economic boon are another reason why our economic system is approaching bankruptcy. But like the demogoguery and cover up of responsibility for the home mortgage lending fiasco, you won’t listen, even as the next disaster is being created right before your eyes.
An old country song phrased this fantasia well: “And we’ll all be drinking that free Bubble Up and eating that rainbow stew!” There is a price to be paid. There always is. Our country and each taxpayer is paying now and, if stupidity like high speed rail is pursued, we will collectively pay until we are all broke.
IP hash: c4b52c36
Dear Kirsten,
Shut the kcuf up.
Your’s truly, Logic
IP hash: 4089035a
Republican Party of Wisconsin spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski, on the other hand, argued high-speed rail is a very unnecessary expense that will do little to benefit Wisconsin citizens [who own their own cars and/or can afford to drive them when- and wherever they would like, or are just too self-absorbed to recognize any potential in this if they might have to pay even a cent for it].
IP hash: 6fabc93d
11:12, Interstate highways, sea ports, airports, bridges, electrical grid, low speed cargo rail, and passenger rail are all of low profit potential, but someone has to create them. If you would rather live in a small government fantasy land, rather than a large government fantasy land, the choice is already here: Somalia or France?
So, Ayn, watch out for pirates and rebels. I’ll enjoy my nuclear power, high speed rail and creme brulee.
IP hash: 1eb65431
Yo Logic, shouldn’t you want answers to all the questions about a planned $8 Billion project? That’s nine zeroes after that 8 buddy. This goes up there with the brilliant idea of the Milwaukee street cars. Waste of taxpayer money.
IP hash: 1f9594f3
KIrsten Kukowski doesnt know shit
IP hash: 79fcf086
i really enjoyed reading this article it really got to the facts and was informative!
IP hash: b43eab93
Conservatives, you really do have tiny brains and this issue proves it.
Why should government embark on profitable projects? Isn’t that the role of capitalism?
IP hash: 1eb65431
Everyone here realizes the planned stop is out on the airport on the east side of Madison and no where near downtown or the UW campus, right?
I want to know how many people who endorse this plan will actually use the trains. I would be willing to bet under 10%.
Train transportation isn’t cheaper than driving and is much less convenient. The train from Milwaukee to Chicago is $44 round trip. I would imagine the Milwaukee-Madison ticket to be more expensive since it is high-speed. It is much less expensive to drive and park, especially if there is more than one person. Also, no need to plan your day around the train schedule. Money and convenience talk more than the environment. Sorry.
IP hash: 7c73315d
Crack heads/doppers from Milwaukee & Chicago would have an awesome source of income from UW….
IP hash: 44b83c75
I think some people need to consider looking at the bigger picture here. By most standards, I am no greenie, but I do know rail is an incredibly efficient mode of mass transit. It is a means to reduce our dependance on the personal automobile and encourage smarter growth and development of our cities. I think this should be considered for ecological reasons as well as economical. Public transportation simply must be beefed up in our country if we ever intend to reduce our carbon footprint, and high speed rail is a very efficient way to move many people over large distances with comparatively little energy. So what if the train stop is on the edge of town, That is why we have a bus system. After spending time in Spain with no car, I realized is is very simple (and affordable) to use various modes of public transit to get where you need to be. Economically, maybe this isn’t the best time to pump billions into a public project like this, but if not now, when? Someone has to get the ball rolling at some point.
IP hash: 183f76a6
Cheaper to buy all the train riders a new Lexus and a lifetime supply of gas.
MUCH better idea to spend the money on pebble bed nuclear power plants and electric cars. But then you’d have to stop laughing at the idea of a big prize for better battery tech.
IP hash: 183f76a6
“if we ever intend to reduce our carbon footprint”
Worthless idea, worse than useless. We have to learn how to deal with more CO2, because it’s coming no matter what we do. Cheap nuclear power is about the only hope there is to reduce carbon burning.
We rich people can�t stop the world�s 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can�t even make any durable dent in global emissions�because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we�re foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still.
We don�t control the global supply of carbon.
Ten countries ruled by nasty people control 80 percent of the planet�s oil reserves�about 1 trillion barrels, currently worth about $40 trillion. If $40 trillion worth of gold were located where most of the oil is, one could only scoff at any suggestion that we might somehow persuade the nasty people to leave the wealth buried. They can lift most of their oil at a cost well under $10 a barrel. They will drill. They will pump. And they will find buyers. Oil is all they�ve got.
Poor countries all around the planet are sitting on a second, even bigger source of carbon�almost a trillion tons of cheap, easily accessible coal. They also control most of the planet�s third great carbon reservoir�the rain forests and soil. They will keep squeezing the carbon out of cheap coal, and cheap forest, and cheap soil, because that�s all they�ve got. Unless they can find something even cheaper. But they won�t�not any time in the foreseeable future.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/192carbon.html