Wisconsin notes

Started by mgk920, May 30, 2012, 02:33:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

DaBigE

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

You still forget the high probability of construction cost over-runs. These train projects have been notorious for being over-budget, and not by small amounts either. Don't get me wrong, I still like the idea of a train, but there has to be some incentive for me (and many others like me) to use it. It's still cheaper for me to drive between Milwaukee and Madison (and will be for a long time), plus I'm not bound by a train schedule. My cargo limit is much greater by driving, in addition to being able to make spur of the moment changes in travel - taking a side trip to Oconomowoc or Delafield without having to worry about said cargo or how to get around beyond the train. The biggest thing that kills it for me and probably many others is the fact that there is very little time benefit (referring to the Madison to Milwaukee route). Any time saved by the train is eaten up by ticketing, security, and transfer to other modes of transportation once I am off the train. Passenger trains are great for a dense corridor of commuters, but many of those going between Madison and Chicago are either going to catch a flight out of O'Hare or for a weekend getaway, not traveling for work. As for the I-94 corridor, once you get west of Waukesha/Delafield, congestion is next to non-existent the majority of the time.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister


GeekJedi

#726
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 23, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
I don't really care what GeekJedi thinks of my point of view. I'm sorry, I get defensive when people think that major freeways shouldn't be at least 70 mph. 65 mph feels like a crawl.

You shouldn't care about what I think about your point of view. If this is what gets you mad in life, then maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Last I heard, a forum is a place where people with different points of view can have a discussion.

I'm not even sure what the hell being a NIMBY has to do with a speed limit...especially for a chunk of road that is definitely nowhere near my back yard! As SEWIGuy pointed out the time savings are negligible, and I believe there are still sections of road where 70 is not appropriate. As of right now, most major freeways are 70 MPH (some exceptions are US 45, US 151 from Madison to Columbus, the Fox valley sections of US 45 and US 10)- however roads with cross traffic are not "major freeways". That has nothing to do with being a NIMBY, and everything to do with being an adult who puts safety at a higher premium than saving 5 minutes on a drive.
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

peterj920

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

The $700 million is not free money from the feds, everyone on this board including myself pay into that money VIA taxes.  If you wonder why our national debt is so high, money is being spent left and right on projects that state and local governments see as "free money," and the logic is that if it's given to us, why not spend it?  States have to balance their budgets while the federal government doesn't have to, which is why minimal scrutiny is given every time the federal government spends money.  If the federal government had to balance their books, money given away on projects wouldn't be seen as "free" and more careful consideration would be given before giving out grants like governments at the state and local level have to. 

Milwaukee, WY

Quote from: peterj920 on July 24, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 23, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

$700M spent on trains wouldn't negate the need to rebuild the Zoo or Verona Rd or expand I-39 from IL to Madison (unless you move all the truck traffic to freight rail). We'd be stuck with $700M on top of many of these projects. Based on where the money went after Wisconsin turned it down, we'd be lucky if the bill was only $700M for initial construction. Look at the budget mess we're in without the train. That would be $14M more in maintenance that wouldn't be able to occur in the next biennium.

We'd be exactly in the same position, except we'd have a train. That $700 million was gift-wrapped from the Feds - and we said "Nope! We don't want it!!" So it got spent by other states (like Michigan, for example). So much for fiscal responsibility.

$14 million in maintenance (over 2 years) is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bumping the gas tax up a penny pays for that several times over - and nobody would notice the difference.

The $700 million is not free money from the feds, everyone on this board including myself pay into that money VIA taxes.  If you wonder why our national debt is so high, money is being spent left and right on projects that state and local governments see as "free money," and the logic is that if it's given to us, why not spend it?  States have to balance their budgets while the federal government doesn't have to, which is why minimal scrutiny is given every time the federal government spends money.  If the federal government had to balance their books, money given away on projects wouldn't be seen as "free" and more careful consideration would be given before giving out grants like governments at the state and local level have to. 

So what? The money got spent anyway. Except instead of benefiting Wisconsin's economy, it went elsewhere. You're still paying your infinitesimally small portion of it. Turning that money down was incredibly short sighted and the political equivalent of plugging ones ears and shouting "nuh uhh!"

Milwaukee, WY

Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

Perhaps it's become a political football in Wisconsin but it is worth noting that the high-speed rail line in question was developed under Governor Thompson.  It seems like it only became a political kludge once the project was picked up by the Doyle administration and was funded by the Obama administration.  That's when talk radio grabbed it like an angry Rottweiler and made it the issue that it is today.

TheHighwayMan3561

It's easy to say "I don't use trains/buses, so funding them is a waste and I think it should be cut in favor of more road spending."
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

GeekJedi

On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

The Ghostbuster

How bad are the signs on the Burlington Bypass?

mgk920

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 23, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 23, 2015, 06:46:24 AM
Wisconsin does not have the rider base to support trains unlike the Northeast Corridor. High Speed Rail is totally and completely a political tool in this state.  Doyle advocated it so much that he brokered a deal right before leaving office - only for it to be appropriately squashed by Walker's trashing of it.

The massive fleet of VanGalder buses ferrying people along the I-90 corridor between Madison and Chicago would suggest there is, indeed, a rider base. Doyle also had a $700 million cash infusion to pay for the buildout of the high-speed rail to Madison. The $7 million a year to run it would've been a pittance compared with other transportation projects in the state. Instead, politics and a rural-v.s.-urban mentality killed it. Totally, colossally stupid move - but that's par for the course.

What the wingnuts who voted for Walker didn't grasp was that the $700 million not spent here got spent somewhere else, on trains! (In other words, the money's "wasted" anyway!) The considerable number of people who would've taken the train from Madison are instead clogging I-90 and I-94.

They could have restored conventional (this proposal was *NOT* 'high speed') service to the FdL/Oshkosh/Appleton/Green Bay area for a quarter of the cost and it would have been much more successful.

AND - this forvm is not the place for childish partisan cheap shots, OK?

Mike

Mrt90

Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.

jreuschl

Quote from: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

SSOWorld

on a note about roads, I can now confirm I-39 through Point is 70 the entire way as I had suspected based on other observations.  The 70 zone ends 1/4 mile short of the I-39 terminus - as I would expect at this point. 

After resetting my cruise for non-I mode, I have noticed a good handful of cars flying right by me in the 65 zone north of Wausau.  WisDOT should relay info to the State Patrol.  Set up a car with radar - PROFIT! :-D
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

peterj920

Quote from: jreuschl on July 25, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

According to the traffic counts, the only stretch of the bypass that gets above 10,000 vpd is between Wis 11 East and Wis 83 south.  Interesting that the western end gets only 2500 vpd and is 4 lanes, then the count more than doubles to 5900 and narrows to 2 lanes.  The other design I don't understand with that project is why traffic lights are used instead of interchanges at the busiest junctions, and jug handles are used at the less busy junctions?

Roadguy

Quote from: peterj920 on July 26, 2015, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on July 25, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on July 25, 2015, 08:38:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 24, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
On an entirely different Wisconsin note - Hey WisDOT! Replace the signs along the Burlington Bypass already! Man, there must have been a bad batch of whatever they use for those signs. A lot of them have obvious fading due to UV exposure. Plus you have all these trailblazers with covered up "TO" and "Bypass" tabs, and pull through arrows from back when it was still being constructed. It looks pretty shabby!
Prior to the Burlington Bypass, I was always amused by Hwys 11, 36, and 83 converging in downtown Burlington and then following separate little one-way downtown streets, I suppose to spread out the passing through traffic a bit.

The Burlington Bypass seems like overkill to me.  Did the amount of traffic through Burlington really warrant a 4 lane divided highway around Burlington, or would a bypass like Hwy 12 around Whitewater be good enough?  I suppose someday businesses and homes could be developed in the areas near the Bypass, but right now everytime I drive on it I hardly see any other cars. 

And what's with those goofy low-speed exits and entrance ramps?  With the tight curve on the entrance at hwy142 it is impossible to get anywhere near freeway speeds prior to merging.
Agreed.. Don't understand that bypass. More annoying considering the transportation shortfall.

SM-N910P

According to the traffic counts, the only stretch of the bypass that gets above 10,000 vpd is between Wis 11 East and Wis 83 south.  Interesting that the western end gets only 2500 vpd and is 4 lanes, then the count more than doubles to 5900 and narrows to 2 lanes.  The other design I don't understand with that project is why traffic lights are used instead of interchanges at the busiest junctions, and jug handles are used at the less busy junctions?

In terms of the low speed ramps, why would drivers have to worry about getting up to speed if there is very little traffic?  :D
^Just a fun quirk, in my mind they would have been better off to avoid these all together or extend the acceleration lanes.

Old D2 (Now SE Region), really liked the quadrant interchange designs with a lack of acceleration lanes.  Works for areas with really low traffic volumes where you want grade separation.  Random note, now the state taxpayers are picking up the tab to replace this interchange style in Fond Du Lac (that bypass is a whole another story and a perfect example of how not to build a bypass).

Why the Burlington bypass was built as four lanes compared with whitewater as two lanes is a great question, if someone knows chime in.  Although with the volumes a "Super Two" would have worked fine.  My guess is it was political, many of these bypasses were enumerated into the majors program through the budget process to get support for other projects (and to get votes).  I also don't like that there is a mix of stoplights and interchanges, it messes with drivers expectations. 

GeekJedi

"Wisconsin - The Concurrency State!"

peterj920

While I-41 is being signed, I'm noticing that the Northeast Region is primarily using aluminum signs while the Southeast Region is using the traditional plywood for signs.  Are different regions deciding to use different materials for their signs?  I thought it might be because there are more routes signed together on the south end, but I saw some standalone I-41 signs that are plywood in Kenosha County where the new signs around Green Bay are aluminum, and the new I-41/US 41/US 141/Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign is one panel and is completely aluminum.  Along Wis 29, the plywood signs are also being replaced with aluminum.  Could the Northeast Region be experimenting to see which material holds up better or do different regions decide what type of signs to use? 

DaBigE

Quote from: peterj920 on August 10, 2015, 01:17:34 PM
While I-41 is being signed, I'm noticing that the Northeast Region is primarily using aluminum signs while the Southeast Region is using the traditional plywood for signs.  Are different regions deciding to use different materials for their signs?  I thought it might be because there are more routes signed together on the south end, but I saw some standalone I-41 signs that are plywood in Kenosha County where the new signs around Green Bay are aluminum, and the new I-41/US 41/US 141/Lake Michigan Circle Tour sign is one panel and is completely aluminum.  Along Wis 29, the plywood signs are also being replaced with aluminum.  Could the Northeast Region be experimenting to see which material holds up better or do different regions decide what type of signs to use?

I'm not aware of any experiments, but typically there's no rhyme or reason. IRRC, there are some small green/white guide signs on aluminum blanks at the I-41/Wis 33 interchange (SE Region) that would typically be on wood. Could be whatever's cheaper at the time.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

mahaasma

Has anyone driven in Eau Claire lately?  I recently noticed a flurry of ALT 53 signs being posted, both at exits on the US-53 bypass,  and on portions of Business 53 through town.  I didn't have time to take a closer look,  but it even appeared that some Business 53 signs were replaced by ALT-53 signs.

Anyone have any insights on this?  Why would you need to resign a business route as an ALT route?  (other than to give road geeks something to geek about and discuss...)

peterj920

http://www.wqow.com/story/29643983/2015/07/27/southbound-ramps-to-highway-53-closed-due-to-highway-repairs

There was a construction project on US 53 to repair a section of road that had a big dip and some ramps had to close.  It probably had something to do with that. 

JREwing78

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/talgo-to-keep-trains-get-10-million-more-in-settlement-b99560687z1-322348321.html

So, no train, and we're out $50+ million (plus the losses from not having a train to Madison). Good going, chumps!

SEWIGuy

Even if you don't support the Madison line, this payment is for replacement trains for the Hiawatha line that cost $42M plus a 20 year maintenance contract.  So they are out $50 million and have no replacement trains. 

mgk920

That deal reeked to high heaven when it was first announced, too, IMHO, the first reason being that it was a no-bid contract.

:no:

Mike

peterj920

High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs. 

DaBigE

Quote from: mgk920 on August 19, 2015, 11:33:43 PM
That deal reeked to high heaven when it was first announced, too, IMHO, the first reason being that it was a no-bid contract.

:no:

Mike

Agreed.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

SEWIGuy

Quote from: peterj920 on August 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
High speed rail isn't practical in most parts of the U.S.  It would work on the east coast because the cities are a lot closer together.  The 400 line between Chicago and Minneapolis was a high speed line, and it shut down due to lack of passengers in the mid 60s.  I don't understand why a line between those 2 cities is needed when they're an hour plane ride away.  Planes are way more convenient than trains are.  As for Madison to Milwaukee, it's a lot easier to drive and the passenger count would have been low to the point that the state would have to pickup the operation costs. 


A train is by far the most convenient way to go from downtown Milwaukee to Chicago. 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.