There is a reason why our economic competitors around the world are investing in passenger rail – because competing in a modern economy requires efficient, convenient, multi-modal transportation options that allow workers to get around and be productive.
Modernized transportation infrastructure has always been vital to economic growth. In the 1840’s we invested in early railroads to move agricultural products to larger markets. In the 20th century, Wisconsin built highways, linking cities with each other and to rural areas, helping to support our state’s transition into an industrial powerhouse.
Today, we face new challenges that high-speed rail can help us to meet.
Alongside dairy products, agricultural commodities, manufactured goods, and other traditional mainstays of the state’s economy, high-tech industries have emerged such as health care, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and information technology. Where we once faced the challenge of delivering Wisconsin’s bounty to the rest of the nation, today we face the challenges of fostering attractive communities to retain our highly educated labor force and efficiently connecting to regional networks.
But, congested airports and crammed highways hinder travel around the region, creating barriers between our companies and their business partners. Midwestern cities and states already lose billions of dollars of economic output every year to traffic congestion. And, as the main source of our dependence on oil, our transportation system leaves us vulnerable to oil price spikes and pollution.
Eight decades ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, America set out to build the key infrastructure that would position the nation for global leadership in the 20th century. The initial justification for many of these projects was to create jobs, but their benefits have been lasting. Who among the workers who blazed trails for the Civilian Conservation Corps, poured concrete at the Hoover Dam, or laid down steel beams on the Golden Gate Bridge could have envisioned that their great grandchildren would one day enjoy the fruits of their labor?
Today, in the midst of what some call the “Great Recession,” America is considering a similar series of critical investments in our nation’s infrastructure. After many years of allowing our passenger rail network to succumb to neglect and disrepair, the United States appears finally ready to build a passenger rail network worthy of the 21st century.
A new WISPIRG study shows that high-speed rail can boost our economy, save energy, curb pollution and provide a popular alternative to congested roads and airports. Drawing lessons from other countries that have already invested in high-speed rail, the new report details a number of examples from around the world that make a variety of cases for high-speed rail.
High-speed rail lines worldwide have proven to be critical parts of their nations’ transportation systems — offering alternatives to congested airports and roads and boosting the economy. In Europe, Japan and elsewhere, high-speed rail lines have created new links among cities and between people, links that are critical to the success of a 21st century “knowledge economy.” At the same time, high-speed rail lines are saving energy, protecting the environment, creating jobs, sparking economic growth, and delivering safe and reliable service.
Bottomline, high-speed rail will make Wisconsin more competitive in a modern economy, enhancing our productivity and economic output.
Simply maintaining the status quo is not enough to meet our transportation and economic challenges. Now that the election is behind us, it’s time to get serious about high-speed rail. Our leaders from both parties should support long-term investment in high-speed rail and make sure that we are acting now both to create jobs and to position Wisconsin for global leadership in the 21st century.
Bruce Speight is the director of the WISPIRG Foundation, an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest.




21 Comments
"the WISPIRG Foundation, an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest." Why can't WISPIRG and the media just come out and identify WISPIRG as a leftist group instead of hiding behind euphemisms like "independent voice"? It is getting tiring of leftist groups being falsely identified as impartial by the Biztimes and other media outlets (i.e. the leftist Wisconsin Democracy Campaign being called non-partisan). This is just another reason why the media is not respected by its consumers and why so-called journalists are held in such low esteem.
To sum it up, WISPIRG is a leftist group- go to their web site, they think Obamacare is a swell thing and they have a love affair with Dirty Diamond Jim Doyle. I'm sure WISPIRG's study on the slow train to Madison is as reliable as their deceptive claim to being an "independent voice".
Yes, yes, yes. And maybe if our politicians weren't getting paid off by one side or the other we'd get some honest projections.
I would hardly call WISPIRG "an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest."
Thank you for this study. But as you can see, the anti-train guys can't comprehend the message anyway. They will always just attack the messenger when the message is not what they want to hear. The rest of us appreciate the insight.
It comes down to build it now when it is cheaper or later when we have to because of peak oil when we'll need transportation alternatives, but it will be damned expensive. But what do you expect from Scott Walker, the Mr. Magoo of politics.
And please Bill give it a rest. Plenty of Republican front groups out there -- WMC, the Tavern League, Wisconsin Taxpayer's Alliance, etc.
You'd best spend your time on your arguments against WISPRG's study, if you had any.
RE-Schmitz- My argument is that WISPIRG is not a reliable, independent source to analyze this project. They have an agenda and that agenda should be clearly stated up front instead of trying to hide behind some BS statement about being an independent voice. The slow train to Madison proponents can't come up with an independent study supporting their proposed boondoggle so they have to come up with a deceptive source. Why am I not surprised?
As to WMC, WEAC, the Tavern League, and other prominent organizations in Wisconsin- most informed people know where they are coming from politically. WISPIRG obviously wants to hide their slant under the cover of being independent.
PS- I certainly have commented a lot about the slow-train wreck fiasco. The good thing is we know it is dead. Thank you Scott Walker, change we can believe in.
"Now that the election is behind us, it's time to get serious about high-speed rail."
The election results screamed: Kill the Milwaukee-Madison choo choo!
For you left wingers the past election was merely a suggestion.
Bill, all we know is that Scott Walker campaigned on killing it, because his friends in the road construction industry wanted it killed. We don't even know if HE really wanted it killed or felt obligated because of the campaign money. They say it will cost $100 million to get out of the contracts. I suggest that you not applaud yet.
PPS-I just went through the WISPRIG "study"- it is a joke. There is no cost-benefit analysis. There is no estimate of ridership between Milwaukee and Madison. There is no critical analysis. Nothing.
I'm wondering if the people that wrote the "study" previously worked for Bernie Madoff. Who else would have the chutzpah to sell an $810 million "investment" with a load of nothing?
I think Bill Marsh makes some excellent points about why we should immediately cover our heads with Reynolds Wrap to protect ourselves. Clearly building a railroad line is part of an agenda of sinitser leftist groups who want to shove Obamacare down our red white and blue throats. Thank goodness we have citizens like Tin Foil Bill who are ready to keep Wisconsin off to one side and looking on in this changing economy.
>>> "Who else would have the chutzpah to sell an $810 million "investment" with a load of nothing?"
Uh , Bill, George Bush did.
Mr. Marsh, UW-Madison student government recognized WisPIRG's political leanings when it refused to allot the group any funding from student fees.
This high-speed rail plan is not high speed. It will not help promote business because it is slower than a plane but will cost as much or more to ride, so business folks will fly rather than ride.
It's just like Mike Nichols wrote, rail proponents cannot get the dollar signs out of their eyes to see rail's reality.
RE-Lohman, are you having another Sybil moment? Apparently today you are a leftist and for the train, unlike last week when you said you were a Republican and against the train. Or is this just a medication problem?
Jack, I understand your world view revolves around campaign finance reform, but have you taken a moment to understand that Talgo was a no-bid contract by Dirty Diamond Jim Doyle, the most corrupt governor Wisconsin has ever seen? Try to twist you brain around the idea that you are supporting an $810 boondoggle set up by Wisconsin's king of political and campaign corruption. Time for another personality change Jack.
Bill, I am not now nor ever have supported the train. My comment to you was due to your being so blinded by ideology... you forget that Scott has two sides to his mouth and he uses them. And yes, Doyle was also on the take. I would not even mind the train if I knew that cash didn't change hands to get it or to block it. I see our government for what it is; corrupt.
And incidentally, Bill, I'm focused on campaign fiance reform because it's the only issue that matters, and blocks or passes all others. If more people were concerned about the big fire, the little fires would go away.
Bill, why did Republican Governor Tommy Thompson support passenger rail? Why did he form a blue ribbon study committee to develop the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative? Why have Republicans supported passenger rail historically, and why are they suddenly opposed?
RE-Speight: Just because Tommy Thompson supported rail doesn't mean all Republicans supported rail. The last election Thompson ran for governor I did not vote for him- I didn't cast a gubernatorial vote. I did that because I was unhappy with Thompson as a big spender. And yes, I do partly blame him for the long-term fiscal problems for the State of Wisconsin. As to Tommy liking trains, yeah, he seems to be a train nut (maybe he thought he could get a spur to Elroy). That is just another reason I am grateful he didn't run for US Senate this year.
PS-Bruce, why can't you come out of the closet and admit WISPIRG is a leftist organization? Why doesn't your web site list its board members and openly itemize its sources of funding. Doesn't your organization support openness and disclosure in the political process?
RE-Lohman- Jack, I happen to have the mental capacity to be concerned about more than one issue at a time. No matter what you think about campaign finance reform, the slow train to Madison is a bad idea. I know you have been against it in your earlier writings, but you need to keep focused on the issue at hand. Ripping the opponents of the slow train (no matter what you think about them) doesn't exactly strengthen your argument against the slow train.
As usual, you relish in ripping Republicans, but somehow are not ripping the dems/socialists. Dirty Diamond Jim Doyle rammed through the no-bid contract with Talgo. And who knows how many other firms have gotten the same deal in Doyle's rush to sign slow train contracts. I'm willing to bet some of those contractors have made campaign contributions to the dems/socialists that support the slow train. Why are you not ranting on them? You claim you are a Republican, but I think you are a closeted dem/socialist. Free yourself and admit it. It will make your live easier and less confusing.
One final thing Jack. Walker's commitment to less government spending and regulation should please a campaign reformer because it will mean less government goodies to be passed out to campaign contributors. Think about it.
Bill, I am first a campaign finance reform activist and only second a Republican. And I bash the R's because they have been the one party that has consistently blocked reform, including your beloved Scott Walker who told me directly that he opposes public financing. Read that; he favors cash contributions because the R's get 7 times more dollars from business than the D's do from unions.
But he is a family man and for that I am puzzled, because he is selling down the river his own family along with mine and yours. And despite what you think, I am more concerned about the long term health of this state than I am about the damned choo-choo train.
Yes I oppose it, but I know why we are fighting it. You should too. And it isn't because of Doyle, though he indeed should be trashed. And Walker's commitment to less government spending and regulation didn't appear on the scene when he was in the state legislature. Politicians spend money because they are PAID to spend money. We'll see how he does as governor.
You can see my post on him at Gov. Walker deserves a clean start…
Surprised? "High-speed rail opponent Wisconsin Gov.-elect Walker heavily backed by road builders"
"Walker got 45 percent of the $188,000 in special interest group donations given to all candidates during the election cycle. Walker got more than $109,000 between January 2009 and Aug. 30."
See HERE
Again, I care more about the political payola than I do about the train.
Bill Marsh said:
"I just went through the WISPRIG 'study' - it is a joke. There is no cost-benefit analysis. There is no estimate of ridership between Milwaukee and Madison. There is no critical analysis. Nothing."
I find it fascinating that such a lapse should bother you. After all, if passenger train service is not restored, the automobile will remain the only viable option for local travelers between Madison and Milwaukee, and the overwhelming choice for all others. Therefore, by definition, you apparently support the autocentric status quo and anything necessary to uphold it!
So...when is the last time you've seen a freeway "study" which contained something similar to a "cost-benefit analysis"? For that matter, when have we EVER seen a highway project held to true "critical analysis"?!
Even projections for use are always drafted to indicate how a new roadway will be "designed to handle X number of vehicles per hour" and not based upon a true estimate of PRODUCTIVITY [which, in the case of the proposed passenger train service, is defined by you as "ridership"]. Of course, it would be quite dangerous to estimate total users over a given stretch of pavement, since such figures do little but prove roadways to be obsolete before opening and jam-packed beyond redemption within the first few months of completion.
If you wish to oppose rail-based transportation alternatives for ideological reasons, that's your business. Just be honest and say so; don't try to obfuscate your real intentions.
Garl "Pro-Train Leftist" Latham
Dallas, Texas