Milwaukee Biz Blog

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) has been studying the feasibility of including a bike and pedestrian lane as part of the Hoan Bridge reconstruction project.

The construction slated to begin in 2013 offers the possibility for this once-in-a-generation project to move forward and be absorbed in the overall cost of reconstruction. If action is not taken now we will likely not have the opportunity again for more than 40 years.

The Hoan Bridge is crucial to our neighbors as it is the transit artery connecting south side residents to the rest of their community, including downtown Milwaukee.

Expanding access to the Hoan Bridge by adding a user-friendly bike lane that is separated from traffic would be a beneficial addition to our community. The proposed project would be the last major piece to complete a trail network, which runs from Downtown Chicago through Milwaukee and up to Sheboygan.
Growing support from the business community illustrates that this final link is an economic tool that could assist our local and state economy by increasing access to businesses, helping employees get to work and bringing in additional tourism dollars. Community members have also been vocal about making their support for the project known. In just the last two weeks alone over 1,100 neighbors joined thousands of others by signing on to the Petition to Bike the Hoan.

In their recently released feasibility study on including a bike and pedestrian lane as part of the Hoan Bridge reconstruction project, DOT included different construction plans and cost estimates. Overall, these plans estimate that adding a bike lane to the Hoan Bridge would cost as little as less than 2 percent of the funds allotted for the reconstruction. It is also possible that federal funding could be available to help cover costs of adding a bike and pedestrian lane to the Hoan Bridge.

In choosing a final project proposal, it is important to keep in mind what the best fit is for the scope and cost of the project, and also what option will ensure safe travel for everybody. I

State Rep. Chris Larson is a Democrat from Milwaukee.

Sometimes it’s helpful to look at the actions of others in order to judge the success or failings of one’s own dealings.  Two issues making recent headlines help to put into perspective the hard decisions we’ve made in Wisconsin and the comparative successes those decisions have brought us.  

It was announced this week that the California’s “high-speed” rail stimulus project had jumped in price from an initial estimate of $34 billion to upwards of $98 billion.  Additionally, California has been forced to revise its timeline for the project.  At the time that President Obama passed his stimulus act, proponents claimed that the rail line would be operational by 2020.  Now they admit that trains won’t be running until at least 2033. 

Runaway costs and unrealistic timelines were just two of the reasons that I fought President Obama’s rail boondoggle in Wisconsin and applauded Governor Walker’s decision to kill it.  Imagine the cuts that would have to be made if we had accepted those stimulus dollars and just now were discovering that Wisconsin’s taxpayers would be on the hook for an additional $2-3 billion or more.  While the decision to reject those stimulus dollars was controversial at the time, the situation California now finds itself in proves our choice prudent. 

Another story making headlines is the virtual death spiral of debt that our neighbor to the south has fallen into.  Illinois owes $200 billion more than it has.  As of October it was $5 billion behind in payments to local units of government, private sector suppliers to the state, and health care providers.  Things have gotten so bad that the Chicago Tribune recently ran an editorial with the headline: “Illinois is losing the hearts and minds of the people who put people to work here.”

What has been the response in Illinois to its debt crisis?  They’ve raised taxes and borrowed more.  While we got to work making tough decisions to reform Wisconsin’s government and to cut spending, the Democrat-controlled government in Illinois raised taxes by 66% on individuals and 45% on employers.  Now that taxing has failed, Governor Pat Quinn is proposing to borrow an additional $4.5 billion- an amount that won’t even cover that state’s past due bills up to this point. 

The results are unsurprising.  Unemployment in Illinois just hit 10% (more than 25% higher than it is in Wisconsin) and it looks to get worse before it gets better.  Major companies like Sears-Roebuck and Caterpillar are courting offers to move to other states.

Dramatically reforming the way government does business, as we continue to do in Wisconsin, is by necessity controversial and difficult.  Still, as California and Illinois show, the unfortunate consequences of not making those tough choices can be far more damaging to a state and its citizens than trying to avoid a little controversy.

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald is a Republican from Horicon. He is a candidate for U.S. Senate.

Editor’s note: The following letter was delivered to Milwaukee County Chris Abele Thursday as testimony related to the 2012 Milwaukee County Budget discussions.

Dear Mr. Abele,
The Coalition for Advancing Transit (C.A.T.) and Transit Now appreciate the vocal support that your administration has shown for transit this year. We understand that as you prepare the 2012 Milwaukee County Budget, there are very difficult decisions to make and significant challenges presented by the recently passed biennial State budget.
Transit is vital to our metro economy. It is more than just transportation. Transit is an integral part of connecting people to jobs, business growth, and quality of life opportunities. It allows people to live independent, healthy, productive lives without owning a car and is needed to fulfill the many programs, services and opportunities provided by the taxpayers.
At this early stage of the budget process perhaps the biggest questions we need to answer when it comes to our local transit system are:
1. Do we understand the immediate economic impacts of the proposed transit cuts and restructuring, and the resultant weakening of our transportation system?
2. Has the County analyzed and vetted alternative revenue sources?
3. If transit cuts are implemented, what plans are in place to address the negative impacts?

Members of our transit coalition are concerned that by implementing proposed cuts, we may be creating more costs than we are saving. For example,
• What is the impact on employment? When nearly half of trips are work related, cuts in transit service may well equate to lost access to jobs, which would cause more unemployment. Already, over the past decade, over 40,000 jobs have become inaccessible to transit riders due to cuts in transit service. Minimally, to keep existing jobs, many workers will have to spend more of their time and earnings on getting to and from work, which reduces spending capacity in the County.
• Business growth requires good access to workers. For example, a Milwaukee 7 survey found that manufacturers have rated access to qualified workers as the top concern. Those same concerns are seen across the business spectrum, particularly now as transit has become a “must have” basic infrastructure for attracting businesses and development to our metro area. Reducing transit will hamper our economic growth, and negatively impact our economic competitiveness.
• Milwaukee has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. Reducing access to jobs or raising fares can only exacerbate this issue. The high costs of poverty impact everyone plus the economic viability of our metro area and the State.
• Loss of independence for seniors and people with disabilities and increased health costs come from lack of access to healthcare and other destinations required for basic human needs. Moving people from living independently to nursing homes before they are ready can double or triple costs to taxpayers. What capacity is available for housing the many people that will need new living arrangements when their transportation is lost?
• Tourism is one of Milwaukee’s largest business sectors with festivals and main attractions drawing $1.9 billion annually. We all reap the economic gains from festivals and events like Summerfest, Brewers games and State Fair. In 2010 over 150,000 people took the bus or the shuttle to Summerfest, about 15% of all attendees. If patrons continue to attend and can only drive a car, with an average of 3 people per car, the Historic Third Ward and downtown would be forced to cope with an additional 45,000 cars. Festivals may suffer from lower attendance if the capacity of the bus system is cut back from its current status because there would not enough buses or drivers to provide the intensive festival services on top of the regular service.
• Freeway Flyers get people to work and reduce traffic on congested freeways and roads during rush hour. Without the flyers, more than 1,000 cars will be added to downtown parking and rush hour traffic alone.
• Loss of fare revenue: Cutting transit service will cost the county $3.3 million in fare revenue (MCTS 2012 budget request).
• The Zoo interchange project is scheduled start widening the major roads that service the freeway in 2013. What impact will adding additional cars at rush hour, while at the same time eliminating the bus system’s capacity, have on keeping those economic thoroughfares moving and cars out of nearby neighborhoods during construction?
The County must pro-actively investigate and analyze the feasibility of alternative revenue sources and cost containment strategies. For instance:
       • Instead of cutting routes and paratransit, investigate the feasibility of keeping service intact but instituting zone fares for paratransit outside of the ADA minimum area, and for longer, more distant fixed routes,
       • Festivals and events that benefit from special transit routes are run by non-profit entities mostly, which do not pay property tax to support the transit system. Some for-profit event entities receive special route services to support their business success. Might a small portion of parking or entrance fees support transit?

Invest where there is good return: MCTS provides a crucial and quality transportation service and leverages 89% of its operating revenue from outside the county, including 33% from fares and advertising. This is a good value considering our local roads require about 80% of the costs from local property tax.
The costs of major cuts to transit are high and replacing transit service after it has been cut is very challenging. What has been proposed is a significant reduction of the metro transportation system.
We are hopeful that you, working with the County Board, County staff and staff at the Milwaukee County Transit System can find a way to minimize or eliminate the need for these substantial service reductions.

We stand ready to assist you in any way we can – please do not hesitate to call on us. We must find the means to invest in transit and strengthen our economy:
-. Keep people working.
-. Support business growth and economic development.
- Keep people living independently.
-  Keep tourism thriving.
- Reduce traffic congestion.
- Maintain the capacity of MCTS to respond to major projects and events like the Zoo Interchange, Summerfest and ethnic festivals.

Our respective coalitions and groups reach over 1,000 individuals and groups that represent citizens, local businesses, labor, environmental, community groups, faith-based organizations and local civic leaders. We believe that a vibrant, modern transit system is essential to preserving and growing the regional economy. Thank you for your continued efforts to resolve the incredibly challenging budget issue and this opportunity to provide our comments.

Sincerely,
Tom Rave, on behalf of the Coalition for Advancing Transit, and Kerry Thomas of Transit Now.

Five prominent Milwaukee area leaders are asking state legislators to provide more funding for Milwaukee County buses, and they want a bigger share of the $1.27 million in leftover Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (RTA) funds.

The state Legislature’s powerful budget writing Joint Finance Committee is scheduled to review transit funding issues on Thursday.

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC) president Tim Sheehy, Milwaukee Public Schools president Greg Thornton and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee chancellor Michael Lovell sent a letter this week to Joint Finance Committee co-chairs Rep. Robin Voss, R-Burlington, and Sen. Albert Darling, R-River Hills, asking for more transit funds for Milwaukee County buses.

“Maintaining a thriving transit system in Milwaukee County is a key part of keeping the economic engine of our state strong,” the Milwaukee area officials’ letter states. “With gas prices hovering at record levels and funding for road building set to increase, we encourage you to balance transit funding in the state budget so that our workers can get to their jobs.”

Vos and Darling could not immediately be reached for comment.

The proposed state budget would cut $13.6 million in state funding from the Milwaukee County Transit System, or about $6.8 million a year, Milwaukee County officials say. That is a 10 percent cut in the state’s funding for MCTS and is the financial equivalent of a 29 percent fare increase, said Abele spokesman Brandon Lorenz.

The Joint Finance Committee recently approved a measure to eliminate regional transit authorities in the state, including the Southeastern RTA, which was established to fund a proposed commuter rail service from Kenosha to Milwaukee. The Southeastern RTA collected funds from a car rental tax in Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee counties. There is about $1.27 million of those funds left over in the Southeastern RTA’s coffers, according to Milwaukee area officials.

The proposed state budget includes plans to evenly split and distribute the $1.27 million to Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee counties, providing about $423,000 to each county.

But Milwaukee area officials say Milwaukee County should get a much larger share of the leftover RTA funds because the vast majority of car rentals in the RTA were in Milwaukee County.

“Milwaukee County taxpayers should receive that money back to protect the county’s transit system, rather than have it diverted to other systems,” the Milwaukee officials’ letter to Vos and Darling says.

The Milwaukee officials also say that the Joint Finance Committee should use additional transportation funds to eliminate mass transit funding cuts.

“The Legislative Fiscal Bureau recently re-estimated the transportation fund balance and found it will contain an additional $27 million in funding,” their letter states. “By keeping transit funding in the transportation fund and using just $14 million of that funding for local transit aid, Milwaukee County can avoid cutting its transit system by $7 million (a year), and likewise, the rest of the state’s transit systems will be able to maintain funding at the current level during the next budget cycle.”

The Milwaukee officials also said the transportation fund should remain the source of mass transit funding. They oppose plans to move mass transit funding into the states’ general fund.

“Moving it to the general fund makes it much easier for that funding to be diverted to other purposes,” they said.

Andrew Weiland is managing editor of BizTimes Milwaukee.

Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to Wisconsin State Rep. Robin Vos and Sen. Alberta Darling. The letter was co-signed by Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce President Tim Sheehy, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Greg Thornton and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Chancellor Michael Lovell.

Dear Rep. Vos and Senator Darling:

As you are well aware, few priorities are as important in the current economy as creating and maintaining private sector jobs. That is why we are especially troubled by how the current state budget puts needed funding at risk for an already severely strained transit system here in Milwaukee County.

Left unaddressed, the state budget is poised to cut approximately $13.6 million from Milwaukee County’s transit system. About 39 percent of the 140,000 daily rides on the transit system are rides used by people going to or from a job. Another five percent use the transit system to go to a job interview. And thousands more – 11 percent of all riders – are future workers now at Milwaukee Public Schools and our colleges and universities who use the transit system to get the skills and training they need to enter the job market.

Maintaining a thriving transit system in Milwaukee County is a key part of keeping the economic engine of our state strong. With gas prices hovering at record levels and funding for road building set to increase, we encourage you to balance transit funding in the state budget so that our workers can get to their jobs.

For these reasons, we encourage you to consider the following changes as you discuss transit funding and the next state budget:

• Restore the state transportation fund as the source of funding for transit aid. Removing transit funding from the transportation fund and moving it to the general fund makes it much easier for that funding to be diverted to other purposes, at a time when our residents need more options, not fewer, to handle record fuel prices.
• Ensure that the termination of the Southeast Regional Transit Authority (SERTA) does not penalize Milwaukee County taxpayers. The best public data shows that the vast majority of the $1.27 million in leftover funds at SERTA came from Milwaukee County via a rental car tax. Milwaukee County taxpayers should receive that money back to protect County’s transit system, rather than have it diverted to other transit systems.
• Eliminate transit cuts to ensure proper balance between transit funding and other transportation projects. Media reports have shown that the proposed budget contains an increase in highway funding. Meanwhile, the legislative fiscal bureau recently re-estimated the transportation fund balance and found it will contain an additional $27 million in funding. By keeping transit funding in the transportation fund and using just $14 million of that funding for local transit aid, Milwaukee County can avoid cutting its transit system by $7 million, and likewise, the rest of the state’s transit systems will be able to maintain funding at the current level during the next budget cycle.

We realize that in the current fiscal environment, everyone must do more with less. But we encourage you to consider these options that will protect our ability to remain competitive as we jointly seek to help train and educate our workers and create and retain jobs in Southeast Wisconsin.

Well, we as federal taxpayers will be helping to pay some more interest on borrowed money and will be paying money directly to the U.S. government for upgrades to the Midwest High Speed Rail System, none of which will occur in Wisconsin.

Even though we’d rather see the U.S. government slow down and defer its spending on high-speed rail, it nonetheless is proceeding.

Probably not surprisingly, since Wisconsin declined to accept $815 million from the Feds earlier, its request for $200+ million to improve the Amtrak route from Chicago to Milwaukee and improve Milwaukee’s downtown Intermodal Station was not included among the awards from the U.S. Department of Transportation in the Midwest.

We can feel good, though, since the state will save upwards of $7.5 million (or was it maybe only $750,00)?) in operating expenses annually beginning in a few years when the Milwaukee-to-Madison extension of the Midwest High Speed Rail System would have gone into existence. These savings undoubtedly will enhance our competitive position vs. other metropolitan areas in the Midwest.

So, let’s see, YOUR money (I’m assuming that you are among the 53 percent of people who pay federal income taxes plus are a driver who is paying gas taxes) is being spent so that:
1) The trains between Chicago and Detroit and cities in between will have faster routes.
2) The trains between Chicago and St. Louis and cities in between will have faster routes.
3) There might be a new high-speed train route between Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn. (notice that it’s not to Superior, Wis.). So, people in northwestern Wisconsin may travel to Duluth to get to the Twin Cities by train in the future.
4) Ann Arbor, Mich., wants to improve its train station for high-speed and more frequent trains. Gee, that might let people go more quickly between the University of Michigan and Detroit or Chicago.
5) People may work while they are riding along.

Here’s my forecast. Especially so long as Ray LaHood is Transportation Secretary, over time the federal government will look to fund high-speed rail from Chicago to the Quad-Cities and then from there on up to the Twin Cities. Oh, and then on to Duluth

Wisconsin will stay just where it is and essentially be skipped as part of the Midwest High Speed Rail System. Wisconsin was recently first in line but is probably now almost last in line.

Some day, perhaps the Milwaukee-to-Chicago Amtrak route might be upgraded to a higher speed. But that’s probably not as pressing to the Feds as upgrading speeds over longer routes elsewhere or putting in new routes, especially given the $200+ million that Wisconsin had requested for the upgrade over a relatively short distance.
Not much will go forward.

Meanwhile, here in Wisconsin, despite the votes regionally and the opinions of regional business leaders, the Joint Finance Committee voted to recommend eliminating ALL regional transit associations (which are mostly about buses plus one commuter train), to eliminate funding for intercity bus routes (we already don’t have to worry about intercity trains) and to eliminate state funding for bike and pedestrian lanes on roadways.

The proposed state budget is reducing funds for mass transit and then will have remaining fundings compete for money from general funds instead of from Transportation Funds.

We’ve already taken care of not having trains between the University of Madison and Milwaukee, so now we only have to figure out how University of Milwaukee students can get around town between campuses safely. Hope that they can afford a car, pay the gas and maintenance and insurance expenses, plus the parking fees. Or the bike rides will be long and sometimes cold. Or perhaps they will choose to enroll elsewhere. There is competition, plus it would reduce tax expenditures.

So, over time, where might businesses and people, especially younger ones, choose to locate? Breadth of transportation choices will make a difference.

But it appears that Wisconsin is working toward only three ways of day-to-day transportation - walking, bike riding and autos. If you’re disabled, tough it out some more. In Wisconsin, perhaps hitch-hiking will make a comeback.

Tom Rave is the executive director of The Gateway to Milwaukee. His opinions are his own and not necessarily the views of the organization.

A recent survey conducted by Automotive Fleet magazine found that 99 percent of respondents are concerned with fuel prices this year. The survey also revealed that only 16 percent could pass those cost increases on to their customers.

Fuel efficiency and the inability to control the price of fuel were the top two concerns of the respondents - consisting of managers to executives of small, medium, and large companies.

So what can you do?

Review the age and mix of your current vehicle fleet. Automobile manufacturers are responding to increased consumer demand as well as new federal standards regarding fuel economy. New technology four-cylinder engines are performing like six-cylinder engines, but with much better fuel economy. If you have been specifying 6 cylinder engines in the past, it’s time to consider a change. With gasoline at around $4.00 a gallon, you may be able to replace older vehicles with new fuel efficient vehicles and reduce your monthly operating costs. Values of used vehicles are at all time highs and interest rates continue to be low, which leverages your ability to upgrade vehicles sooner than you may think.

Explore out-of-the-box solutions. Trucks should be re-evaluated as well. Automobile manufacturers are moving to offer new down-sized models for a reason. They are responding to demand for improved fuel efficiency. Savvy businesses are reviewing old practices and thinking outside of the box. Reducing weight by eliminating unnecessary cargo improves fuel economy and may allow for the use of smaller trucks. Converting even part of the truck fleet to smaller more fuel efficient trucks can have a significant impact.

Challenge drivers to engage in more fuel efficient behavior. Reducing idling time, monitoring tire pressure and eliminating unnecessary cargo, all contribute to better fuel economy. This may require a contest or some other incentive, but the benefit will far outweigh the cost.

Look at other areas to reduce operating costs in order to offset rising fuel costs. Centralize and monitor your maintenance and fuel by implementing a comprehensive maintenance management program such as Network. Properly maintained vehicles get better fuel mileage, and closely monitoring fuel purchases generally results in a 10- to 15-percent savings.

Evaluate fleet utilization and right-sizing. Underutilized vehicles can be turned into cash and with both demand and prices of used vehicles at an all-time high, no time is better than the present to remarket underutilized vehicles.

The earlier you act to implement these recommendations, the better prepared you will be to weather rising fuel prices. Evaluate your vehicle fleet, think outside the box, engage your drivers, and evaluate a maintenance and fuel program that allows you to manage costs.

Bob Rothe is vice president of sales and marketing at Mayfair Leasing, which is part of the Ewald Automotive Group.

Dear Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee Members:

An aerotropolis is a newer urban development that typically attracts industries that are located around the airport and along transportation corridors, such as:

• Time-sensitive manufacturing, e-commerce fulfillment, telecommunications and logistics.
• Hotels, retail outlets, entertainment complexes and exhibition centers.
• Offices for business people who travel frequently: by air or engage in global commerce.

An aerotropolis provides efficient accessibilities for people, and has an integrated infrastructure plan.

In Milwaukee's case, an aerotropolis will prov1ide an efficient multimodal- air, boats, trains and motor vehicles - transportation hub centered around General Mitchell International Airport and The Port of Milwaukee that will efficiently serve southeastern Wisconsin plus extended territories in northern Illinois, central and eastern Wisconsin.
Earlier this week, a number of people involved with Milwaukee Gateway Aerotropolis Corporation, which is led by The Gateway To Milwaukee, attended the Airport Cities World Conference in Memphis, Tenn. Over 630 people from 40 countries across six continents attended this conference. It was easy to see that this is all about economic competition among metropolises and ultimately about having good jobs for an area to be economically successful.

Virtually every presentation of aerotropolis efforts around the world and in the U.S. included the important necessity of having a mass transit system to efficiently move people for a variety of reasons and especially for work. Without such a system, an aerotropolis would be much less effective and more challenged to attract businesses to locate there. It is the way people will live in the future as urban areas continue to grow.

The U.S. is behind the rest of the world in the aerotropolis concept and further, Milwaukee and Wisconsin are behind other U.S. metropolitan areas in even having mass transit be available. And we have been going backwards and getting smaller.

The proposed budget for 2011-2013 further reduces funds available for mass transit in Wisconsin. If passed as proposed, it will simply leave us more behind and challenged to catch up. Businesses and people will choose to live elsewhere where transportation choices are more flexible and efficient.

Please evaluate the proposed cuts on transit and look to support economic development.

Thank you.
.
Sincerely,
Tom Rave
Executive director, The Gateway To Milwaukee

Today, we are another step closer to delivering an innovative, national transportation network that brings new jobs and economic opportunity to the American people.

Since I announced the availability of an additional $2.4 billion for high-speed rail projects, governors and members of Congress have been clamoring for the opportunity to participate. That’s because they know that high-speed rail will deliver tens of thousands of jobs, spur economic development across their communities and create additional options for their citizens as the country’s population grows.

We have received more than 90 applications from 24 states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak for projects in the Northeast Corridor, with preliminary requests totaling nearly $10 billion dollars. We are extremely pleased to see the bipartisan enthusiasm behind all of the requests to get into the high-speed rail business. Thanks to President Obama’s bold vision for a national high speed rail network, we will win the future for America.
Showing bi-partisan support for President Obama’s High-Speed Rail program, 24 states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak (for projects in the Northeast Corridor) submitted just under $10 billion in funding requests.

The states applying for federal high-speed rail funds include: California, Michigan, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Minnesota, South Carolina, District of Columbia, Missouri, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Utah, Illinois, New Mexico, Vermont, Kansas, Nevada, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, Wisconsin, Maryland, Oregon, Maine and Pennsylvania.

The application period for the $2.4 billion of high-speed rail money closed on April 4.

Now, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will begin its official review of the applications. A merit-driven process will be used to award the newly available high-speed rail dollars to projects that can deliver public and economic benefits quickly.

A project’s ability to reduce energy consumption, improve the efficiency of a region’s overall transportation network, and generate sustained economic activity along the corridor are among the selection criteria.
At this time, a date for the announcement of project selections has not been determined. Information about the Notice of Funding Availability can be found here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/477.shtml.

President Obama’s vision is to connect 80 percent of Americans to high-speed rail within the next 25 years.  To put America on track towards that goal, the Obama Administration has proposed a six-year, $53 billion plan that will provide rail access to new communities; improve the reliability, speed and frequency of existing lines; and, where it makes economic sense, build new corridors where trains will travel at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour.

The Obama Administration’s investments in high-speed rail are also projected to create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in the United States. Jobs will be created both directly in manufacturing, construction and operation of rail lines, and indirectly, as the result of economic developments along rail corridors.

A “Buy America” requirement for high-speed rail projects also ensures that U.S. manufacturers and workers will receive the maximum economic benefits from this federal investment. And, in 2009, Secretary LaHood secured a commitment from 30 foreign and domestic rail manufacturers to employ American workers and locate or expand their base of operations in the U.S. if they are selected for high-speed-rail contracts.

Ray LaHood is the secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Last December (seems like years ago today) thousands of protesters decried then Governor-elect Walker’s decision to reject $810 million in federal dollars to construct a high-speed rail system in Wisconsin that would link Madison to Milwaukee and Chicago.

Protests were held not just in Madison and Milwaukee but in smaller towns like Waterloo that would gain economically from the rail investment. Among the suspect reasons that Mr. Walker gave for rejecting the aid was that the state couldn’t afford the annual operating costs of the federal gift.

The amount that the state “couldn’t afford” came to about $600,000 a year after federal matching subsidies. So the state ended up losing nearly a billion dollars of federal aid, thousands of engineering and construction jobs, a newly located train manufacturer in Milwaukee and countless dollars and jobs that would have occurred as a result of transit oriented development.

Rail proponents pointed out to Mr. Walker that we also stood to lose tens of millions of dollars that were badly needed for improvements to a section of state owned train tracks east of Madison as a part of the high-speed rail project.

A tone deaf Mr. Walker ignored those arguments and sent to gift back to Washington.

Now, Governor Walker is making the first payment due because of that rejection. His proposed 2011-2013 budget allocates $60 million for making the improvements to the train tracks that would have been paid for with the federal gift of $810 million for high-speed rail.

Put another way, if Mr. Walker had taken a different track, we could have had a regional rail connection that form the first link in connecting the Twin Cities to Madison to Milwaukee to Chicago and points east for about $600,000 a year. Instead, we are sent a bill by Mr. Walker for $60 million.

That $60 million could have paid for the operating costs of the system for the next 100 years.

Gone now is the opportunity for cities in Wisconsin to be linked to other major economic hubs in the region. Gone is the chance to escape high-priced gasoline, traffic jams, an opportunity to (legally) read, text or relax on trips that would take more than one or two hours to drive.

Gone is a chance for those who cannot drive to be connected with relatives and loved ones in other communities. All over a fictitious claim that we “couldn’t afford” $600,000 a year in operating costs.
Intercity passenger rail will eventually be constructed in Wisconsin. It may not happen under Governor Walker’s tenure, but our demographics, geography and economy demand it. The only thing is that instead of relying on federal aids (collected from residents in other states as well as Wisconsin) we will likely have to shoulder most of the costs ourselves.

(The new spending can be found on page 150 of AB-40, the proposed state budget bill.)

Steve Hiniker is the executive director of 1000 Friends of Wisconsin.