YOUR RIGHT TO BUY $6 GAS AND STEW IN TRAFFIC.

A Madison Capital Times report documents the power of delay to impede improvements in the Midwestern passenger rail network.

Despite Wisconsin's refusal to participate in the project, Minnesota officials want to forge ahead on a $2.4 billion plan to straighten the tracks, add a parallel track where needed, and run six trains a day at a top speed of 110 mph, which is the limit on tracks that carry freight. That should cut at least an hour off the Milwaukee-Twin Cities trip, making it competitive with driving.

"That's at least two to four years down the road," says Dan Krom, director of passenger rail service for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. "And at that point in time, if we don't have a willing partner to the east we can't move forward."

I would hope that top speeds of 110 could cut more than an hour off the Milwaukee-Twin Cities train trip, which, these days, is only slightly faster than the timing made by accommodation trains 55 and 58.  For comparison, 1954 schedules offered the through passenger a choice of six different Chicago-Twin Cities trains by way of Milwaukee, plus another three by way of East Dubuque and Rochelle.  (The graphics on that old post are due for maintenance.)

All Wisconsin currently wants to do is restore, approximately, the Amtrak service that was in place as early as November, 1971, although this iteration isn't going to have any dome-parlor cars or twelve-wheel dining cars.

Prior to [Republican Scott] Walker's election [as governor], Wisconsin's passenger rail plan was to be the culmination of what was a bipartisan dream, more than 25 years in the making, to connect Wisconsin with eight other Midwestern states through a network of high-speed rail lines. The infusion of federal money put that dream on the brink of reality. Madison officials, giddy with excitement, set themselves to the task of planning the redevelopment of two downtown blocks around the proposed train station, including a hotel, a public market, and a multimodal transportation hub.

The excitement is gone, the plans on indefinite hold. The dream — at least as long as Walker is governor — is dead.

Just to get a flavor of the change in the state's direction, here's Ron Adams, Wisconsin Department of Transportation's railroad and harbor section chief, in March 2009, when prospects of landing a huge federal high-speed rail grant were bright: "Our objective will be to get funding to bring high-speed rail service to Madison."

Here he is two weeks ago, explaining Wisconsin's paltry efforts toward expanding passenger rail: "We're talking with Minnesota about participating in a feasibility study with Amtrak about a second frequency between Chicago and the Twin Cities," adding, "and that's it."

At a time when high gas prices and an expanding rail network have boosted Amtrak ridership to over 30 million, Wisconsin has gone from being a leader in passenger rail planning to a spoiler. Like so many issues, high-speed passenger rail service, once a bipartisan goal, has become an intensely partisan issue, with Democrats and Republicans lining up behind competing visions of the future of transportation in America.

It's not about Democrats and Republicans, it's about what's the most effective deployment of public funds for internal improvements.  (The article is rich in wonkish detail, should you wish to inform yourselves.)  Michigan's governor gets it, the article notes, and there is sentiment in northwestern Illinois to connect the proposed return of train service to Rockford, Freeport, Galena, and Dubuque to the proposed Minnesota service using tracks along the Mississippi River to establish the Chicago-Twin Cities service using little or no trackage in Wisconsin.