What an odd article to write. This is pure speculation, not news. Talgo hasn't left Milwaukee.

Heavy sarcasm.:-)
Probably sounds about right, though, to our Republican friends.

Save the train! Generate more jobs by tying Wisconsin in a large Midwestern business corridor!

It's a good thing that Walker has seen the light on this and is throwing the stimulus money back at the feds and sending Talgo to Illinois where its socialist product belongs. Had we kept the democrats in office we would have had trains interfering with traffic and jobs in Milwaukee, neither of which are appealing. Had Janesville wound up with Talgo, they would have driven up local wages and made it less competitive in the labor market as well even if they had stayed. Until the average wage here is 5 bucks an hour and the state allows companies the return of the unlimited hour work week and rolls back so-called "safety" regulations that burden industry, Rock county will never be competitive.

I haven't read all the comments. but here's my 2c. The problem is this: "the city was prepared to guarantee lease payments if Talgo left within five years".
Once again, the city was sticking it's nose into the private sector where it clearly does not belong. To now say that it's a good thing that Talgo went elsewhere because they might now leave because of the election of a Republican, and now the city is not on the hook for the lease payments is incredibly twisted logic.

Andre, the blind fools fail to understand oil (gas) prices have begun rising in direct correlation with the QE2 policy by the presidents economic leaders have enacted. When the government effectively prints money from nothing, inflation occurs, resulting in higher prices for all items. Their wanting to blame this on the other side only proves ignorance.

It's obvious both sides feel very strongly about the issue. I respect right of those who feel it's not the right project for Wisconsin in 2011. The factors I use to make the decision to continue with the HSrail is the following. 1) The framework for HSrail is being given to Wisconsin and the cost of maintaining it will come from the added jobs and tax revenue. 2) The cost to build this system will not be any cheaper in the future and if we turn down the money today we pay all tomorrow at a higher cost. 3) Alternate forms of energy are coming but not fast enough and cheap enough to make up the difference for $3.00 a gallon gas. 25 years is too long to wait for a Hydrogen Fuel Cell delivery system and infrastructure. The cost for the vehicle will be more than most Americans can afford. The cost for the fueling stations will be staggering at $300,000 to $600,000 for each. Multiply that number by the number of gas stations in the state of Wisconsin divide by 2 and the number makes the HS Rail look like a toy at Walmart. 4) Where do we go from here? Increased global demand for petroleum based products and less supply can only lead to dramatic increases in gas prices. It's basic Economics 101, Increased demand vs. decreasing supply means higher prices. So everyone should expect $8-9 a gallon for gas in the next 10 years. What does that mean for Wisconsin and it's population? 5) If Walker wants to go down in the history of Wisconsin as a leader for the future of Wisconsin he should reconsider his stance on the HSrail. Don't look at Wisconsin against other states, it's Wisconsin against the globe and we are going to be reacting to global demand, supply and employment challenges. Be a forward thinking leader who's reviewed all the facts and has changed direction to support HSrail for the future of Wisconsin. The people will respect him more for saying he was wrong than if he passes on the money and in time we have to pay the entire bill ourselves. It's not as if there has never been a politician who's changed direction from a campaign slogan.

I whole heartedly agree, that as a country, we don't have $800 billion to spend on high speed rail. However, Wisconsin rejecting the money, won't make it "money saved" it will simply go to another state for their high speed rail project. That being said, it seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to reject all the jobs and income it will bring to the state.

Forward into the past Janesvillelean.
As someone said earlier. We are not Europeans.

gravitylens You are correct. The car culture is ingrained, but for a reason. The 'car culture' spurred the growth of the middle class after WW2. The 'car culture' built the US into an affluent society.

Dini...."Waste money"? First of all......How many people commute from Madison to Milwaukee? Then take that small pool of people and ask them how many would be willing to pay $60+ a day for rail transportation to get to and from their jobs. The number would be extremely small. Who would pick up the tab for these empty trains running around? Wisconsin taxpayers.......

"What if? What if?" What if Talgos had selected any Wisconsin city, brought hundreds and then (through the rail-building) thousands of jobs, and given the more and more people who now have to commute (waste money and natural resources) a cheaper, safer, forward-looking way to get to their jobs? What if? What a load of crap. Wisconsin, you get exactly what you deserve at this point, but I deserve better.

And if Hitler had been plumbed a bit differently, he would have been Adeline...

Mr.Walker is all wrong.He thinks he will get the money for roads.(no way)the feds will send it to another state.I remember in the early 1950s Delavan was approached with the idea since they are the 19th century circus capital of the world by investors that wanted to build a circus amusement park.City fathers turned it down stating it would cost the city tax payers to much money.Well Baraboo got it and look at them now.No wonder Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the U.S.This high speed rail will also carry freight,thus freeing up the wear and tear on our roads.There was people back in Ike's years when he started building the interstate systems there was the people against that also.

Janesvillian, sometimes bending over backwards is better than bending over the other way.

Janesvillean......"backward looking governor-elect"? I would say "financially responsible" or a governor who is actually doing his job and listening to the people he represents seeing as how the majority of Wisconsinites are against this bottomless money pit. If the rail project could support itself after the infusion of federal taxpayer dollars, I think the majority of people would support it. The fact that it is going to cost taxpayers of this state millions of dollars a year to maintain it, makes it an unnecessary expense in my book. As far as linking Madison and Milwaukee, I just don't see the benefit. The company I work for has vendors and reps in both cities. Very rarely do residents of one city interact with the other city. Typically these people live/work/support either one city or the other. I can seriously see these trains being at 20-30% capacity and our state government hitting us up for more cash to fund this mess. Thank God Walker had enough common sense to put an end to it........

janesvillean,

We don't have to try hard at all to justify our car culture. Detroit has been helping us for decades. All while they lobbied to get roads built and rails dismantled.
.
Even though they got their comeuppance and are in no position to stand in our way now, their legacy obviously lives on.

It's amusing to see the lengths of bending over backwards people will do to justify the car culture in this country. The fact is the internal combustion engine is a wonderful device, but making something as easy and convenient and inexpensive is really hard. It's doubtful that any technology will support the current levels of sprawl, and even if it did, why should we work so hard to achieve it? The train technology is available right here, right now, and around the world millions of people ride them every flipping day.
.
People talk about how spread out this country is. Well, that's part of the problem. We need infrastructure which helps us stop eating up farmland and burning fossil fuels to pick up something three blocks away. Trains can do that ... but only when you actually build them.
.
People talk about how Madison has all this empty space between it and Milwaukee. High-speed rail goes right past most of that. The "sweet spot" distance for high-speed rail, around the world, is between 100 and 600 miles. Less than that and too many people want to drive; more than that and people would rather fly. The sweet spot is, of course, affected by the level of investment such that the speed of the train becomes competitive with air.
.
This is probably why people say that it's easier to drive from Madison to Milwaukee -- it's only about 75 miles -- especially if they aren't right there to begin with. But the train is aimed at people who already live in those metro areas and have access to their transit networks, not people who would have to drive to Madison just to pick up the train. These are cities which are both working to become greener places to live with less car dependence, ideal populations with an interest in riding the train.
.
We already have a demonstrator: the 90 mile Amtrak Hiawatha route to Chicago. This is a heavily used line that would be the first to see Talgo products, just a couple of years from now. If Chicago-Milwaukee can work, then Milwaukee-Madison can work as well.
.
The future extension to Minneapolis would, in fact, at around 350 miles, be absolutely perfect for high speed rail, even though it crosses wide swaths of rural Wisconsin. It's a distance that has been proven again and again to lure people onto the train network.
.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin could have reaped the benefits of being nearly at the ground floor of a North American HSR industry, a 21st century area of growth around the world. At this rate, though, third-world countries and borderline developed countries that are planning their own HSR networks are going to be better poised for success this century, thanks to a backward-looking governor-elect.

The Hartford Business Journal, Edmunds (an industry leader in vehicle information), and the European Climate Foundation are sketchy sources. LOL!!

Speaking of paying bills, I own Exxon-Mobile (XOM)stock which has doubled twice since 1999.

Regardless of the present and future price of oil, which has been as high as $140 per barrel, my point is that 'shale oil' is apparently marketable at $70 since it has already been done.

Third Eye you might need a fourth.
Nymex Crude Future $84.88, Dated Brent Spot $85.55, WTI Cushing Spot $84.88. So what happens when the economy does pick up and we actually see a recovery. $120 easy. Trust me this is how I pay the bills.

"The vast amount of oil Third Eye speaks of is in the form of shale and just like in Canada this is very labor intensive and could be a source for the USA but doesn't bring the price back down below $100 a barrel"
Canada is the number one supplier of oil to the US. Oil is now around 82 dollars a barrel, just recently it was down in the low 70's.
So it is possible to sell 'shale oil' at today's prices.
We have vast amounts of liquid oil in Alaska and off shore in California etc. in addition to the 'shale oil'.
By the way, North Dakota is booming right now by bringing 'shale oil' to market.

Hey Dwight some of your links are sketchy sites. Trend Micro blocks them. Nice one.

www.hydrogencarsnow.com
***********************************************
Just a small piece of the article.
First, the “chicken or egg” problem with the infrastructure means that if the automakers were to sell a few hundred hydrogen cars, there would be few public stations in which to fuel them. GM, Honda and BMW have to be mindful of handing out their hydrogen vehicles to people in certain zip code areas who live near a functioning public hydrogen station or else make some other temporary accommodations for them to refuel. California has the most refueling stations right now, but try driving across the Heartland and one will be sadly disappointed in the lack of stations.

Second, there would be very few buyers of hydrogen cars at current prices of somewhere between $100,000 and $500,000 or whatever the automakers would want to charge at this point in time. Prices, especially of fuel cell vehicles need to come down, and this will happen due to economy of scale when more vehicles are manufactured.

Third, as a lease, the automakers can continue testing the vehicles. They can continue to collect technical data from the vehicles as well as do market testing. The market testing would include collecting information on customer satisfaction, attitude toward hydrogen cars, etc. to help them market these vehicles on a broader scale in the future.

Fourth, and this is one of the most important points, is that if hydrogen cars are sold, the automakers need to support them nationwide. When a consumer purchases car from one of the major auto manufacturers right now, the assumption is that if the car breaks down, that can get it serviced at the dealer anywhere in the U. S. So, if you drive your car from Barstow, California to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or from Corpus Christi, Texas, to Boise, Idaho, and something mechanical happens on your car, you can get it serviced at the dealer.

Check out the web page for the full story

http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/gm-t...
.
http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents...
.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/09/02/hyun...
.
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news1329...

The following is from an article on the web site www.hydrogencarinfo.com

Not something I'd put a lot of faith in.
***********************************************
Buy Hydrogen Car

Hydrogen-powered cars are catching on with major automobile manufacturers, but will attempts to gain uneducated consumers in this new technology dissolve into thin air?

It appears this new method of powering cars is here to stay, although it looks to be a slow process for it to take the whole world by storm.

Hydrogen cars are gaining support from federal and state governments in the United States because of the drastic increase in gas prices, and the growing threat to our environment from emissions released by fossil fuel. President Bush and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have campaigned with the promise of allocating funds to the development of the hydrogen-powered car business.

Mercedes-Benz, Ford, General Motors, Honda and Hyundai have already developed hydrogen cars. Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagon also have hydrogen fuel cell cars in development.

Hummer released a model that can be converted to hydrogen power with a price tag of $60,000 in addition to the retail price of the vehicle.

Buyers can expect to purchase expensive models – most more than $150,000 – until mass production sets in. Leaders in the industry believe that might not take shape for the next 10 to 20 years.

The cost to build a hydrogen fill station in California is close to $600,000. Schwarzenegger announced his intentions to install hydrogen filling stations every 20 miles along major highways in the state before 2010, but analysts believe that goal is too ambitious because of the cost.

The natural environment would benefit from increased usage of hydrogen-powered fuels, but until a majority of motorists utilize this new form of technology, the pollution emitted from fossil-fueled cars will dominate the air. So the hydro-car buyer in the next couple of years can be assured that his or her vehicle is keeping the air clean, but that will be negated by the neighbor’s gas-guzzling SUV.

Researchers and scientists fear that hydrogen-powered vehicles will lose public-interest momentum the longer they are not widely visible in the market. However, government officials, like Bush and Schwarzenegger, understand any form of energy deviating from the reliance on imported oil or gas can boost the economy. The support to fund development in this project is bipartisan and widespread.

Given this fact, and the reality that our natural environment will not improve in its current state, interest in further developing the hydrogen-powered vehicle will increase as the years go by instead of decrease.

Either way, the rain boondoggle is NOT NOT NOT the answer.

Just realized my 1:03 post says "<5 years" is should say "<25 years".

But no, it's not an immediate answer, but building an extensive rail infrastructure isn't either. When hydrogen cell vehicles a affordable and commonplace in the market in a few decades, suddenly the need for rail decreases dramatically (again). The answer isn't rail, it is developing alternate energies for car (hybrid and electric in the short term and transitioning to fuel cell), and perhaps adding rail infrastructure to areas with immediate traffic needs - not largely rural areas such as between Madison and Milwaukee.

Nice dream my friend. Not a chance in our lifetime. Keep holding on to that thought if it helps you sleep at night. Just mark down today's date and when the "blank" hits the fan and you are paying $8-9 for a gallon of gas and can't get to work. Well so sad for you then isn't it.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are <5 years away from being as common as hybrid vehicles on the market. They are already available in California, and the demand is growing on the east coast. Honda is already producing consumer-ready hydrogen cell vehicles and Chevy plans on selling hydro fuel cell vehicles in 2015. As the supply/demand/cost of oil changes, our technology will bring us away from that and toward technologies that will keep us free from the NEED of rail in the future. No matter the price of oil or technology, Americans are not going to give up the freedom of the car, not a chance.

Alternate fuels will be as important as rail but most have the true potential of eliminating a small fraction of petroleum based, 15-20% at the top end. I seriously doubt most people on this blog even understand the infrastructure requirements for hydrogen fuel cells and most experts say maybe in 100 years it could be possible but that is a stretch. Every single gas station would have to completely revamp to sell hydrogen and the costs are enormous. Hydrogen cannot be transported using the same methods as gas fuels. Not to mention the safety concerns around this type of vehicle. Maybe you should read up on it first before you say it's the answer to our future. It may be the answer to our great grandchildren's future. The vast amount of oil Third Eye speaks of is in the form of shale and just like in Canada this is very labor intensive and could be a source for the USA but doesn't bring the price back down below $100 a barrel. It just makes going after it profitable.

The US has more oil available than any other country and we are not drilling for it now. We will if the future price of oil hits "$200 a barrel", no matter what the environmentalists say.
I also agree with Dwight that alternative energies will come into play.
Bottom Line, 19th Century train transportation is not the answer.

DwightKSchrute - Yes trains use oil that is true but when you remove tens of thousands of cars from the road daily the oil usage average drops. Unfortunately not everyone can afford at $150,000 two seat car so that theory is not going to apply to the masses. I think the point you are missing is the money is available to build the framework for the rail system that will be needed in the next decade whether you like it or not.

5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road, creatureinthefreezer, we will have vehicles that run on alternative energies. Electric (Tesla is already making vehicles with a 300 mile range that recharge in 45 minutes), hydrogen fuel cells, etc. The last thing I'm worried about is the price of oil at this point. Don't fool yourself though, trains run on petroleum-based fuels as well. The higher the cost of oil, the more money the state will lose on the train.

The conversation about high speed rail or no high speed rail has to be a question about when not if. There will be a day in all of our future when oil is over $200 per barrel. That is a fact no one can deny. Nymex Crude Futures closed at $84.88 on Friday and a weak economy here in the US. Meaning oil prices are greatly affected by China and India where both countries have a huge appetite for oil and massive population that will only use more goods and services that are oil based in the next 20 years that will make the US consumption look like a drop in the barrel. Add to that unstable Middle East nations and our lukewarm relations with Russia and Venezuela and the cherry on top for the USA is the Gulf region uncertainty with Hurricanes that causes drastic spikes in pricing when production is disrupted. So when does the USA accept the idea that the car is not the main mode of transportation. 5, 10, 15, 20 years or only when there is such a drastic change in the prices of oil that we all stop driving and everything grinds to a halt. That day is coming for some of us. The smart money bets that rail will be more important to the USA’s success than a car in the future. It will never be the answer to all travel for us because the population is spread out but in time as pricing for transportation rises you’ll see a shift back towards more people living in the cities and less in rural and suburbs. I look at it this way. Take the federal money now and build the framework for a rail system that connects the larger cities together while it’s available. If we wait until we need it then the price tag will be significantly higher and the entire bill is on the backs of Wisconsin taxpayers. Wisconsin needs to be thinking farther in the future than next week, next year or even next 5 years.

If you think the train would be a good idea, tell me when AMTRAK was last profitable.

we would all be better off if the feds did not have bags of our cash to give to states in the first place.

Talgo has a documented history of discrimination against minorities, especially blacks. That is why their former HR Director resigned. This story is another Lib/Progressive effort to cast the Governor-Elect in a bad light.
There was NO indication that Talgo would settle in Janesville, so why even put that idea forward? Face it Janesville, you're screwed. No company wants to settle in a state with this high of tax rate unless you're in the back pocket of the Governor. It's life. Until Wisconsin drastically lowers taxes on companies, they won't come here; they won't hire people and you'll still be out of a job.

I thought that Wisconsin was open for business. With Walker not even in office yet, he is already shipping our jobs out. Wait and see, more of this to come.

no my gf wont let me tight roll in public:) she has a hard enough time dealing with my fringe jacket:)

mass transit IS progress. eventual gridlock in a smelly nasty expensive to operate vehicle of your OWN is eventually not a financially or sustainable option.

kid, great hair - yes, but do you REALLY still tight roll your jeans?? ; )

ThirdEye- most rail historians agree that the auto started the decline in rail traffic, and led to the demise of the local passenger trains. Intercity trains were in trouble with the arrival of jet airliners. Now people are beginning to see the inconvenience that airliners can create, airports are further from business centers, the additional expense of car rental, bus or taxi fares to get into the cities, delays, and all the congestion.

I don't use the road or bridge in front of your house nor does my son go to your school but I helped pay for it and that's reasonable. I am not willing to pay for something that will benefit such a small portion of the population. (As usual, 'Contractors') 100 million to operate this for 15 years,,,,,that's just laughable. And a foreign company manages the project??? This is just TAX AND SPEND. This project has been poorly conceived, poorly planned, poorly presented and would be managed with the same degree of ineptness. The shady way they tried to push this through should be alarm enough to raise anyones eyebrows.

Trains are not progress. Did we not move away from trains with the automobile?
The people fawing over this giant train set are also the same people that disdain the automobile.
A cynical person could conclude that the federal effort to creat a nationwide train system could lead to outlawing travel by automobile.

Read the Charlie sykes article
He needs to take Metra to chicago sometime. Stops are only 2-3 minutes.
Would rather take the train to Chicago
than drive to Madison or Mke,for games
or concerts.

Short term political gain in exchange for the loss of a long term transportation expansion and more jobs that would help to expand our economy and reduce the ever-expanding strain on our transportation infrastructure. Republicans strike a blow against progress.....again.

How can you be against the economic stimulation this brings to the state of wisconsin? If we do not use this 810 million for rail then it goes to another state that will, which by the way are lining up for it. The money doesn't go to reducing the deficit or go to lowering your taxes if it's not used, we simply lose out on the ripple effect of the construction. First, it's construction creates construction jobs and those construction workers stimulate the state economy by buying fuel, construction supplies, lodging, food, and on and on. After it's up and running, there will be many jobs created such as operators, maintenance workers, ticket people, operator engineers, and so on. It would be down right idiotic to return the money and let another state spend it on their own rail projects. If walker does stop the project the state loses an unrecoverable $100 million, that's 15 years of projected operation costs right there. It's really too bad that walker played all the low information voters the way he did because if you are aware of the facts, there's no way you can oppose this. ...and for all of those who say they will never ride this train so they shouldn't have to pay for it, well I may never use the road or bridge in front of your house, and my kids will never go to your school so why should I have to pay for that?

Wise? Really? Having lived in a large metropolitan area I can tell you that mass transit is vital and the future. We need to look forward not backward and I fear that this election has taken us one giant leap backward.

Media idiots who hate the new Governor are taking shot after shot at his wise decision to oppose Rail Boondogles..
You doth protest too much methinks.

Their estimations on ridership are based on the existing portion of the train. But that's only a in-state return. The feds are interested in funding this because it is part of a larger national network.

Anyway. To the point of the article, it seems like we still would have been better off if Talgo did come here. The still need to finish work on their existing contracts though 2012. Janesville is in dire enough straights that a couple years worth of work for 100 or more families would probably be welcome, if short lived.

And this is coming from someone who's railed many times against us using tax incentives to lure short term employment from bad companies. This was one deal with the devil we probably could have lived with.

Who would ride it?

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesyke...

im with the other haters. im ok being stuck in the 80's. you see a cat with great hair and tight rolled jeans strollin thats prolly me. i hear NKOTB is having a reunion tour so we dont need no stinkin train to the future....unless of course doc's driving and we're going...wait for it...back to the future

Exactly... and did ANYONE seriously question taxpayers to find out how many would ACTUALLY use this train? Milwaukee to Madison... ok... so is there truly a base of commuters that could support the expense? When we had earlier talks about the Olympics coming to the Midwest, that would have "maybe" been able to hold up the financial investment for a year... but seriously, I see it as another "bonehead" political idea that doesn't hold water.
Wisconsin taxes are one of the highest in the country. We are crippled by a crappy economy and industries that have left the state.
Who thinks up this crap?

What is the slobbering love affair between the media and this train? Story after story after story after story many from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in support of this train. It is a tax pit and a waste. It would have created a few jobs at a huge, uh massive taxpayer subsidized cost. Give it up, its not going to happen.