Conservatively Speaking

New Jersey says no, so should Wisconsin

Posted by Mary Lazich on Oct. 16, 2010

State budget, Taxes

A construction area near Hoboken, New Jersey was the site of a historic transportation announcement during June 2009.  Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff attended a groundbreaking for an $8.7 billion commuter rail Hudson River tunnel project to and from New York City and spoke about the federal government’s financial share.

“That $3.0 billion commitment will be the largest commitment made to any transit project anywhere in the United States by the Department of Transportation, in the history of the U.S Department of Transportation.”

Those assembled responded with obligatory applause, including then- New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine. Today, Chris Christie is governor, and on October 7, 2010, Christie officially killed what has been reported as America’s largest public works project.

“I have made a pledge to the people of New Jersey that on my watch I will not allow taxpayers to fund projects that run over budget with no clear way of how these costs will be paid for,” said the governor. “Considering the unprecedented fiscal and economic climate our State is facing, it is completely unthinkable to borrow more money and leave taxpayers responsible for billions in cost overruns.” The tunnel project costs “far more than New Jersey taxpayers can afford and the only prudent move is to end this project.”

Fifteen months after groundbreaking for the ballyhooed tunnel, the project funded with billions of federal dollars is dead. Christie’s remarks uncannily mirror the political debate surrounding the controversial $810 million high speed train between Milwaukee and Madison.

Opponents of the Hudson River tunnel project say the initiative was rushed. Opponents of the Milwaukee-Madison train submit the project was rushed. During February of this year, the Legislature’s powerful Joint Finance Committee (JFC) voted along party lines to approve spending over $800-million in federal stimulus money to construct a high-speed rail line between Madison and Milwaukee. Some of the money will also be used to update existing track that connects Milwaukee to Chicago.

The cost of the rail line is equivalent to two Miller Parks. The contentious debate about Miller Park took several months. Yet in less than one half-hour, the Democrat majority JFC debated and voted to approve a likely huge boondoggle.   In my view, that’s a rush job.

Because the federal allotment for the rail line is nearly $8-million short of expenses, there is a deficit to the project. The state must find a way to fund nearly $8-million every year for operating expenses.

Job creation claims made by proponents are dubious. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel looked at the state’s application for the $810 million in stimulus money and reports, “Only 55 permanent jobs would be created to operate and maintain the trains, tracks and stations, starting in 2013, per the application.”

Sensing growing opposition to the Milwaukee-Madison project, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defiantly responded, "High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin — there's no stopping it.” It seems a number of area residents are unwilling to accept the secretary’s stubbornness.

A Public Policy Forum poll of residents in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington counties taken during the fall of 2009 showed 57 percent supported high-sped trains between Milwaukee and Madison. A similar poll taken during June 2010 showed support plummeting to 41 percent. Constituents I have heard form overwhelmingly oppose the project.

Wisconsin is not alone in its raised eyebrows. Candidates in Ohio, Florida, and California are emphatic that exorbitant price tags on projects in those states mean the projects need to be stopped. That leads to a pivotal point written by the New York Times on October 4, 2010:

“The state-level opposition is a reminder of the challenge of building a national transportation project in the United States: while the federal government can set priorities, the construction is up to the states. “

Prudence mandates slamming the brakes on high-speed rail in Wisconsin. Firms that would construct the rail line may be open to canceled contracts since they already do work for the state on highways and roads. Using money intended for rail on other projects is nothing new. It’s been done before.

And now, NJ Governor Christie may have set a precedent with his bold and fiscally responsible move to reject an unaffordable project because his state is broke, he fears cost-overruns, and he knows his state would be responsible for the additional costs. Sound familiar, Wisconsin?

Even the pro-rail website alltransit.com concedes, “The problem is that, while (stimulus) money has already been allocated to high speed rail projects in Florida, Washington, California, Wisconsin, Illinois and elsewhere, the more than $8 billion out the door is just a tiny fraction of what is needed to get the systems built. While President Barack Obama called the money a ‘down payment,’ some see it as a tease. States who want to build high speed rail with federal dollars have to put up 20 percent on their own. While this 20 percent is small portion compared to the overall investment by the feds, it still adds up to a hefty amount of cash.”

A hefty amount of cash Wisconsin cannot afford and should not spend on half fast rail.

We need to follow New Jersey’s example. The sooner we stop the so-called high-speed rail, the less money we will waste on a non-sustaining train that will attract few riders, and like the stimulus in general, create few jobs.