High speed rail line to stop near Madison's Monona Terrace near Ca

[Steve4031]

Here is the link to the story.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/midwe...0,3657815.story

I wonder if this will cause a back up move for the route to Minneapolis.

 

[Kramerica]

Here is the link to the story.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/midwe...0,3657815.story

I wonder if this will cause a back up move for the route to Minneapolis.

I think it is a great move to put the station in downtown Madison. Frankly, for there to be any hope of an extension to St. Paul, the route to Madison MUST be a success. And there's no way it was going to be a success with just a stop at the airport.

Perhaps they'll completely reroute the St. Paul train and instead of going through Portage, Wisconsin Dells, and Tomah, the train will keep going through the isthmus and then follow the existing rail line to Prairie du Chien where it will then go north along the Mississippi to LaCrosse and then St. Paul. Or, is it so inconceivable to run it through the isthmus to Middleton (west Madison suburbs) where we'll then build a new rail ROW northeastward to connect to the Portage line? It is just too bad both of those routes would miss the airport, which I believe is an excellent SECONDARY station for Madison, with the intermodal opportunities, ample parking, and existing robust car rental services.

 

[WICT106]

Here is the link to the story.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/midwe...0,3657815.story

I wonder if this will cause a back up move for the route to Minneapolis.

I think it is a great move to put the station in downtown Madison. Frankly, for there to be any hope of an extension to St. Paul, the route to Madison MUST be a success. And there's no way it was going to be a success with just a stop at the airport.

Perhaps they'll completely reroute the St. Paul train and instead of going through Portage, Wisconsin Dells, and Tomah, the train will keep going through the isthmus and then follow the existing rail line to Prairie du Chien where it will then go north along the Mississippi to LaCrosse and then St. Paul. Or, is it so inconceivable to run it through the isthmus to Middleton (west Madison suburbs) where we'll then build a new rail ROW northeastward to connect to the Portage line? It is just too bad both of those routes would miss the airport, which I believe is an excellent SECONDARY station for Madison, with the intermodal opportunities, ample parking, and existing robust car rental services.

Both suggestions that you propose in your second paragraph would add considerable expense to the already very expensive rail route. You're talking about doing over one hundred miles of upgrade (the track from east of Madison, all the way to Prairie du Chien, WI, is FRA class 2 -- at best [ Passenger speed 30 mph] ) In the second case, you're discussing building all new rail - Money for these projects does not appear from out of thin air. This project is controversial already -- you should read the article and comments on the JSOnline website. Many, many Milwaukeeans object to this, if only from myopic, limited vision. Others have characterized this wrongly as a Madison - Milwaukee project, when it is correctly the Chicago - Saint Paul, via Milwaukee and Madison, route. The airport station would have offered over 4400 parking spaces less than one hundred yards from a potential station location, which no downtown site can claim. Also, there is less congestion at the airport.

There is also the suspicion that this station location is because the Gov and Mayor realize that they will be out the door after the November elections, and they might not get the necessary funding to complete the upgrades all the way to Saint Paul, the new governor will not fund one cent of this project, and they want to get passenger rail to Madison.

 

[stntylr]

This may be one of the fastest built rail projects in some time. The Govenor is trying to get the contracts issued and construction started before the elections which would make the project much harder to kill. It much easier to eliminate jobs by not hiring someone than it is to eliminate a job by firing someone.

Although once gas prices get back to four dollars a gallon people are going to be demanding a train service.

 

[Monon81]

I would guess that stntylr is correct on the politcs. Governor Doyle is on his way out, and the candidates have already laid out their positions on the project: Tom Barrett (D) for, Scott Walker and Mark Neumann (both R) against. Highway builders and other proponents of urban sprawl will be very interested in this race. The farther along the project is, the less of an issue this becomes in the governor's race.

I was surprised at how fast this went. It was only a few weeks ago that the Wisc. DOT announced that it was open to sites other than the airport. The Madison City Council immediately voiced its support for a site as close to downtown as possible. With the speed of the decision, there was no way First Street could be in the running, since the previous EIS didn't cover that site. I was also surprised to see that the Airport's ample parking was not considered a sure thing.

Wisc. DOT evaluation of sites (PDF)

As always, the devil is in the details, and the details are still pretty vague. The State has three office buildings on the bluff overlooking the tracks, on either side of Monona Terrace. How one of these buildings would be re-purposed is beyond me. Access from John Nolen Drive, the quickest approach from outlying areas, is also important. Other streets nearby are a tangle of one-ways. Parking as it stands now is scarce, but the city has been planning the replacement and expansion of a parking structure about a block away. The city's parking utility has for years favored short-term parking over all-day and overnight; whether they can change that business model is yet to be seen. On the other hand, the majority of city buses pass about two blocks away.

On the rail side, eventual extension to St. Paul will require a backup or a reversal, similar to the reversal the Keystones make at Philadelpia 30th Street. Current CHI-MKE trains run with controls at both ends, as will the Talgo sets that on order to replace them. The studies I've seen have always kept the Empire Builder on the CP main line through Columbus. WSOR has been pushing to close several grade crossings on Madison's east side for years; adding Amtrak will add to that pressure.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Putting the station in downtown Madison seems a no-brainer with all the college students. Is it possible to have stations at both the airport and downtown? I admit I unfamiliar with the geography of the situation, but Madison seems to be a pretty cool place and the kind of place that would respond well to high speed rail. Since most high speed train sets have power units at both ends, a backup room wouldn't seem too difficult.

 

[AlanB]

This may be one of the fastest built rail projects in some time. The Govenor is trying to get the contracts issued and construction started before the elections which would make the project much harder to kill. It much easier to eliminate jobs by not hiring someone than it is to eliminate a job by firing someone.

I agree that the jobs are part of the equation as you say and it definately makes it harder to get rid of things.

However, there is also another reason for getting it under contract and a shovel in the ground as it were. Once they start spending the Federal monies that they were given, the state is now obligated to run the service for I believe a minimum of 20 years. Might be 10. But either way, if the new Gov kills the project, he has to find the money in his budget to repay every cent back to the Fed. Failure to do so would mean that the Fed pulls all transportation funding from the state and that includes highway funding. No way that any Gov can afford to lose the huge Federal highway funding.

 

[WICT106]

Putting the station in downtown Madison seems a no-brainer with all the college students. Is it possible to have stations at both the airport and downtown? I admit I unfamiliar with the geography of the situation, but Madison seems to be a pretty cool place and the kind of place that would respond well to high speed rail. Since most high speed train sets have power units at both ends, a backup room wouldn't seem too difficult.

Due to Madison's unique layout (the downtown is situated on an isthmus between tow of the area lakes), a Y-turn and back-up move, over three dozen city blocks long, is required to orient the trains as they are on their routes between Saint Paul and Milwaukee via Madison. Any sort of reverse move adds at least 10 to 20 minutes to the trip.

 

[WICT106]

I would guess that stntylr is correct on the politcs. Governor Doyle is on his way out, and the candidates have already laid out their positions on the project: Tom Barrett (D) for, Scott Walker and Mark Neumann (both R) against. Highway builders and other proponents of urban sprawl will be very interested in this race. The farther along the project is, the less of an issue this becomes in the governor's race.
I was surprised at how fast this went. It was only a few weeks ago that the Wisc. DOT announced that it was open to sites other than the airport. The Madison City Council immediately voiced its support for a site as close to downtown as possible. With the speed of the decision, there was no way First Street could be in the running, since the previous EIS didn't cover that site. I was also surprised to see that the Airport's ample parking was not considered a sure thing.

Wisc. DOT evaluation of sites (PDF)

As always, the devil is in the details, and the details are still pretty vague. The State has three office buildings on the bluff overlooking the tracks, on either side of Monona Terrace. How one of these buildings would be re-purposed is beyond me. Access from John Nolen Drive, the quickest approach from outlying areas, is also important. Other streets nearby are a tangle of one-ways. Parking as it stands now is scarce, but the city has been planning the replacement and expansion of a parking structure about a block away. The city's parking utility has for years favored short-term parking over all-day and overnight; whether they can change that business model is yet to be seen. On the other hand, the majority of city buses pass about two blocks away.

On the rail side, eventual extension to St. Paul will require a backup or a reversal, similar to the reversal the Keystones make at Philadelpia 30th Street. Current CHI-MKE trains run with controls at both ends, as will the Talgo sets that on order to replace them. The studies I've seen have always kept the Empire Builder on the CP main line through Columbus. WSOR has been pushing to close several grade crossings on Madison's east side for years; adding Amtrak will add to that pressure.

The failure to re-route the Empire Builder through Madison has been a long time complaint of those who want to take trains in Wisconsin.

 

[wisEBfan]

Here is the link to the story.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/midwe...0,3657815.story

I wonder if this will cause a back up move for the route to Minneapolis.

Here is a link to the front page story regarding this in Friday's 2010-05-07 Wisconsin State Journal: Downtown station for HrSR MSN - MKE

 

[MrFSS]

Here is a map of the area.

Monona Terrace would be in the right center area of the map, right on the lake shore.

 

[fredevad]

So what are they talking about here? Just rerouting EB through downtown Madison? Extending CHI-MKE Hiawatha to Madison? Some new service only between MKE and Madison? Some combination of these? Are there even concrete answers to these questions?

Boy, for living in Wisconsin, I'm embarrassed by how much I don't know about this.

 

[Kramerica]

Both suggestions that you propose in your second paragraph would add considerable expense to the already very expensive rail route. You're talking about doing over one hundred miles of upgrade (the track from east of Madison, all the way to Prairie du Chien, WI, is FRA class 2 -- at best [ Passenger speed 30 mph] ) In the second case, you're discussing building all new rail - Money for these projects does not appear from out of thin air. This project is controversial already -- you should read the article and comments on the JSOnline website. Many, many Milwaukeeans object to this, if only from myopic, limited vision. Others have characterized this wrongly as a Madison - Milwaukee project, when it is correctly the Chicago - Saint Paul, via Milwaukee and Madison, route. The airport station would have offered over 4400 parking spaces less than one hundred yards from a potential station location, which no downtown site can claim. Also, there is less congestion at the airport.

I listen to conservative talk radio every day. I'm VERY familiar with their tired arguments against it and how controversial it is.

The HSR project from Madison to St. Paul will cost Wisconsin over $1 billion. What's an extra 20% if that makes the service 30% better? I don't know what the numbers really are, but a through-route for the Madison isthmus makes the most sense TO WISCONSIN. I could care less that it is a Chicago to MSP train. For my Wisconsin tax dollars, I care about the cities in Wisconsin that it serves. And we need to serve Wisconsin's 2nd-biggest city with quality rail service to their downtown. That's where people are and that's where people want to go.

If the Madison to Milwaukee line isn't successful, there won't be an extension to St. Paul and thus no Chicago-MSP train. We need to concentrate right now on how to make the Madison line the best it can be. Going to St. Paul is just theoretical at this point. We need to focus on the needs of WISCONSIN. And that means a downtown Madison stop.

I agree that for people in Waunakee or Verona, an airport station would be better. Easier access and easier parking. Same for people who need to come to Madison and rent a car. But I think those numbers are dwarfed by the people whose origin or destination will be downtown Madison. (government, State Street recreation, UW campus) Those are the people who are most likely to use the train anyway.

If the train does go to St. Paul past the Madison Airport, I sincerely hope they put up a station there as it would be a very nice secondary stop for Madison.

However, there is also another reason for getting it under contract and a shovel in the ground as it were. Once they start spending the Federal monies that they were given, the state is now obligated to run the service for I believe a minimum of 20 years. Might be 10. But either way, if the new Gov kills the project, he has to find the money in his budget to repay every cent back to the Fed. Failure to do so would mean that the Fed pulls all transportation funding from the state and that includes highway funding. No way that any Gov can afford to lose the huge Federal highway funding.

A couple months ago a Republican legislator was on the Jay Weber AM morning show and they were talking about the train. Basically he said that Republicans are talking about repaying the money early next year and stopping the train construction if they come to power. He put a number of $70 million out there for the amount that they'd be willing to pay back to stop the train. The rationale is that by doing that we'd be saving the operating subsidy ($10 million/year??? or so) and thus we'd "make it back".

I hope that that proposition would be politically unfeasible (hard to refuse almost a billion dollars from the feds), but I worry that they may do it. The more money Doyle can get spent on this project before next January, the better.

Due to Madison's unique layout (the downtown is situated on an isthmus between tow of the area lakes), a Y-turn and back-up move, over three dozen city blocks long, is required to orient the trains as they are on their routes between Saint Paul and Milwaukee via Madison. Any sort of reverse move adds at least 10 to 20 minutes to the trip.

From the way the JS article was reading, they made it sound like when the train is extended to St. Paul, they will have another station at the Madison Airport. Then the St. Paul trains will just bypass downtown Madison and only hit the airport. But there will be some trains that will continue to terminate in Madison and will use the downtown station.

So what are they talking about here? Just rerouting EB through downtown Madison? Extending CHI-MKE Hiawatha to Madison? Some new service only between MKE and Madison? Some combination of these? Are there even concrete answers to these questions?

The service to Madison will be an extension of the Hiawatha Service from Chicago. That service is being increased to 10 trains/day (from 7 currently) in 2013 and 7 of those will continue on to Madison. The Empire Builder will remain on its current route.

 

[AlanB]

However, there is also another reason for getting it under contract and a shovel in the ground as it were. Once they start spending the Federal monies that they were given, the state is now obligated to run the service for I believe a minimum of 20 years. Might be 10. But either way, if the new Gov kills the project, he has to find the money in his budget to repay every cent back to the Fed. Failure to do so would mean that the Fed pulls all transportation funding from the state and that includes highway funding. No way that any Gov can afford to lose the huge Federal highway funding.

A couple months ago a Republican legislator was on the Jay Weber AM morning show and they were talking about the train. Basically he said that Republicans are talking about repaying the money early next year and stopping the train construction if they come to power. He put a number of $70 million out there for the amount that they'd be willing to pay back to stop the train. The rationale is that by doing that we'd be saving the operating subsidy ($10 million/year??? or so) and thus we'd "make it back".

I hope that that proposition would be politically unfeasible (hard to refuse almost a billion dollars from the feds), but I worry that they may do it. The more money Doyle can get spent on this project before next January, the better.

While the Fed won't had Wisconsin the entire $823M right up front, they pay it out as the bills roll in, Wis is on the hook for whatever does get spent. If they manage to get $100M spent before killing the project, then Wis must repay $100M. If they spend $200M, then they have to repay that amount. If they only spend $50M, then that's what must be repaid. The legislature doesn't get to decide what amount they want to repay.

And if they do kill the project and do indeed repay the money that they did get, you can still bet that Wisconsin won't see any Federal funding for major projects for a long time. If they don't repay, then as I said earlier, they can pretty much kiss any highway funding goodbye too.

 

[Eric S]

I also tend to think that having the Madison station downtown is the proper decision. I agree with KRAMERICA that if the MKE-Madison extension is not successful, then there will not be a further Madison-MSP extension. So, the focus right now must be making sure the MKE-Madison line is as popular and successful as possible. (At this point, I just hope that we definitely do get to see a Madison extension, that the next governor does not find a way to cancel this project, whether that is by spending enough by January that it's unlikely it will be stopped or by electing a governor who won't stop this project.)

By the way, has anyone heard what the plans are regarding upgrading/rebuilding/changing the trainshed/platform area at the MKE station? After the station building was rebuilt, I thought it was mentioned that phase 2 would involve work on the trainshed and platforms (perhaps replacing the tunnel under the tracks with an overpass to reach the 2 center platforms).

 

[Kramerica]

By the way, has anyone heard what the plans are regarding upgrading/rebuilding/changing the trainshed/platform area at the MKE station? After the station building was rebuilt, I thought it was mentioned that phase 2 would involve work on the trainshed and platforms (perhaps replacing the tunnel under the tracks with an overpass to reach the 2 center platforms).

Here's a post from another forum that has pictures showing the preliminary designs for a new train shed. I thought WisDOT got stimulus money for it, but I'm not sure.

 

[WICT106]

Here is a comment from the Milwaukee Journal On Line website, that I think deserves to be re-posted here:

"Some of the people here seem to be avoiding common sense. First of all, there are already tracks on the isthmus. Perhaps if we already had a train, you would come here more often, and you would already know that. Second, I don't see how anyone could be ignorant enough to think the train is going to travel at high speeds through downtown Madison. Therefore the tracks that are existing on the isthmus will not have to be upgraded as the train will be traveling slowly through the city. It will only travel at 80MPH for the first 2-3 years, which is still faster than you can travel in your car legally. Then sometime in 2015 the train will travel around 110. The trains that have been purchased can travel even faster than that and perhaps someday will. Which brings me to another point. If Walker cancels the line between Madison and Milwaukee, he will have some explaining to do. Wisconsin received 10% of the total federal funds that were handed out for rail projects. He would have to pretty brave to have the temerity to give that back. Not to mention the $57 Million that has already been spent preliminary construction activity or the $40 Million for the rail cars purchased from Talgo. I'm sure that they will stay in the plant the Milwaukee spend $4 Million on after Wisconsin tries to return the 2 locomotives that it has ordered. I'm not saying that the whole thing is a done deal, but it's easy for some politician who wants to be Governor to say these things. Some argue that the money should be spent on "infrastructure" - the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as TRANSPORTATION and communication systems, power plants, and schools."

I tend to agree that this is something that, should the funding be withdrawn and project cancelled once it's underway, will be the source of many hard feelings should the WI Legislature rescind and repeal everything.

However, there is also another reason for getting it under contract and a shovel in the ground as it were. Once they start spending the Federal monies that they were given, the state is now obligated to run the service for I believe a minimum of 20 years. Might be 10. But either way, if the new Gov kills the project, he has to find the money in his budget to repay every cent back to the Fed. Failure to do so would mean that the Fed pulls all transportation funding from the state and that includes highway funding. No way that any Gov can afford to lose the huge Federal highway funding.

A couple months ago a Republican legislator was on the Jay Weber AM morning show and they were talking about the train. Basically he said that Republicans are talking about repaying the money early next year and stopping the train construction if they come to power. He put a number of $70 million out there for the amount that they'd be willing to pay back to stop the train. The rationale is that by doing that we'd be saving the operating subsidy ($10 million/year??? or so) and thus we'd "make it back".

I hope that that proposition would be politically unfeasible (hard to refuse almost a billion dollars from the feds), but I worry that they may do it. The more money Doyle can get spent on this project before next January, the better.

While the Fed won't had Wisconsin the entire $823M right up front, they pay it out as the bills roll in, Wis is on the hook for whatever does get spent. If they manage to get $100M spent before killing the project, then Wis must repay $100M. If they spend $200M, then they have to repay that amount. If they only spend $50M, then that's what must be repaid. The legislature doesn't get to decide what amount they want to repay.

And if they do kill the project and do indeed repay the money that they did get, you can still bet that Wisconsin won't see any Federal funding for major projects for a long time. If they don't repay, then as I said earlier, they can pretty much kiss any highway funding goodbye too.

 

[volkris]

Here is a comment from the Milwaukee Journal On Line website, that I think deserves to be re-posted here:
"Second, I don't see how anyone could be ignorant enough to think the train is going to travel at high speeds through downtown Madison. Therefore the tracks that are existing on the isthmus will not have to be upgraded as the train will be traveling slowly through the city."

See, that's my initial thought too: why run a high speed train through downtown? Doesn't that slow the train unnecessarily, completely defeating the purpose of HSR? Isn't it a better idea to put the stop out in a less populated area where airports tend to be located, and then have a feeder--whether rail, bus, or whatever else--connect to the downtown stop? I've taken the agonizingly slow trip through Richmond between RVR and RVM too many times to avoid picturing the shiny 110mph train crawling along at 30mph because someone wanted it to stop next to a downtown restaurant.

But then the State Journal article says travel time would be equivalent. How could that be?

 

[Trogdor]

See, that's my initial thought too: why run a high speed train through downtown? Doesn't that slow the train unnecessarily, completely defeating the purpose of HSR? Isn't it a better idea to put the stop out in a less populated area where airports tend to be located, and then have a feeder--whether rail, bus, or whatever else--connect to the downtown stop? I've taken the agonizingly slow trip through Richmond between RVR and RVM too many times to avoid picturing the shiny 110mph train crawling along at 30mph because someone wanted it to stop next to a downtown restaurant.
But then the State Journal article says travel time would be equivalent. How could that be?

What's the point of having a fast train if it requires you to get off in the middle of nowhere and make a who-knows-how-long transfer to get to your destination?

Madison will be the destination for this route for a while. Reducing your speed from 110 mph to 30-40 mph for the last couple of miles will still be faster than going to the airport and taking a bus to downtown. Ending the route at the airport would pretty much guarantee that the route would be a failure, ridership-wise.

If/when the route gets extended to St. Paul, there would be two options. One would be to have St. Paul trains bypass downtown Madison (not sure if I'm liking that idea). The other would be to have the trains go into Madison, then change ends and head out.

As for riding slowly between RVR and RVM after traveling fast along the corridor...if you don't like it, then get off at RVR instead, and take a bus over to RVM. See if that's really faster.

 

[volkris]

What's the point of having a fast train if it requires you to get off in the middle of nowhere and make a who-knows-how-long transfer to get to your destination?

The airport option isn't exactly dropping passengers off in the middle of a pasture, you know...

So here are your two options: get to/from the airport with no delay and the option of getting to downtown and elsewhere with transfer delays, or get to/from downtown with delays with and the option of getting to the airport and elsewhere with additional delays.

There are a number of other benefits to putting the station at the airport as well, including avoiding increased congestion in the center of the city as travelers are forced to go there for the station and integration between air and rail travel which serves to increase the utility of both modes.

But nevermind all of that, it's all just politics and not what I'm curious about.

The question is: are they correct that it would be just as fast to get to the airport as to downtown? I find that to be the strange claim.

 

[Kramerica]

See, that's my initial thought too: why run a high speed train through downtown? Doesn't that slow the train unnecessarily, completely defeating the purpose of HSR? Isn't it a better idea to put the stop out in a less populated area where airports tend to be located, and then have a feeder--whether rail, bus, or whatever else--connect to the downtown stop? I've taken the agonizingly slow trip through Richmond between RVR and RVM too many times to avoid picturing the shiny 110mph train crawling along at 30mph because someone wanted it to stop next to a downtown restaurant.
But then the State Journal article says travel time would be equivalent. How could that be?

1. Having the stop downtown means a one-seat ride. That is CRITICAL. People don't want to transfer to a bus or another rail system. From the downtown station they'll be able to walk to their destination. These train riders aren't materializing out of thin air, they are being coaxed from their cars. Since the drive time and the train time will be about the same, we need to attract riders with something else: convenience.

2. To see why the travel time from Milwaukee to the Madison airport would be the same as the travel time from Milwaukee to downtown Madison, look at Google Maps. The train will be coming in on the line from Sun Prairie. It'll be slowing down from there to go into Madison. The train will continue southwest until it gets to the nearly 180 degree curve at 1st and Washington. From there the route to downtown continues southeast to Monona Terrace. But to get to the airport, the route takes that 180 degree curve and swings north to the airport. That curve will be taken very slowly I'm sure, as will the track from there to downtown. So that's why the travel times are the same.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

What I have read suggests that the number of people who will ride Amtrak from Madison to Milwaukee to catch a plane in Milwaukee is a lot higher than the number of people who will take Amtrak to catch a plane in Madison, and there is even the question of whether the airlines might be happy abandoning flights to Madison in favor of code shares with the train. (Also, there may be some potential for catching a train in Madison to get to a Chicago airport if the details of getting the train from Madison to offer a one seat ride to the Chicago airports are ever worked out.) So that aspect of losing the train-airport connection in Madison doesn't strike me as a significant downside.

However, long term parking for Madison residents as well as availability of car rental at a Madison train station are certainly issues.

Perhaps the state should consider requiring that any company wanting to offer rental cars at the airport also offer a staffed car rental location at the train station with hours that match the trains' hours.

Also, would continuing west past downtown for a mile or three to somewhere with better parking be a viable option? Or would it be practical to have an eastern Madison station somewhere to the east of the isthums with plentiful parking?

 

[Eric S]

By the way, has anyone heard what the plans are regarding upgrading/rebuilding/changing the trainshed/platform area at the MKE station? After the station building was rebuilt, I thought it was mentioned that phase 2 would involve work on the trainshed and platforms (perhaps replacing the tunnel under the tracks with an overpass to reach the 2 center platforms).

Here's a post from another forum that has pictures showing the preliminary designs for a new train shed. I thought WisDOT got stimulus money for it, but I'm not sure.

Thanks.

I too cannot recall hearing anything recently (at least a year or so) about funding for trainshed/platform upgrades.

 

[Kramerica]

What I have read suggests that the number of people who will ride Amtrak from Madison to Milwaukee to catch a plane in Milwaukee is a lot higher than the number of people who will take Amtrak to catch a plane in Madison, and there is even the question of whether the airlines might be happy abandoning flights to Madison in favor of code shares with the train.

Yes, Mitchell Airport stands to be a big winner in all of this. But, because of airport fees or some other factors (perhaps a business or industry in Madison that has a lot of travel to a certain city), I could see the Madison airport getting some Milwaukee travelers for some flights. It certainly isn't a reason to not have a downtown Madison station, but enough that I think it would make a ton of sense to have a stop there if it is right on the route anyway. Especially considering parking and car rental issues.

Also, would continuing west past downtown for a mile or three to somewhere with better parking be a viable option? Or would it be practical to have an eastern Madison station somewhere to the east of the isthums with plentiful parking?

If the St. Paul extension ends up not being in the cards for a while, I could see them extending the train a few miles to Middleton. I'm sure they could find a spot there convenient to the Beltline that would have ample parking. But I don't think they'd do so at this point with the still-hoped-for-goal of St. Paul.

As for an east Madison stop, I don't like that idea and I don't think they'd do it, for one reason: time from downtown MKE to downtown MSN. Adding a stop in Sun Prairie for example would add five minutes to the trip. That's not going to fly. They want to minimize that downtown to downtown time. That's why I think going to the Madison airport after stopping at downtown Madison would make some sense. Doesn't affect the downtown to downtown time, but gives suburban Madisonites a convenient parking spot and gives visitors that need to rent a car a good spot to do so, all while keeping the one-seat ride.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

If the St. Paul extension ends up not being in the cards for a while, I could see them extending the train a few miles to Middleton. I'm sure they could find a spot there convenient to the Beltline that would have ample parking. But I don't think they'd do so at this point with the still-hoped-for-goal of St. Paul.

But the plan has always been for some Madison trains to run only to the east and not west of the Madison area, I thought. Look at how only some of the Keystones stop at North Philadelphia for an example of a successful stop served by a limited number of the corridor trains passing through it.

Also, there seems to be some intercity passenger rail funding that can be used to build commuter rail infrastructure as long as it sees some intercity service as well. Extending the Amtrak service to Middleton might be a good way to get federal dollars for track upgrades and station construction for commuter rail there.

As for an east Madison stop, I don't like that idea and I don't think they'd do it, for one reason: time from downtown MKE to downtown MSN. Adding a stop in Sun Prairie for example would add five minutes to the trip. That's not going to fly. They want to minimize that downtown to downtown time.

If this is a compelling argument, then why doesn't the Acela Express skip the Route 128 Station and let only the Regionals stop there? (It turns out that there are some business travelers who live in the suburbs in places where they need a car to get anywhere who like the speed of the Acela and like the convenience of parking at RTE.)

All the NEC trains that serve Boston stop at South Station (Red Line connection), Back Bay (Orange Line connection), and Route 128 (big parking garage in the suburbs).

That's why I think going to the Madison airport after stopping at downtown Madison would make some sense. Doesn't affect the downtown to downtown time, but gives suburban Madisonites a convenient parking spot and gives visitors that need to rent a car a good spot to do so, all while keeping the one-seat ride.

If people going to downtown aren't going to tolerate the time involved in stopping at Sun Prairie or a station where the tracks cross I-39/I-90/I-94, I'm not sure the people who just want a convenient car rental experience or long term parking space are going to be thrilled about waiting for a backup move.