posted
Do You think will be the first to be up and running?
Do you most look forward to riding?
In my case, my answer for both would be seeing an extension of the Hiawatha Corridor from Milwaukee into Madison.
Yes, my native North Carolina is getting funds but nothing that will result in passenger trains running where there is not currently a passenger train.
On the other hand, Milwaukee-Madison is a reasonably short distance and the groundwork has been laid already. When I was involved with competitive drum corps from 1994-2005 I usually made anywhere from 1 to 4 trips in and/or out of Madison each summer. I would have loved to have had a train option into Madison. As it was, I either flew to Milwaukee or took the train to Milwaukee and caught the Badger Bus the rest of the way.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Presley, I wish I could find within this document a succinct "executive summary" regarding what the proposal (and alternatives - ever seen a government sanction report without such?) calls for.
While reference to Watertown suggest a routing over the MILW will be used (there was "The Cannonball" Milw-Watertown service that became "spent bullet" to July 31, 1972, i.e. past A-Day, as it was "commuter") it could be C&NW if Watertown is ignored. I'm not sure whose tracks are in the best of shape of which road (CP or UP) is most receptive to having there ROW "hi-jacked' for a passenger train.
posted
Note to Mr. Norman: The CNW direct line between Milwaukee and Madison, over which the "Capitol 400" was routed back during the 1940s and 1950s, was abandoned between 1981 and 1984. The options between Milwaukee and Madison are the route via Watertown, and the ex- Milwaukee and Mississippi, ex-MILW, route via Fort Atkinson, McFarland, Whitewater. This latter route is now operated by the WSOR. According to what I have been able to find, the WI DOT is leaning toward the Watertown routing.
That would mean the CP. Between Watertown and Chicago, the trains would follow the existing passenger train route. The route between Watertown and Madison is now owned by the State of WI, and freight is operated by the WSOR. The line has to be upgraded to allow speeds in excess of 10 mph.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by CG96: The route between Watertown and Madison is now owned by the State of WI, and freight is operated by the WSOR. The line has to be upgraded to allow speeds in excess of 10 mph.
That pretty well "seals the deal".
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
I would presume the Watertown routing as well given that the state owns the ROW and that this routing represents the fewest miles of track requiring a total rebuild.
That this routing makes possible trips from Madison to Milwaukee and the new Milwaukee airport station is merely 'bonus'.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
While this has been addressed here in the past Mr. CG, what is the reasoning for having the HSR end at Truax rather than Downtown?
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
1. Much better parking, in larger quantity. Downtown Madison is situated on an Isthmus between the two largest lakes in this region of Wisconsin. Placing it downtown would result in certain folks clamoring for a multilevel parking lot, and threatening not to use it because "it's too far to walk," or "there's no parking ( meaning no parking options right next to the door)". This is a locale where people will think nothing about driving across town to get a "good deal" on some gismo or thingamajig or other, but refuse to go downtown because they perceive there to be a lack of "adequate" downtown parking available.
1a. There is also a desire for this to be a regional station, and not just a city station. Madison sits in Dane County, and has an MSA population of over 500,000. Situating it at the airport might make it more convenient for people throughout the Four Lakes area.
2. Less need for a reverse, or "back up" movement across several dozen city streets, for every arrival and departure.
3. Direct connection with the Madison - Portage, ex MILW, neé M&P line to the west.
Those are three reasons of the top of my head.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Why not a regional station with lots of parking on the outskirts (ie - near the mall, near the airport, near I-94 etc....) AND also something downtown near the capitol and, more importantly, the U?
If student traffic has made Normal, IL the 4th busiest Amtrak station in the midwest, imagine what the larger University of Wisconsin could do. Madison, thanks in part to the U., is already one of the greenest-minded cities I have ever spent more than just a couple of days in.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: [qb] Why not a regional station with lots of parking on the outskirts (ie - near the mall, near the airport, near I-94 etc....) AND also something downtown near the capitol and, more importantly, the U?
If student traffic has made Normal, IL the 4th busiest Amtrak station in the midwest, imagine what the larger University of Wisconsin could do. Madison, thanks in part to the U., is already one of the greenest-minded cities I have ever spent more than just a couple of days in.
Well there are some logistical reasons why one would want to limit the number of stations to a single one in Madison.
1. we would have a situation where as much as 14 trains perday would arrive and depart from the airport station, with only four trains per day doing the same from downtown. You would have a $ 7 to $ 10 million station downtown receiving less than a quarter of the arrivals and departures, while a less expensive station at the airport seeing over three quarters of the traffic.
2. The inevitable confusion and inconvenience when travelers arrive at the wrong station.
3. Having two stations with the same degree of parking, ticketing, platforms, waiting areas, and baggage handling, and car rental facilities may not stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.
4. Amtrak, based upon previous experience, has worked to avoid having two stations in any municipalities where that was the instance, for the reasons listed above. Examples include New York City, Galesburg, IL.
It is simply less complicated to have all of the station activities at one location. While Madison would certainly provide trains with a considerable amount of business, certain parts of the service must be convenient, simple to understand, and as uncomplicated as reasonably possible. It must also be inexpensive to implement. Having two stations would nullify some of those characteristics. Having typed that, this forum member wishes to indicate that it would still be possible to locate the madison station at the point along the tracks nearest the downtown. Now that we actually have money and funding, it is time to make a final decision on several of these proposals that have been studied and discussed (and discussed, and discussed, and argued over, and argued over, and studied ad infinitum) since 1971.
The above is a link from the local chapter of WisARP.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Another reason: the County is attempting to have a facility that is "multi-modal," in that the trains and air service will be all at one address.
The station placement issues can be challenging. Madison also had its bus station close. The Thruway buses that now serve as Amtrak connections stop outside the Memorial Union instead, and Greyhound moved their facility to south of the Beltline.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
I'll have to look at my maps of Madison and the rail lines, but at a first read, I would guess the best place for a rail station in Madison would be near the UW campus.
Anyone know if the Madison-Milwaukee plans include an extension to Chicago in the future (an extension of the Hiawatha Service maybe)?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
As in via the J-Line (Janesville, Fox Lake, Rondout; route of The Varsity and Lake Country Ltd)?, doesn't look like it.
However, somewhere in that WIDOT material I linked, as I recall that CHI-Milw-Madison (Truax AFB) would be a routing with through trains.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Also, any rail service providers will not doubt be opposed to having such a long "reverse" movement, going from east of Madison all the way through downtown to the campus. In other words, to get close to the campus, using railroad from Milwaukee, would involve a long wye-ing of the trains. The Campus is on the near west side of town, past the Capitol bldg. Many Mad Town denizens, over the past several years, have voiced their displeasure at the WSOR trains sounding their horns at crossings throughout town. If you read the comments and correspondence to the Editor at Madison.com, there are numerous opponents to the idea of Madison receiving any passenger service at all. Making the trains utilize the former MILW station that is adjacent to the hockey arena will just give them one more reason to oppose the expansion in rail service.
Yes, this is an extension of the Hiawatha service that will go through to Chicago, once it is operating. The goal is to begin operation the first business day of January, 2013. I can only hope that this will come to pass, but I'm feeling a bit lonely in my support here in the Badger State.
The critics are shouting, "boondoggle!" at full volume, as well as demonstrating how misinformed they are regarding transportation funding overall.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
CG - Does Badger Coach still have a station in Madison or are they also doing the curbside thing?
Some additional thoughts and observations regarding station facilities in the Madison area:
1) In suggesting two stations I was thinking more of a DC Union - New Carrollton on the outskirts or downtown Baltimore - BWI by the airport model. I would not be a proponent of fully duplicating size and services. In this case a station near the University would be the smaller of the two and might even be possible in an existing building near the tracks.
2) Having done the google earth thing and looked at my maps a bit, I recognize that an airport area station is a logical choice should this passenger corridor ever extend beyond Madison to the Twin Cities.
3) A back-up move, such as would be required from a downtown station if the train is running through rather than terminating in Madison, would not be a good thing.
4) Finally, has any reader here (other than CG96) ever used the Madison Airport? This is a very small airport and not one that is likely to generate much air to rail traffic. In fact, passenger train service with a threshold frequency of 4 per day from Madison to Chicago via Milwaukee is likely to reduce passenger traffic at the Madison airport. I can see many, many people catching the train from Madison to the Milwaukee airport where they would have a significantly larger choice of non-stop flight destinations on larger aircraft at cheaper fares.....same reason I'll drive 3 hours to the Charlotte airport rather than fly from the much nearer Asheville, NC or Tri-Cities, TN airports.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: 4) Finally, has any reader here (other than CG96) ever used the Madison Airport?
Yup, April 1967
NWA 727-100 KMSN-KORD - and rather full as I recall. First Class no less; military personnel in uniform were often upgraded.
I had been known to refer to my Class A uniform as my flying suit.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Badger Coach and Van Galder Bus Lines have done away with their stop in the old ICRR bldg downtown. Both of them now serve madison by stopping curbside at the UW Memorial Union.
P. S. If you thought MSN was a small airport, try Hibbing, MN, or Saint Cloud, MN, for size. Everywhere else will look like ORD by comparison. lol.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
GBN - somehow I imagined that you would have used the Madison Airport!
Smallest US airports I have seen with commercial service would have to be either Burlington, IA or Alamosa, CO. London/Corbin, KY also small but by the time I landed there aboard a C-130 there were no commercial flights remaining.
The most comfortable leather chair ever was one I slept in overnight at the tiny airport in Rafha, Saudi Arabia. At the time we landed (during Desert Storm) I had been awake and somewhat cold on the tarmac in Dhahran for better than 36 hours. Being told "Find a spot for the night, the trucks won't be here to pick you up till morning" was an incredibly welcome announcement.
But I digress......
Back to topic - I would imagine that those who operate the Madison Airport would be opposed to any fast train prepared to whisk their passengers off to General Mitchell instead.
I can't recall anytime since I have been following passenger rail affairs (and I think it is safe to say that was before many here were born) that there ever been so much media interest (and favorable at that) as at present.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
Gil -- re: your post several posts up -- no I was not thinking of the "J-line" to get to Madison; what I meant was, CHI-MKE-MSN, using the existing Hiawatha corridor from CHI to MKE.
posted