Right now Milwaukee Union Station is underused. Milwaukee want's some form of commuter railroad and there are homes scattered along Lake michigan...right around the old CNW passenger line! it's be hard to get a second track to go all the way but the line could run on a weekday schedule similar to the North Central Service (http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/metra_system_map/ncs/schedule.full.html) people hate to drive in gridlock on 94 and over time, the company could expand onto the CP line west out to Waukesha and Oconomowok and north to Sheboygan, relieving the stress of going to work in stop and go.
Given your state's current political climate, you'd have to organize a local/regional transportation authority, like Chicagoland's RTA, which is the taxing body over Metra.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Here you go:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/99767164.html
Current Wisconsin Rail Map:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/railmap.pdf
Let's hope it can proceed.
It sounds like KRM is pointing in the wrong direction to drum up support, they are proposing an operation similar to Shore Line East between New Haven and New London CT. They might have better luck if it proposed as a suburban operation oriented to Milwaukee.
Another thought, more than a few years ago there was a proposal to reinstate the Milwaukee-Watertown operation but on a slightly more frequent schedule. David P Morgan took up this proposal in "News and Editorial Comment" and suggested that this proposal was unrealistic and that while commuter rail sounds nice, it's not the solution for every situation and that an express bus schedule might have been more realistic in this case.
Typically, Metra under Pagano didn't offer much hope for new services until the State told them to do it. Your governor and WisDOT, must got to the State of Illinois to work out something to direct Metra to participate.
Metra is authorized under State legislation. While it's true that it is not permitted to operate in another state with the exception of Kenosha, that could be amended with a bi-state agreement for authority and cost sharing. Metra accepts the South Shore, so I'm sure a similar arrangement with Wisconsin wouldn't be too difficult for just two lawyers to work out.
As for passenger volumes, Wisconsin riders would build as Illinois riders detrain. I doubt that the numbers of through riders would be significant from north of Kenosha to Chicago, particularly with the faster Hiawatha service throughout the day between Chicago and Milwaukee and could provide more frequent peak service that I've posted before.
Just as the Milwaukee District North and Union Pacific North share a substantial ridership in overlapping catchment areas, so might expanded Amtrak service with new stops in Gurnee, Lake Forest (West), and Lake-Cook, the last replacing Glenview. This could be relatively cheap to implement and augmented at a later date by the lakefront KRM line.
A separate KRM line would offer an opportunity to use the freight track from the wye at the Kenosha station to a new West Kenosha station on the Hiawatha line. The west station location is problematic and needs study.
HarveyK400 Typically, Metra under Pagano didn't offer much hope for new services until the State told them to do it. Your governor and WisDOT, must got to the State of Illinois to work out something to direct Metra to participate. Metra is authorized under State legislation. While it's true that it is not permitted to operate in another state with the exception of Kenosha, that could be amended with a bi-state agreement for authority and cost sharing. Metra accepts the South Shore, so I'm sure a similar arrangement with Wisconsin wouldn't be too difficult for just two lawyers to work out. As for passenger volumes, Wisconsin riders would build as Illinois riders detrain. I doubt that the numbers of through riders would be significant from north of Kenosha to Chicago, particularly with the faster Hiawatha service throughout the day between Chicago and Milwaukee and could provide more frequent peak service that I've posted before. Just as the Milwaukee District North and Union Pacific North share a substantial ridership in overlapping catchment areas, so might expanded Amtrak service with new stops in Gurnee, Lake Forest (West), and Lake-Cook, the last replacing Glenview. This could be relatively cheap to implement and augmented at a later date by the lakefront KRM line. A separate KRM line would offer an opportunity to use the freight track from the wye at the Kenosha station to a new West Kenosha station on the Hiawatha line. The west station location is problematic and needs study.
Insist to whom?
My suggestion: The cities and towns of Kenosha, Recine, Milwaukee, Oconomowoc,. Waterntown, and Madison all get together and form a transit district. And then implement a diesel light rail line modeled on the New Jersey Transit Trenton - Camdon River Line, which just had its maximum speeds raised from 55 tp 60 mph, uses time sharing between freight railroad operations and the diesel light rail operations. The operation of such equpment is more economical than regular commuter or intercity trains, and more frequent service can be provided more econojmically. The infrastructure costs are about the same as normal-speed passenger rail. The lower speed as compared with high speed (althouhg upgrading the NJT Swiss Stadler equipment to 70 mph is easy) would be more than compensated by more frequent service. Close connections would be made both with Amtrak at Milwaukee and with Metra at Kenosha. The Stadler equpment would be modified for reclining seats and restrooms.
I don't think that the agreement between Metra and NICTD would be a suitable model. Metra currently picks up 20% of South Shore's operating subsidy based on the number of passenger trips wholly within Illinois (Hegewisch and west). Metra also owns seven or eight of South Shore's MU cars for the same reason. Metra tickets are NOT honored on South Shore, even within Illinois.
The trackage rights agreement on IC between Kensington and Randolph street predates the RTA and goes back to 1926, when the IC suburban service was electrified and South Shore re-electrified. It precludes local haulage by South Shore north of Kensington.
I didn't mean to suggest that KRM would have the same contract as NICTD; but that if the one could be worked out, so could the other.
While a Camden River Line operation might work over the UP with operating restrictions having little impact on limited freight service, the CP and Amtrak present a different situation where wholly new and separate tracks would be needed from Washington Street, Milwaukee to Watertown. This probably entails new bridges over the Menomonie River since the existing swing bridge allows no room for a parallel movable span in these tight quarters. Furthermore, there may be no space for additional tracks.
At the very least, new equipment would need to be FRA-compliant.
While frequent service may be desirable, this is something that needs to be studied with respect to potential higher train ridership with less frequent, 1/2-hour or greater, service that might favor train operation. The wild card is electrification. (See the new thread I started last night.)
I was envisioning hourly service, more frequent during the rush. Some early morning school trips for UofW students would start in Milwaukee for Madison, and a late evening opera-sports-concert-theater trip would run Kenosha-Milwaukee connecting with the last METRA from Chicago. The point is right now if I were living in Racine, say, and wanted an education, decent work, and some fun in life, my life would be centered on commuting to Chicago, where I could find part-time employment, classes at UofC or Northwestern in Evanston, and all the evening attractions one would want. I'd use by auto to and from the Kenosha station parking lot. But with the Kenosha-Milwaukee-Madison light rail, I would have possibilities both in Chicago and in Wisconsin. After breakfast, I could go from Racine to Milwaukee by light rail, work half a day, use light rail to attend two or three classes in Madison, return to Milwaukee to connect with Amtrak to Chicago (won't do this daily, possibly twice a month) eat on the train (if there is no decent Amtrak food service I'd have my brown bag), attend a basketball game, concert, theatre, or opera, and then catch the last Metra back to Kenosha and the light rail to my auto at the Racine light rail station . The qualitiy of life in southern Wisconsin would be greatly improved. I could not do this scenereo by car, because the driving would be far too tiring to enjoy the evening show, and the time spent driving would not be useful for doing homework for the classes, etc.
The planning, choice of routes, etc. for high-speed Milwaukee - Madison should be applicable to a large extent with light rail. I think the type of vehicle does deserve some study. Possibly more flexibility with FRA-compliant equipment would be worth the additional first cost, weight, and fuel costs . Maybe rebuilt RDC's as proving successful in Canada are the answer. Maybe the Colorado Railcar design. Costs should be run for all these. (Maybe string modern single-wire constant- tension trolley wire and run replica Indiana high speeds!!) But I do think advocates of the Milwaukee - Madison link put too much emphasis on high speed, links to Chicago, and future links to the Twin Cities, and not enough on what it would do for Wisconsin. Adding the Kenosha link makes it a factor in unifying Wisconsin. And New York City has a reasonbly decent connection with Albany, San Francisco with Sacramento, Philadelphia with Harrisburgh, and Chicago will have one with Springfield. Milwaukee should have one with Madison.
A friend lived on Beacon Hill, Boston. He regularly commuted to his job in Cambridge by boarding the T Red Line at Charles St. Station, in the afternoon would use the Red Line to South Station, and then Amtrak to classes in Providence (he taught at the Rhode Island School of Design) and returned to Boston on Amtrak and back home on the Red Line. This kind of life cannot be lived in Southern Wisconsin now, and there are people who would live there if it were available.
Further thoughts: Wisconsin Commuter Rail is a better tag than Wisconsin Light Rail. With a Kenosha - Milwaukee - Madison goal, the money spent may not need to be returned to Washington, since Commuter Rail can be sold to the Administration as a step to HSR. (Remember how the intercity PRR electrification started!)
I think rebuilt Budd cars are the best and most economical way to go. And I know how such cars can easily be configured for one-man operation, with on-board fair collection like a bus, and with handicapped access, and emergency rear exit. Hints: all platforms for left-hand loading retaining current engineer-operator's position over the right steps, and check the doors and stairs-elevators on the Breda MUNI-Metro cars in San Francisco. One-man operation would be restricted only to single-car operation.
Three distinct major commuter markets would be served by one line, in additon to connections with Amtrak, and all markets have employment and educational magnets.
If Wisconsin passenger train advocates read this, the act fast and present the program to the U of Wisconsin people, possibly starting with student affairs. If the University presents the idea to the Governor, then he can see it as a way of not having to refund money to the feds.
Hasn't there been a effort to establish Kenosha-Milwaukee commuter service for some time? I remember reading about public hearings, etc. The whole thing stalled on the big question _ money. With the transit-hating Scott Walker as governor, all thinking and planning on this will be for naught for the next four years.
I don't think Walker has demonstrated that he is transit-hating. I think he did use demogagary to get elected. However, I think the whole train to Madison idea was not sold to him or the people of Wisconsin as thoroughly as it might. It was sold as a step toward real high speed rail, which is sort of pie in the sky, and a quick way to get to Chicago and ultimately to the Twin Cities. Its great benefits to life in Southern Wisconsin were simply never mentioned.
Walker was specific in turning down High Speed Rail . Commuter rail may be another story and may well be worth trying. However, if there is no interest in puruing the matter here, with someone in Wisconsin actually picking up the ball, I certainly should let the matter drop . I don't have the right mailing address to bother either the Goevernor or the University at this moment.
daveklepper Further thoughts: Wisconsin Commuter Rail is a better tag than Wisconsin Light Rail. With a Kenosha - Milwaukee - Madison goal, the money spent may not need to be returned to Washington, since Commuter Rail can be sold to the Administration as a step to HSR. (Remember how the intercity PRR electrification started!) I think rebuilt Budd cars are the best and most economical way to go. And I know how such cars can easily be configured for one-man operation, with on-board fair collection like a bus, and with handicapped access, and emergency rear exit. Hints: all platforms for left-hand loading retaining current engineer-operator's position over the right steps, and check the doors and stairs-elevators on the Breda MUNI-Metro cars in San Francisco. One-man operation would be restricted only to single-car operation. Three distinct major commuter markets would be served by one line, in additon to connections with Amtrak, and all markets have employment and educational magnets. If Wisconsin passenger train advocates read this, the act fast and present the program to the U of Wisconsin people, possibly starting with student affairs. If the University presents the idea to the Governor, then he can see it as a way of not having to refund money to the feds.
Frankly, if there is no expectation to fill a decent-size train at least in one direction, I'd guess ~350 riders, then the rationale for suburban rail seems pretty weak. If someone has a better feel for the break-point, jump in.
This isn't a case of operating a required branchline service for a handful of riders at the least cost with an RDC or other self-propelled railcar. How many MARC or MBATA trains ran with a single RDC?
Service more frequent than half-hourly on tracks shared with CP will leave an insufficient slot for freight trains cruising along at as much as 50 mph as suburban trains sprint between stops.
If midday and evening ridership will be low, buses should be run so people's concern for being stuck. doesn't discourage use.
Another issue with RDC's would be commonality. The Talgos would face the same problem on the Hiawathas.
daveklepper I don't think Walker has demonstrated that he is transit-hating. I think he did use demogagary to get elected. However, I think the whole train to Madison idea was not sold to him or the people of Wisconsin as thoroughly as it might. It was sold as a step toward real high speed rail, which is sort of pie in the sky, and a quick way to get to Chicago and ultimately to the Twin Cities. Its great benefits to life in Southern Wisconsin were simply never mentioned. Walker was specific in turning down High Speed Rail . Commuter rail may be another story and may well be worth trying. However, if there is no interest in puruing the matter here, with someone in Wisconsin actually picking up the ball, I certainly should let the matter drop . I don't have the right mailing address to bother either the Goevernor or the University at this moment.
Very true. The need and support just wasn't apparent. A friend sent me an article from a Sierra Club newsletter, where it bragged about approximately 1000 people turning out at Save the Train rallies on Nov. 20 in seven cities (most of which are university towns). Wow!! 1000 people!! Talk about underwhelming. No wonder a demagogue like Walker could cancel the project with little fear of strong opposition.
schlimm daveklepper: .... The need and support just wasn't apparent. A friend sent me an article from a Sierra Club newsletter, where it bragged about approximately 1000 people turning out at Save the Train rallies on Nov. 20 in seven cities (most of which are university towns). Wow!! 1000 people!! Talk about underwhelming. No wonder a demagogue like Walker could cancel the project with little fear of strong opposition.
daveklepper:
.... The need and support just wasn't apparent. A friend sent me an article from a Sierra Club newsletter, where it bragged about approximately 1000 people turning out at Save the Train rallies on Nov. 20 in seven cities (most of which are university towns). Wow!! 1000 people!! Talk about underwhelming. No wonder a demagogue like Walker could cancel the project with little fear of strong opposition.
Rather Slippery demographics were used, comparing rail to all trips in Southeast Wisconsin. When you look at all travel in the I-94 Corridor, especially in peak periods, rail travel achieves a degree of significance when you consider the billion it could take for road widening.
Again, hourly, not half-hourly, service during weekday off hours with single cars, hopefully one-man, and then trains with two or more crew members as required during rush hour. Commuter rail yes, but with the economical operation of diesel light rail. A transit district of the all the cities and towns between Kenosha and Madison including them. The approach for the Governor should be on the bsis of mostly local funding, the possibility of not having to return money already spent to the Federal Government, and low operating and subsidy costs compared with the first proposal, plus wider usefulness.
Would the students at UofW have used the HSR to go to Chicago? Not likely, given Amtrak fares. With this proposal people in a hurry, or want comfort, or wish to eat on the way, or all three can connect with Amtrak in Milwaukee while students looking for a bargain can connect with METRA at Kenosha. Any, without anyone volunteering to carry the idea further than just dreaming up negative comments here, I think I should pass on my suggestion to PTJ and see if they find it interesting.
It will just improve the quality of life in Southern Wisconsin . One thing the Governor has not considered is the loss of productive time when people are just spending their time driving. Tim on a train can be productive, reading, doing homework, polishing up a business report.
daveklepper Again, hourly, not half-hourly, service during weekday off hours with single cars, hopefully one-man, and then trains with two or more crew members as required during rush hour. Commuter rail yes, but with the economical operation of diesel light rail. A transit district of the all the cities and towns between Kenosha and Madison including them. The approach for the Governor should be on the bsis of mostly local funding, the possibility of not having to return money already spent to the Federal Government, and low operating and subsidy costs compared with the first proposal, plus wider usefulness. Would the students at UofW have used the HSR to go to Chicago? Not likely, given Amtrak fares. With this proposal people in a hurry, or want comfort, or wish to eat on the way, or all three can connect with Amtrak in Milwaukee while students looking for a bargain can connect with METRA at Kenosha. Any, without anyone volunteering to carry the idea further than just dreaming up negative comments here, I think I should pass on my suggestion to PTJ and see if they find it interesting. It will just improve the quality of life in Southern Wisconsin . One thing the Governor has not considered is the loss of productive time when people are just spending their time driving. Tim on a train can be productive, reading, doing homework, polishing up a business report.
I see the Chicago-Madison service to be more suburban in nature and not necessarily high speed. Also, why run two trains - one express and one local - when you can run one that takes a few minutes longer that is still competitive with driving? Furthermore, those two trains impact freight service more, perhaps to the point of needing to increase line capacity.
Talgos may not be the most appropriate equipment, but there are advantages - low boarding and faster through curves even if making stops 10-15 miles apart.
The problem out of Chicago is capacity in the peak periods. I expressed my opinion before that combined Metra-Amtrak trains running more frequently, while slower, are effectively faster by reducing the average waiting time by 15 minutes. This also avoids some major capital costs for a third track.
Again, additional stops are needed on the Hiawatha for Kenosha and Lake County in Illinois.
HarveyK400 The problem out of Chicago is capacity in the peak periods. I expressed my opinion before that combined Metra-Amtrak trains running more frequently, while slower, are effectively faster by reducing the average waiting time by 15 minutes. This also avoids some major capital costs for a third track. Again, additional stops are needed on the Hiawatha for Kenosha and Lake County in Illinois.
Harvey: What about the need for much longer platforms. To prevent double and triple stops (a real time keeping killer) there is a large capital cost for building those platforms. Some stations might need to purchase more real estate to do such platforms??
blue streak 1 Harvey: What about the need for much longer platforms. To prevent double and triple stops (a real time keeping killer) there is a large capital cost for building those platforms. Some stations might need to purchase more real estate to do such platforms?
Harvey: What about the need for much longer platforms. To prevent double and triple stops (a real time keeping killer) there is a large capital cost for building those platforms. Some stations might need to purchase more real estate to do such platforms?
Few stations would be involved; but an 11-car train, Metra and Amtrak push-pull galleries with a nominal division of 460 and 840 seats respectively, would be the limit and need 900-foot platforms. Length of platform usually isn't much of an issue since the right of way is quite wide for two main tracks. Lake-Cook is about 800' long, Lake Forest is about 600', Sturtevant is only 300', and Milwaukee Airport is 400' for the east track only. A 14-car Talgo would need at least 600'; and the 5 Amtrak galleries would need only about 400'. Gurnee and Kenosha would be new.
The extra stop at Kenosha would be offset by an earlier train picking up some of the later's northbound, and vice versa in the morning, with a third train for the respective time segments of the latent market that aren't served. As I may have mentioned earlier; this is a temporary expedient that might buy a few year's time before a third track is more necessary. If ridership grows significantly on most Metra lines, an even greater crunch will be felt at Union Station.
I calculated that it would take a mile in two minutes to attain 50 mph with a P42, and 4.9 miles in 5.5 minutes to reach 79 mph on the level.
I think one-man Budd cars would be ideal for off-peak hourly service, but obvioiusly conventional suburban equpment is better during rush hours, including the trip to Madison. But during rush hours the Budds would be combined mu, and not just be idle, possible with intelligent scheduling and scheduling of cleaning time. But through service from Kenosha to Madison would be of advantage to the UofWis. Eventually it could be merged into a METRA operation, but would be better started as a local matter, especially to get a turn-around from the Goevernor.
The precidents for Metra running through to Madison are:
SEPTA took over the PRR commuter service across state line to Wilimington, DE, but now has extended it to Newark, DE, and carries regular Newark - Wilmington commuters.
Boston's MBTA extended the Canton commuter trains to Providence and now has extended it to Kingston and carries Kingston, RI - Providence RI commuters.
From what I've heard and read over the years, Metra is only obliged, and limited by restricted funding, to serve in their 6-1/2 county Northeast Illinois jurisdiction; but they would be open to extending service outside that area if some entity pays for it. De Kalb hasn't gotten the money yet for extending UPW service; and a similar condition would need to be met in Wisconsin.
@ Harvey: Exactly. The Metra mission, as part of the RTA's original statutes, is to serve the collar counties in Illinois which contribute taxes to support the services. The only reason the UP North line goes to Kenosha is because it was cheaper to continue to use the CNW facilities there (end of line for Milwaukee Division suburban trains) than to build new ones inside the Illinois border.
daveklepper My suggestion: The cities and towns of Kenosha, Recine, Milwaukee, Oconomowoc,. Waterntown, and Madison all get together and form a transit district. And then implement a diesel light rail line modeled on the New Jersey Transit Trenton - Camdon River Line, which just had its maximum speeds raised from 55 tp 60 mph, uses time sharing between freight railroad operations and the diesel light rail operations. The operation of such equpment is more economical than regular commuter or intercity trains, and more frequent service can be provided more econojmically. The infrastructure costs are about the same as normal-speed passenger rail. The lower speed as compared with high speed (althouhg upgrading the NJT Swiss Stadler equipment to 70 mph is easy) would be more than compensated by more frequent service. Close connections would be made both with Amtrak at Milwaukee and with Metra at Kenosha. The Stadler equpment would be modified for reclining seats and restrooms.
In my humble opinion (such as it is ), it makes no sense to run "commuter" service in southern Wisconsin using equipment that is incompatible with Metra equipment, By doing so, you make it impractical to use that equipment for any services to Chicago. Further, you need to build dedictated maintenenace facilities for a relatively small fleet of "Wisconsin" equipment. If you use Metra compatible equipment, you can contract with Metra for maintenance beyond tay to day requirements. Any supposed "economies" of using non-Metra type equipment (like DMU's) are likely to be offset by greater maintenance costs and the loss of marketing opportunities.
My answer to you is that Budd RDC can still meet FRA requirements and run into Chicago if they need to. METRA equipment is designed for mass movement of lots of people into a station with limited track space. A Kenosha - Milwaukee - Madison service does not have the problem of limited track space at any specific station, can make new rules like modern light rail systems do, without preserving operating practices that date from the steam railroading era. A one-man interurban car is still a lot safer than any bus. Use of Metra-like equipment for off-peak services would raise costs astronomically and reduce the operation to a commuter-hour service. With Metra-like equipment, off-peak operation would have higher operating costs than bus. With one-man one-car operation costs on a passenger-mile basis with regard to operation (not repayment of construction costs) would be substantially less.
Note that New Jersey Transit did not use equpment compatible with either the light rail lines in Hudson County and in Newark (which are almost identicle), nor with its general vast diesel commuter train services operating out of Hoboken and between Philadelphia and Atlantic City ---for its River Line.
Also the hope is that if Wisconsin Commuter Rail gets a start Kenosha - Milwaukee - Madison, it can be expanded north to eventually possibly reach Green Bay.
If a cost study proves me wrong and Metra-like gallery cars and diesel locomotives are best, I'd gladly change my mind.
daveklepper My answer to you is that Budd RDC can still meet FRA requirements and run into Chicago if they need to. METRA equipment is designed for mass movement of lots of people into a station with limited track space. A Kenosha - Milwaukee - Madison service does not have the problem of limited track space at any specific station, can make new rules like modern light rail systems do, without preserving operating practices that date from the steam railroading era. A one-man interurban car is still a lot safer than any bus. Use of Metra-like equipment for off-peak services would raise costs astronomically and reduce the operation to a commuter-hour service. With Metra-like equipment, off-peak operation would have higher operating costs than bus. With one-man one-car operation costs on a passenger-mile basis with regard to operation (not repayment of construction costs) would be substantially less. Note that New Jersey Transit did not use equpment compatible with either the light rail lines in Hudson County and in Newark (which are almost identicle), nor with its general vast diesel commuter train services operating out of Hoboken and between Philadelphia and Atlantic City ---for its River Line. Also the hope is that if Wisconsin Commuter Rail gets a start Kenosha - Milwaukee - Madison, it can be expanded north to eventually possibly reach Green Bay. If a cost study proves me wrong and Metra-like gallery cars and diesel locomotives are best, I'd gladly change my mind.
Hourly off-peak commuter service would be all that may be acceptable to CP between Milwaukee and either Watertown or Columbus; so why tout better frequencies with lower cost RDC's or whatever? Now if the Hiawatha service made a few more suburban stops using the CP; maybe KRM RDC's running frequently on the UP would make better sense. Recently it's been pointed out that there is little freight and no Amtrak traffic on the UP North to impede increasing frequencies in the off-peak. in this scenario, contracted Metra service with locomotive-hauled trains would allow better continuity of service along the lake shore.
If you go back to an older thread, I showed that a Green Bay route would add a substantial proportion of Wisconsin's population within reach of intercity ('interurban") rail passenger service. This also has a political implication when combined with the Kenosha-Madison population.
Perhaps the Wisconsin counties in which Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha rest should try to form a special taxation district and then contract with Metra to run initially some trains daily through to Milwaukee on the UP North line (or alternatively, the CP line), and gradually expand service frequency if the ridership grows. It wouldn't be that expensive to implement. The Milw -Madison idea should be considered separately as the capital needs for RoW are much greater to get to Madison.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.