Right on!
Better than nothing, or the airport; but without a first-hand familiarity, I'd say the 1 W Wilson could utilize the weather protection offered by the terrace overhead.
101 E Wilson just announced as the site for the Madison station.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_d12dc626-8521-11df-964e-001cc4c002e0.html
This is the Department of Administration Building. The vision is to use the ground floor (Wilson Street) as the entrance to the station. Upper floors still get used as an office building. The building sits on a bluff overlooking the tracks and lake Monona, so the platform would be accessed from above.
The building does not have a whole lot of street frontage on E. Wilson. It will be interesting to see how they design dropoff and taxi areas.
My guess is that what tipped the decision toward E. Wilson, as opposed to the State Office Building on W. Wilson, is that parking will be across the street. A parking ramp already there is going to be replaced with an expanded underground facility. Details yet to be worked out.
Rolf Wulfsberg
oltmannd The best compromise I've heard is Harvey's, where the Madison turns would terminate in a city station and the (eventual) through trains would skip it. Sort of like how Amtrak's Keystones used to terminate in Suburban Station after making 30th St.
The best compromise I've heard is Harvey's, where the Madison turns would terminate in a city station and the (eventual) through trains would skip it. Sort of like how Amtrak's Keystones used to terminate in Suburban Station after making 30th St.
That was what I was getting at earlier. Maybe MSP trains would stop at the airprt or another point "suburban station" and the Madison terminators which will happen much sooner will terminate downtown and also at the "suburban" station.
Thanks for the info, Rwulfsberg.
I was kidding about Beaver Dam residents because they have to drive past Columbus to get to Madison, and highlights (like your Am-shack) the mediocrity of it all.
jclass(Just the points I want to respond to)http://www.prorail.com/airport.html And the residents of Beaver Dam won't have to travel all the way to Dane County Regional to catch the train. They don't have the 400 at S. Beaver Dam anymore, y'know. Why was the Canadian Pacific required to relocate its HSR-to-be line from ADJACENT TO the airport terminal for the AIRPORT parking structure et.al. improvement project a couplle years ago?
http://www.prorail.com/airport.html
And the residents of Beaver Dam won't have to travel all the way to Dane County Regional to catch the train. They don't have the 400 at S. Beaver Dam anymore, y'know.
Why was the Canadian Pacific required to relocate its HSR-to-be line from ADJACENT TO the airport terminal for the AIRPORT parking structure et.al. improvement project a couplle years ago?
Thanks for calling attention to Prorail's talking points on the airport location, which have recently been updated. Their argument for the airport location sets up a straw man of a downtown/campus location, which ain't gonna happen, regardless of posts on this thread. There's no addressing the two near-east sites, Yahara and Union Corners, that are presently being discussed. There's no addressing recent developments in intercity bus service. The pretty pictures imply an integrated air-rail terminal--a far cry from an Am-shack in the far corner of the overflow lot that I predict.
The logical place for Beaver Dam residents to pick up a Chicago-Madison train is Watertown. That city is looking into the site of a recently vacated supermarket.
The CP Madson-Portage line relocation had nothing to do with the airport terminal or parking structures. In that area, the line is still where it has been--to the west of the parking structure and on the other side of a creek. The relocation was north of the airport, at the request of the FAA, to provide increased clearance north of the main runway.
desertdogWith all the money that is going to be spent on this project, why take an "almost there" approach when it comes to the final destination in Madison? The airport is on the edge of the city for the obvious reason that it needs to be. The train depot needs to be where the maximum number of people can and will use it, i.e. near the University and the State Capitol. I would hazard a guess that the C&NW and Milwaukee Road took this into account a century ago or so when they located their depots where they did. It is just plain common sense. As to the number of grade crossings that need to be protected and concerns for train speed within the city, places like Chicago and its suburbs have dealt with this for decades and done so largely with success. John Timm
With all the money that is going to be spent on this project, why take an "almost there" approach when it comes to the final destination in Madison? The airport is on the edge of the city for the obvious reason that it needs to be. The train depot needs to be where the maximum number of people can and will use it, i.e. near the University and the State Capitol. I would hazard a guess that the C&NW and Milwaukee Road took this into account a century ago or so when they located their depots where they did. It is just plain common sense.
As to the number of grade crossings that need to be protected and concerns for train speed within the city, places like Chicago and its suburbs have dealt with this for decades and done so largely with success.
John Timm
I agree. I was born and raised in Wisconsin. If we are spending $800 million on a project. When I say "we" I mean Federal Taxpayer portion. Do the project right and put a downtown station in. You have downtown stations in almost every major city on this Chicago-Madison line. It would really be stupid to have what amounts to only a suburban station for Madison (second largest city in Wisconsin after Milwaukee). Dynamite buildings in Madison if you need to make room, clear the path for the ROW. Lets not have half measures with this project. I'm willing to pay more taxes for a project done right then one done half right to save a little money here and there. Also, lets not have the Madison station be a Mobile Home trailer next to a parking lot either. Build a train station worthy of a city that size. Hopefully the bureaucrats get this project right. I already have my doubts with selecting TALGO but I am still hopeful they can get the rest right.
oltmanndHow about the Amtrak California approach? Just have buses meet the train at the airport station and shuttle passengers where they need to go. Amtrak does this for SF at Emeryville. Works very well. Walk off the train, thru the station, onto the bus and away you go.
The Captitols may work "well," but how many more might ride if the train went all the way to Market & Montgomery, AT&T Park, and 3rd & Townsend? How much more costly would be another pair of tubes across the Bay compared to fixing up existing tracks through Madison, even if a short stretch of abandoned row needs to be restored?
If HSR is routed through Columbus, it will shorten trip time between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities while serving the multicounty Madison area. Just increase the speed limit on 151 into Madison to 80mph. It's grade-separated.
Then again, the airport could be moved to Columbus.
http://nomadisonairport.org/
If you want to engage Madison politics, have at it. Will there be a front porch on the depot?
Kevin C. Smith If the airport location is inconvenient for Capitol/UW travelers and an Isthmus/UW station won't work for HSR through to the Twin Cities, how about a two stage solution? Even after trains are extended past Madison to point northwest, there will almost certainly be CHI-MIL-MAD only trains. Since that's all we will have to work with to start, how about a downtown station for the limited service that will be all we have to work with for now. Once the HSR route extends past Madison, develop the airport site for through trains and keep downtown for trains that originate/terminate in Madison. Within that general idea, some options for future detail work:A Yahara stop to serve NW Madison.Possibly extend the downtown extension across to the west wide of Madison/Middleton area to serve people living on that side of town or allowing easier access to/from the belt line. These would necessarily prevent any rapid transit times from any station west of Yahara to points east but the added convenience of acces might be more than enough to offset that. Once HSR gets developed through to MSP, the Yahara, downtown and (maybe) stations would serve CHI-MIL-MAD trains and possibly a shuttle connecting with the airport. The idea would be similar to the (larger scale) suburban stops Amtrak has in, say Glenview and Naperville, IL. The serve passengers that live/drive in that area and rovide connections to local (Metra) trains for those that find that convenience more important than the slower travel time.
If the airport location is inconvenient for Capitol/UW travelers and an Isthmus/UW station won't work for HSR through to the Twin Cities, how about a two stage solution? Even after trains are extended past Madison to point northwest, there will almost certainly be CHI-MIL-MAD only trains. Since that's all we will have to work with to start, how about a downtown station for the limited service that will be all we have to work with for now. Once the HSR route extends past Madison, develop the airport site for through trains and keep downtown for trains that originate/terminate in Madison. Within that general idea, some options for future detail work:
These would necessarily prevent any rapid transit times from any station west of Yahara to points east but the added convenience of acces might be more than enough to offset that. Once HSR gets developed through to MSP, the Yahara, downtown and (maybe) stations would serve CHI-MIL-MAD trains and possibly a shuttle connecting with the airport.
The idea would be similar to the (larger scale) suburban stops Amtrak has in, say Glenview and Naperville, IL. The serve passengers that live/drive in that area and rovide connections to local (Metra) trains for those that find that convenience more important than the slower travel time.
This is essentially the same as my suggestion. What's the difference if a number of Madison trips make local stops to a terminus at the west end of the campus? It's not like stations to the west of Madison would be affected by longer travel times. Conversely, passengers to government, university, and medical destinations could be dropped off or picked up within walking distances.
One Wisconsin person just couldn't wrap his head around the concept of multiple stations, insisting that the airport, 8 miles out and 8 miles back, would be convenient and competitive because it had parking and is promised a dedicated shuttle bus. Platforms seem to be coming in at around $800k, so this wouldn't represent a significant cost for an $800m project.
desertdog You appear not to be that familiar with Madison or else you would have understood my statement. We are not just talking about generic downtowns somewhere out of context. Look up where these depots were in relation to (1) the University and (2) downtown and the capitol and you will understand. John Timm
You appear not to be that familiar with Madison or else you would have understood my statement. We are not just talking about generic downtowns somewhere out of context. Look up where these depots were in relation to (1) the University and (2) downtown and the capitol and you will understand.
I have lived in Madison for nearly 30 years, and my esteemed Atlanta, Georgia-residing rail advocacy friend has it just about right. ProRail, the Madison-based advocacy group supports the Airport Station, pretty much along the same line of reasoning.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannddesertdogWith all the money that is going to be spent on this project, why take an "almost there" approach when it comes to the final destination in Madison? The airport is on the edge of the city for the obvious reason that it needs to be. The train depot needs to be where the maximum number of people can and will use it, i.e. near the University and the State Capitol. I would hazard a guess that the C&NW and Milwaukee Road took this into account a century ago or so when they located their depots where they did. It is just plain common sense. As to the number of grade crossings that need to be protected and concerns for train speed within the city, places like Chicago and its suburbs have dealt with this for decades and done so largely with success. John Timm You gotta read this whole thread. The "original RRs did it this way" theory - busted!. The "successful RR stations in the US are this way" theory - busted! The "Has to be downtown" theory - busted! When you add in all the complexity of how and where in Madison plus the "how do you extend to Minneapolis" problem, plus the notion that most in Madison -even the students - have cars and that most trips will have a Madison rather than Chicago origin, It makes most sense to put the station somewhere that's easy to drive to and has good parking. The best compromise I've heard is Harvey's, where the Madison turns would terminate in a city station and the (eventual) through trains would skip it. Sort of like how Amtrak's Keystones used to terminate in Suburban Station after making 30th St.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Again not knowing the physical layout of Madison but recognizing the lake
1. Maybe a station outside the city limits (airport or otherwise)
2. Then only a platform at the UW for students and for home football games. Its time to start the football specials again. Physical layout make that possible? When service MAD - MSP is initiated then these 2 stations could be used for that service as well as long as the design of the outside city limits station anticipates that future use.
Paul MilenkovicRwulfsberg Another writer mentioned that Badger Bus (Madison-Milwaukee) and Van Galder (O'Hare) use the curb at the UW Memorial Union. It's convenient for students on campus, but it is a congested area with little parking for drop-offs and pickups. The public parking ramp is two blocks away. The university is not terribly happy with the situation. As Badger Bus was getting rid of its terminal, it mentioned the possibility of using the curb at Union South, presently under reconstruction, and got a chilly response from UW. Who, representing "the university" thinks that the Memorial Union curb is a bad place as an intercity bus hub? What does that person want? Yes, Langdon in front of the Union is congested as all get-go. But it is right in the heart of the U and tremendously convenient to the students and to faculty and staff members who take that bus to O'Hare or Downtown Chicago on business for the University. If you can tell me who at the U thinks that way, I can organize a posse to have that person thrashed with a "clue bat." Besides, if one wants parking or more convenient drop-off, there is the Dutch Mill park-n-ride on the way out of town. What more do you want? A convenient although necessarily congested location (where they sell bus tickets at a Memorial Union counter, at that), and an "outlying" location with parking and pickup-standing spots.
Rwulfsberg Another writer mentioned that Badger Bus (Madison-Milwaukee) and Van Galder (O'Hare) use the curb at the UW Memorial Union. It's convenient for students on campus, but it is a congested area with little parking for drop-offs and pickups. The public parking ramp is two blocks away. The university is not terribly happy with the situation. As Badger Bus was getting rid of its terminal, it mentioned the possibility of using the curb at Union South, presently under reconstruction, and got a chilly response from UW.
Another writer mentioned that Badger Bus (Madison-Milwaukee) and Van Galder (O'Hare) use the curb at the UW Memorial Union. It's convenient for students on campus, but it is a congested area with little parking for drop-offs and pickups. The public parking ramp is two blocks away. The university is not terribly happy with the situation. As Badger Bus was getting rid of its terminal, it mentioned the possibility of using the curb at Union South, presently under reconstruction, and got a chilly response from UW.
Who, representing "the university" thinks that the Memorial Union curb is a bad place as an intercity bus hub? What does that person want?
Yes, Langdon in front of the Union is congested as all get-go. But it is right in the heart of the U and tremendously convenient to the students and to faculty and staff members who take that bus to O'Hare or Downtown Chicago on business for the University. If you can tell me who at the U thinks that way, I can organize a posse to have that person thrashed with a "clue bat." Besides, if one wants parking or more convenient drop-off, there is the Dutch Mill park-n-ride on the way out of town. What more do you want? A convenient although necessarily congested location (where they sell bus tickets at a Memorial Union counter, at that), and an "outlying" location with parking and pickup-standing spots.
In looking for the article, I see I have to back off from that posting. There's no mention of the UW's or the Union's attitude toward the present situation on Landon Street, but the Union's position on Badger Bus using Union South was articulated through a spokesperson:
http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=24955
A quote from a local alder I find credible: "The Memorial Union becomes a de facto bus depot, which nobody wants."
http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=26416
Dutch Mill Park and Ride works well as an outlying stop for Van Galder to Chicago, but Badger Bus to Milwaukee has no similar outlying location, just a couple of curb stops on East Washington. Megabus between Chicago and the Twin Cities makes a stop in either Madison (Dutch Mill) or Milwaukee (curbside across from the intermodal station), but never both. I can only guess that lack of a decent stop site near the intersection of I-90 and I-94 is a factor.
As long as I'm quoting Isthmus articles, this one from last summer covers both the rail station site and the intercity bus problem. I agree with the writer that the present local bus service to the airport is woefully inadequate. Airport buses shuttle to/from a transfer point. A ride downtown involves one transfer. To my home it's two transfers. The bus system starts up too early to serve the first flights out and shuts down too early to serve the last arrivals.
http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=26299
Given a large number of UW students are from or going to the Chicago area, I wonder if any thought has been given to reviving one of the old, non-Milwaukee routes?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If they do this thing, they would be smart if they stay outside the city limits of Madison.
Else, if they do this thing, they should just make the western endpoint a platform at HWY 51 /(Stoughton Rd./CommercialAve.), or if not there, then Lien/Thomson Rds. Think park and ride.
I think it would be a better use of the money to acquire locomotives that are well suited to the Talgos. Second, buy additional trainsets. Third, restore CP second track out of Milwaukee to Watertown, and extend Hiawatha service through western Milwaukee suburbs to Watertown.
(Many Madison people traveling to central Chicago now drive to Mitchell Field Amtrak station in Milwaukee, and take the Hiawatha's into Chicago and back. These people spend to save time and hassle).
I am conflicted in two directions by this thing. On one hand, everyone and his brother now has an expert opinion about the airport station, and after all is said and done, the advocacy community may yet make a hash of this thing we worked for over 20 years to get.
On the other hand, I looked out of my office window, and I saw a chartered motorcoach bus back up the McClain Practice Facility -- most likely a sports team has a bus ride to particpate in a game in Big Ten competition someplace. Every driveway is a usable "bus terminal", but a second pickup-dropoff of passengers for the Hiawatha (terminating in Madison -- the St Paul extension is years away) is a "huge deal." There is even a passenger platform across the quadrangle where I work on the WSOR branch, but gosh forbid were the Hiawatha to even stop there, even on a Football Saturday.
RwulfsbergCG96021. The major advantage the airport location offers is parking, and a parking ramp. Other spots closer to downtown are very constrained in their parking offerings. 2. If the Yahara station proposal is at the East Washington Ave location, the main problem is (again) limited parking opportunities, and also a tough spot for trains such as the Empire Builder (1400 feet long at certain times of the year). We would have to pull through and not block the road, in order to stop at the station. 3. [In response to a question regarding the Yahara Station site being on the proposed route.] Correct. The proposed station is at the present day location of the Fiore (sp?) Shopping center. 4. [Regarding other sites] I don't know. Maybe the site of the former MILW station on West Washington Ave -- though that requires a back-up move! 1. One advantage of the airport site is no land acquisition cost. The county already owns the land. The rail station site is in the economy/overflow parking lot. Plenty of surface parking. It is, however, a long hike to the air terminal and its amenities.Aerial photos show the current Dade Co Airport lots being used near capacity. If the unused and undeveloped area south of the airport's remote lot are used for Amtrak, I estimate that would provide for 600-800 spaces and projects to a capacity for as many as 1,200 passengers a day before ridership would begin to be constrained. Sadly, the track comes within 100 ft of the terminal across a ditch and service roads; but then parking would be inconvenient or dependent on a shuttle that may need more than one trip and adding time to the trip for some.The problem remains that the airport entails a 6-mile, 10-minute (20 minutes overall) back-haul for most travelers from Madison headed east. This is a pretty big head start for a bus or for driving.I can understand avoiding the cost of land acquisition for a terminal by using publicly-owned property; but capacity and greater overall travel time will not woo many riders, certainly not enough to begin to justify the investment. 2. The parking situation at the Yahara Station site depends on how it is developed. Presently, there's the underutilized Fiore Shopping Center on the Washington Avenue end, a city fleet garage at the Johnson Street end, and a couple of other properties in between. If it gets developed as a multi-use facility, a parking garage would likely be needed. If its just a station, there's probably enough space for surface parking.The Fiore property with a small station would leave about 160 surface parking spaces. If this equates to only around 250 passengers a day; why would Wisconsin spend almost a billion dollars on this project? Even a parking deck will only multiply the number of spaces by floors; and I'm sure the neighbors will not want a structure more than two or three decks high.Moving the City garage would double these numbers. As I recall, the Empire Builder would likely stay on the present route on the CP main through Columbus.That would be a shame since Madison holds much more of an attraction over Columbus from Minnesota and beyond. 3. The Yahara Station is also in an area where trains will have slowed down already, having passed through a residential neighborhood and in the midst of a tight curve. On the way to the airport, the train would pass through the WSOR yards and another residential neighborhood. It would not have a chance to accelerate significantly before arriving at the airport station. Figure in another 10 minutes of train travel time to get to the airport, plus another 5 minutes in a car, taxi or bus to get to central, south or west sides of Madison. Add up the minutes, and a Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train becomes less competitive.There is a very sharp (10-deg?) curve at the former CNW-MR crossing a mile east of the Yahara station. The existing connection from the former CNW at Yahara back to the former MR seems to be over a yard ladder track. A new connection could be built from Johnson Street bypassing the yard.4. The other site that is being talked about is the site of the stalled development at Union Corners, the site of the old Ray-O-Vac factory. This site did not come up in any of the studies, but it's on the route, there's plenty of track space, possibly long enough for the EB, and it is well served by local bus. A story in today's Wisconsin State Journal says the city is pondering purchasing the land.http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_fb8e00d2-8bd3-5656-8b2a-1b6708c7e588.htmlUnion Corners would be in the southeast quadrant at Washington & Milwaukee. The site might have surface parking for about 850 cars.Another writer mentioned that Badger Bus (Madison-Milwaukee) and Van Galder (O'Hare) use the curb at the UW Memorial Union. It's convenient for students on campus, but it is a congested area with little parking for drop-offs and pickups. The public parking ramp is two blocks away. The university is not terribly happy with the situation. As Badger Bus was getting rid of its terminal, it mentioned the possibility of using the curb at Union South, presently under reconstruction, and got a chilly response from UW.Greyhound, formerly a tenant at the Badger Bus station, now operates a station on the far east side of town, a location poorly served by local bus, and a long taxi ride from the center of town. The Yahara Station and Union Corners sites are both logical places for multimodal terminals serving rail and intercity bus. They're both on the East Washington corridor, easily accessed from outlying areas, and both sites are not terribly far off I-39/90/94.Yahara is closer to downtown, the capitol, and the UW campus; but parking and an intercity bus intermodal terminal may be too limited for the potential demand.
CG96021. The major advantage the airport location offers is parking, and a parking ramp. Other spots closer to downtown are very constrained in their parking offerings. 2. If the Yahara station proposal is at the East Washington Ave location, the main problem is (again) limited parking opportunities, and also a tough spot for trains such as the Empire Builder (1400 feet long at certain times of the year). We would have to pull through and not block the road, in order to stop at the station. 3. [In response to a question regarding the Yahara Station site being on the proposed route.] Correct. The proposed station is at the present day location of the Fiore (sp?) Shopping center. 4. [Regarding other sites] I don't know. Maybe the site of the former MILW station on West Washington Ave -- though that requires a back-up move!
1. One advantage of the airport site is no land acquisition cost. The county already owns the land. The rail station site is in the economy/overflow parking lot. Plenty of surface parking. It is, however, a long hike to the air terminal and its amenities.
Aerial photos show the current Dade Co Airport lots being used near capacity. If the unused and undeveloped area south of the airport's remote lot are used for Amtrak, I estimate that would provide for 600-800 spaces and projects to a capacity for as many as 1,200 passengers a day before ridership would begin to be constrained.
Sadly, the track comes within 100 ft of the terminal across a ditch and service roads; but then parking would be inconvenient or dependent on a shuttle that may need more than one trip and adding time to the trip for some.
The problem remains that the airport entails a 6-mile, 10-minute (20 minutes overall) back-haul for most travelers from Madison headed east. This is a pretty big head start for a bus or for driving.
I can understand avoiding the cost of land acquisition for a terminal by using publicly-owned property; but capacity and greater overall travel time will not woo many riders, certainly not enough to begin to justify the investment.
2. The parking situation at the Yahara Station site depends on how it is developed. Presently, there's the underutilized Fiore Shopping Center on the Washington Avenue end, a city fleet garage at the Johnson Street end, and a couple of other properties in between. If it gets developed as a multi-use facility, a parking garage would likely be needed. If its just a station, there's probably enough space for surface parking.
The Fiore property with a small station would leave about 160 surface parking spaces. If this equates to only around 250 passengers a day; why would Wisconsin spend almost a billion dollars on this project? Even a parking deck will only multiply the number of spaces by floors; and I'm sure the neighbors will not want a structure more than two or three decks high.
Moving the City garage would double these numbers.
As I recall, the Empire Builder would likely stay on the present route on the CP main through Columbus.
That would be a shame since Madison holds much more of an attraction over Columbus from Minnesota and beyond.
3. The Yahara Station is also in an area where trains will have slowed down already, having passed through a residential neighborhood and in the midst of a tight curve. On the way to the airport, the train would pass through the WSOR yards and another residential neighborhood. It would not have a chance to accelerate significantly before arriving at the airport station. Figure in another 10 minutes of train travel time to get to the airport, plus another 5 minutes in a car, taxi or bus to get to central, south or west sides of Madison. Add up the minutes, and a Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train becomes less competitive.
There is a very sharp (10-deg?) curve at the former CNW-MR crossing a mile east of the Yahara station.
The existing connection from the former CNW at Yahara back to the former MR seems to be over a yard ladder track. A new connection could be built from Johnson Street bypassing the yard.
4. The other site that is being talked about is the site of the stalled development at Union Corners, the site of the old Ray-O-Vac factory. This site did not come up in any of the studies, but it's on the route, there's plenty of track space, possibly long enough for the EB, and it is well served by local bus. A story in today's Wisconsin State Journal says the city is pondering purchasing the land.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_fb8e00d2-8bd3-5656-8b2a-1b6708c7e588.html
Union Corners would be in the southeast quadrant at Washington & Milwaukee. The site might have surface parking for about 850 cars.
Greyhound, formerly a tenant at the Badger Bus station, now operates a station on the far east side of town, a location poorly served by local bus, and a long taxi ride from the center of town. The Yahara Station and Union Corners sites are both logical places for multimodal terminals serving rail and intercity bus. They're both on the East Washington corridor, easily accessed from outlying areas, and both sites are not terribly far off I-39/90/94.
Yahara is closer to downtown, the capitol, and the UW campus; but parking and an intercity bus intermodal terminal may be too limited for the potential demand.
HarveyK400Being large trip generators doesn't mean optimal.
I would also submit that every airport is in a less than desirable location w.r.t. to their urban area, yet there are no shortage of passengers....
I agree that there will be no direct high speed rail service between Madison and the Twin Cities anytime soon. I recently talked to my Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman who serves on the transportation committee in the Minnesota legislature. I asked her why the Twin Cities - Chicago was not funded this time. She was blunt, Minnesota was not ready. She used the analogy of buying a house. Minnesota only recently figured out it wanted to buy a house,Wisconsin on the other hand was ready to close on the house.
I feel that the focus of high speed rail in Wisconsin should be on Madison to Milwaukee and Chicago and serve the business community and the UW. It seems to me that Madison has become much more than the state capital and home of the Badgers. I have noticed that the Northwestern part of Madison has really developed since the late 1980's. I think that putting a station at Dane County airport makes sense. People from Janesville, Beloit,and even Rockford may find Madison a better choice than O'Hare. It could mean better air service to Madison.
blue streak 1That appears to be a long range plan. In the short run it appears to me to just get a stop along the MKE - MSP route. That appears to follow the incremental approach that has been sucessfully done in Europe especially France. Also the UK.
That appears to be a long range plan. In the short run it appears to me to just get a stop along the MKE - MSP route. That appears to follow the incremental approach that has been sucessfully done in Europe especially France. Also the UK.
Trouble is, Twin Cities (MSP) with the rehab for Madison-Portage is indefinite. I'm sure Madison was a tough choice for the Milwaukee Road or they would have routed the Hiawatha that way instead of through Columbus. Both the CNW and MR had their problems going from Milwaukee to Madison. Furthermore, there is no fast alignment.
One interesting alternative now would be the CP out of Milwaukee to Duplaineville and a new connection to the CN, south to Waukesha, west on the WSOR (former MR) through through Whitewater to Milton Jct, north to the former CNW roadbed on the Lake Monona causeway, and east to Monona Landing two blocks from the Capitol and in the "right" direction to continue north, a distance of 98 miles compared to the 84 mile route by way of Watertown.
I caught a comment on the study of extending Metra North Central service from Antioch, IL to Burlington, WI. The connection at Duplaineville would facilitate a third route to Chicago on the CN through Waukesha and Burlington.
Maybe putting Madison on the CHI-MKE-MSP Corridor is politically driven; but I wonder if a comparison had been made taking into account the greater ridership to Madison compared to the reduced ridership for the longer trip between other station pairs?
HarveyK400 A more direct connection to downtown and the campus area may be possible with rebuilding the former Milwaukee route along Eastwood and Wilson beginning at the former MR-CNW crossing. With adequate right of way control, 40-60 mph may be possible. I don't know if the cost, including rebuilding the streets, would be justified with the limited service.
A more direct connection to downtown and the campus area may be possible with rebuilding the former Milwaukee route along Eastwood and Wilson beginning at the former MR-CNW crossing. With adequate right of way control, 40-60 mph may be possible. I don't know if the cost, including rebuilding the streets, would be justified with the limited service.
Service from the Twin Cities will not arrive soon enough for morning trips to Milwaukee, Chicago, and intermediate points. Similarly, trains to the Twin Cities will not provide later service to Madison. As a result, at least a couple trains must be based in Madison; and Madison turns may need to supplement Twin Cities trains.
The dispersed nature of travel from Madison allows some freedom in finding a station site that is relatively central to the area. This would rule out the airport site. Travel to Madison has some major travel attractions in the Capitol and the University. These would be very convenient to an existing rail line and could be exploited more fully.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.