By Larry Sandler in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel January 15, 2012
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Amtrak officials have started talks that could lead to expanding the current passenger train service between Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
The two states are working with Amtrak to launch a feasibility study of adding a second daily round trip on the Chicago-to-Twin Cities leg of the national passenger railroad’s long-distance Empire Builder line, officials say.
At the same time, a separate Minnesota-led study is advocating a more ambitious – and more controversial – long-range goal: upgrading the same segment to high-speed rail along the current route, bypassing Madison and Eau Claire, disappointing rail backers in both cities.
An earlier plan would have established 110-mph service between Milwaukee and Madison, with the intention of extending that route to the Twin Cities, but that idea collapsed after Gov. Scott Walker refused to spend an $810 million federal grant on building the line.
Wisconsin now has two Amtrak lines, with two different types of service. The Empire Builder runs one round trip daily between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest, stopping in Milwaukee and other Wisconsin cities, while the Hiawatha runs seven daily round trips between Milwaukee and Chicago.
The Empire Builder is part of Amtrak’s national network, in which the federal government helps pick up operating costs that aren’t covered by fares. By contrast, the Hiawatha is a state-supported train; fares pay about two-thirds of its operating costs and the states of Wisconsin and Illinois pay the rest, although Wisconsin uses federal aid to pay most of its share.
If a second daily round trip were added between Chicago and the Twin Cities, it would have to be state-supported, because Congress has ordered Amtrak to find outside funding for any new service, said Marc Magliari, an Amtrak spokesman in Chicago.
More frequent service would make trains more convenient for short trips between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities, or from either metro area to a destination such as Wisconsin Dells, Magliari said.A feasibility study would estimate costs, benefits and ridership of expanded Chicago-to-Twin Cities service, said Praveena Pidaparthi, Minnesota’s passenger rail planning director, and Ron Adams, Wisconsin rail chief.
Minnesota and Wisconsin would evenly split the $60,000 cost of the six-month study by Amtrak staff, starting within the next two months, Pidaparthi said. Wisconsin is working to come up with its share, Adams said.
The two states also originally worked together on the high-speed rail study, for which they contributed about $240,000 each, as an outgrowth of a broader effort to extend fast, frequent rail service throughout the Midwest, Pidaparthi said. But Wisconsin pulled out in August.
In a letter to Minnesota Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel, Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb said Wisconsin was putting its participation “on hold.” Gottlieb said this state would focus its resources on the existing Hiawatha and Empire Builder, adding, “Improving and enhancing these routes is our first priority.”
Minnesota finished the study without Wisconsin. After comparing more than two dozen possible routes, it concluded the current route – through Columbus, Portage, Tomah and La Crosse – was the best choice, based on cost, geography, projected travel time and population served, Pidaparthi said.
With Congress balking at new high-speed rail appropriations, Minnesota officials thought it made more sense to improve the current route gradually instead of seeking a major investment in a new route, Pidaparthi said.
Just upgrading the current route would cost $2.4 billion, with track maintenance costs of $10.3 million a year, the study found. Those figures don’t include the costs of buying and operating trains or of building or upgrading stations, issues that will be covered in a follow-up study, Pidaparthi said.
High-speed rail advocates disputed the findings.
“Major cities should be within three hours of each other,” said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association. On the selected route, it would take 4 hours 35 minutes to travel from Milwaukee to Minneapolis-St. Paul at 110 mph, and sharp curves on the Minnesota segment along the Mississippi River would prevent an eventual upgrade to 220-mph service, he said.
The Eau Claire City Council and Scott Rogers, co-chairman of the West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition, also took aim at the track curves on the current route. They argued that a more direct route through Eau Claire should have been kept alive for the next phase of study.
Pidaparthi said the curves on the river route could be smoothed out.
Wisconsin state Rep. Brett Hulsey (D-Madison) mourned the loss of the route through Madison, which had been planned for two decades, culminating in the $810 million federal stimulus grant. But Walker campaigned against the line, saying he didn’t want to spend any state money on operating costs. After he was elected, the federal government pulled the grant and redistributed the money to other states.
As a result, Hulsey said, “Madison is one of the few capitals in the Midwest that doesn’t have train service, and Wisconsin’s economy will have a hard time growing without servicing major parts of the state.”
Meanwhile, advocates noted, other states are moving ahead with prior federal funding, as Illinois and Michigan build 110-mph routes from Chicago to St. Louis and Detroit. Although federal funding is drying up at the moment, Harnish said continued planning would allow Minnesota and Wisconsin to move forward if funding becomes available in the future.
If the Federal Railroad Administration approves, the plan for high-speed rail to the Twin Cities would move into more detailed environmental study, Pidaparthi said. That phase of study is funded by a $600,000 federal stimulus grant, matched by an equal amount of Minnesota state funding, she said.
