|
Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation - Overview and Presentation of Alternative Policies for Intercity Passenger Rail Transporation - Wisconsin TransLinks 21
Click HERE for graphic. MISSION STATEMENT TRANSLINKS 21 - Wisconsin's 21st century transportation plan - will outline a comprehensive transportation system that will move people and goods efficiently, strengthens our economy, protects our environment, and supports our quality of life. Working with DOT, the public will identify Wisconsin's transportation needs - and help to make tomorrow's transportation choices. Tommy G. Thompson, Governor Charles H. Thompson, Secretary Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation An overview of issues land a presentation of four alternative scenarios for intercity passenger rail transportation in the state of Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Transportation July 1994 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was created by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The principal author, editor and publisher of this document was Daniel Yeh, Multimodal Planning Unit. Others providing significant input for this document include the following: Maria Hart, Multimodal Planning Unit; John Hartz, Supervisor of the Multimodal Planning Unit; Randall Wade, Chief of the Statewide System Planning Section; Paul Heitmann, Director of the Bureau of Railroads and Harbors; Ron Adams, Chief of the Rail Project Management Section; C. Keith Plasterer, Rail Project Management Section. A contracted consultant team has been retained by WisDOT to perform certain elements of intercity passenger planning. This team is comprised of YPMG Peat Marwick of Vienna, Virginia; HNTB Corporation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Thomas K. Dyer, Incorporated of Lexington, Massachusetts. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 2. PLANNING ACTIVITIES UNDER TRANSLINKS 21 8 3. TRANSLINKS 21 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS 11 ATTACHMENT Al: SCENARIO MAPS 19 ATTACHMENT A2: SCENARIO MAPS 20 ATTACHMENT B: SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS 21 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction Passenger rail services are a key part of Wisconsin's transportation system, and are growing in importance after periods of decline and stabilization. At one time, rail transportation was the dominant intercity travel mode for people in the state, both for local and national trips. Through the past decades, passenger rail services have declined both in their usage and in the services offered for a variety of reasons. However, the situation has stabilized and even improved slightly in Wisconsin, while trends and events point to an expanded and enhanced role for passenger rail transportation in the future. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) is currently engaged in a long range transportation planning process called Translinks 21. Translinks 21 outlines a comprehensive transportation system which will move people and goods efficiently, strengthen our economy, protect our environment, and support our quality of life. Translinks 21 includes analysis of intercity, multimodal transportation, referring longer-distance trips over a variety of different modes of transportation. One component of intercity passenger transportation is the passenger rail system. This document is one of a series of similar documents discussing the various freight and passenger modes of intercity transportation. The first part of this paper provides background information and key issues dealing with passenger rail transportation. The second part discusses the various planning activities undertaken by WisDOT for the passenger rail mode. The final section of this document outlines specific alternatives to be considered for future planning. Passenger rail service in Wisconsin -- an overview A period of decline Passenger rail service, offered by private railroads, was a key mode of travel in Wisconsin and the nation at one time. Over a period of time, however, passenger rail service experienced a significant decline from its role as the dominant mode of intercity travel. As one example of this decline, by 1940 the total of auto vehicle miles traveled in Wisconsin was more than 15 times the amount of passenger rail miles. In another example, as late as 1970 the number of passengers using rail and air services in Wisconsin were nearly equal. Since then air passengers have greatly outnumbered rail passengers in the state. In addition to intercity passenger routes, Wisconsin travelers historically had access to commuter rail services, including the interurban systems centered around the Milwaukee area and extending into surrounding counties. There was also extensive commuter- oriented service in the Milwaukee- Passenger rail -- Page 3 Chicago corridor, and from Chicago to other points in southeastern Wisconsin. The only commuter rail service remaining today in the state extends from Chicago to Kenosha. Over the years, faced with declining passenger levels, many railroads began to reduce or abandon passenger rail services. While these actions allowed railroads to leave what they considered a money-losing business, they also caused the decline to escalate even further, since cutbacks caused even more passengers to desert rail service. Creation of Amtrak In 1971, faced with these major declines in the passenger rail services, Congress created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, commonly known as Amtrak, to operate the nation's intercity passenger rail services. Amtrak was set up as a private corporation which received subsidies from the federal government. Amtrak created a national system under a single company (although a few railroads continued their own services for several years). While the creation of Amtrak stabilized the passenger rail system, the creation of a national system also meant the final discontinuance of many routes, including several in Wisconsin. Figure I (next page) displays passenger rail routes around 197 1, when Amtrak began operations. Throughout the 1980's, Amtrak's operations in Wisconsin were generally stable, with few significant variations in service. Generally, two to three daily round-trips were provided in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor, while one daily round-trip was provided in the Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) corridor (usually as part of long-distance service to the Pacific Northwest). Service to Duluth/Superior via the Twin Cities was also provided for several years. Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin A comeback for passenger rail service began in 1989, when the states of Wisconsin and Illinois cosponsored a demonstration project in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor to increase train frequencies. With the states' financial support, the newly expanded Hiawatha Service allowed for five local round-trips in the corridor, with an additional round-trip available on the long- distance Empire Builder. In addition to Milwaukee and Chicago, Hiawatha Service trains stop at Sturtevant (near Racine) and Glenview, Illinois. The project achieved great success as ridership increased by over 50% in the first twelve months of expanded service. Since then, ridership and service frequencies have continued to grow in the corridor. At present, the corridor is served by more trains than all but two corridors in the Amtrak system (Washington D.C.-Boston and Los Angeles-San Diego). Approximately 410,000 passenger trips were made on the Hiawatha Service to and from Wisconsin in 1993. Other Amtrak service in Wisconsin Aside from the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha Service, Amtrak provides service over one other route through Wisconsin. Amtrak's Empire Builder serves a route from Chicago to Seattle and Portland. Full dining service and sleeping cars are some of the accommodations on this long- Passenger rail -- Page 4 Click HERE for graphic. distance train. Six Wisconsin stations are served by the Empire Builder: Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah and La Crosse. About 63,000 passenger-trips on the Empire Builder originated or terminated during 1993 at the six stations in Wisconsin (excluding passengers solely in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. Over the past several years, passenger activity to and from these stations has remained fairly stable as the train service has not varied. Passenger rail -- Page 5 The route of the Empire Builder also provides the only passenger rail service in the Chicago-Twin Cities corridor. Although not operated as an exclusive corridor service, about 122,000 passenger- trips were made within the Chicago-Twin Cities corridor (excluding passengers solely in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor) in 1993. However, it is important to note that only one-third of these corridor trips involved arrivals or departures at Wisconsin stations. IN all, Amtrak carried over 470,000 passenger-trips to or from Wisconsin in 19093. This figure the highest total since 1976, with the increase primarily due to the Hiawatha Service expansion. However, total passenger-miles from past years are probably higher than for 1993, since the ridership in the short- distance Chicago-Milwaukee corridor was not as dominant as it is today. Figure 2 provides Wisconsin Amtrak ridership for the past 20 years. Click HERE for graphic. Recent studies of service expansion/enhancement In the past few years, before the advent of Translinks 21, WisDOT has undertaken a number of studies for expansion of passenger rail service, or enhancement to existing service. These studies are described briefly here. Translinks 21 uses the results of these studies in analysis of future alternative scenarios for the passenger rail system. Amtrak extensions IN a publication released in January of 1993, WisDOT recommended extension of Amtrak's Hiawatha Service to service corridors extending to Green Bay and to Madison. The services would be direct extensions of the Hiawatha Service, thus providing same- train service directly into Chicago's Union Station. Trains would operate at conventional Amtrak speeds (top speeds of 79 MPH, about 50 MPH average). Combined, the proposed extensions would connect Amtrak to a new market area with a population of over 1.5 million, and generate about 255,000 total passenger-trips each year. Implementation of services would require an estimated $75 million for track improvements and equipment acquisition (1992 dollars). In addition, funding for stations construction and/or rehabilitation would be required, and an annual subsidy would be needed. Passenger rail -- Page 6 The State of Wisconsin has approved $50 million in bonding authority for track improvements for the two extensions. However, Amtrak lacks sufficient funding for its share of capital costs and for annual operating support. Without this funding, service to Green Bay or Madison cannot be implemented under present state policy. High speed rail studies In May of 1991, the Tri-State Study of high speed rail was concluded. This was an effort by the states of Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin which analyzed several options for creation of a high speed rail service between Chicago and the Twin Cities, through Wisconsin. The report findings include the following: A southern corridor (roughly the same as the Empire Builder) is the preferred route. Technology using 125 MPH as top speeds is preferable for a variety of reasons. A more detailed feasibility study is needed to identify a preferred implementation approach. As an outgrowth of the Tri-State Study, the Chicago-Milwaukee Rail Corridor Study (the ChiMil Study ) was initiated in July of 1992, cosponsored by Wisconsin and Illinois. Scheduled for completion in 1994, the primary focus of the Chi-Mil Study is to identify passenger rail options in the corridor which: Significantly relieve automobile travel and congestion; Contribute to improvements in air quality; and Can be implemented within the decade on an incremental basis. Federal recognition A key to eventual implementation of high speed rail services in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor is the recognition provided to the corridor by the federal government. In 1992, Wisconsin applied for recognition of the corridor through Section 1010 of the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Section 1010 provides funding for elimination of grade crossing hazards in high speed rail corridors. Late in 1992, the Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-St. Louis and Chicago- Detroit corridors were designated by the U.S. DOT as one of five high speed rail systems throughout the nation under Section 1010. This designation will provide very limited initial funding for improvements in the corridor, and also gives national recognition to the high speed rail planning efforts of Wisconsin and the other states in the system. Passenger rail -- Page 7 2. PLANNING ACTIVITIES UNDER TRANSLINKS 21 Passenger rail analysis under Translinks 21 Translinks 21 is a comprehensive transportation planning process being undertaken by WisDOT, which looks at the evolving transportation needs of our state. A multimodal network of intercity alternatives has been developed through study of transportation trends and statistics, and also from analysis of key socioeconomic trends, such as population and employment characteristics. Other factors which could affect transportation in the future, such as environmental impacts and transportation costs, also form part of the basic Translinks 21 analysis. Passenger rail data collection A great deal of information on the present passenger rail system has been obtained for the intercity passenger planning component of Translinks 21. This data included the following efforts: Amtrak train passenger counts for the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor and the Empire Builder corridor were obtained through Amtrak records. WisDOT conducted a survey of Empire Builder passengers in May of 1993. This survey revealed socioeconomic characteristics of riders, origin-destination patterns, and other useful information (a summary of the survey results is available). The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) conducted a survey of Hiawatha Service passengers in 1991. This data was also used in passenger planning. This data has helped WisDOT and a contracted consultant team to develop a multimodal, intercity passenger model which can be used to replicate existing trips and forecast future trips on all intercity passenger transportation modes in the state. Other surveys used to support this model include bus, air, and highway surveys conducted in past years by WisDOT and SEWRPC. One other key element in building this model was a preference survey of all intercity travel modes -- including passenger rail -- sponsored by WisDOT in the fall of 1993. A preference survey asks respondents to make choices based on hypothetical travel scenarios, whereas a travel survey simply asks for factual information about the trip the traveler is making at present. Passenger rail network analysis WisDOT and the consultant team also developed a statewide network of passenger rail services to evaluate with the travel forecasting model. In addition to the passenger modelling, the consultant team prepared cost estimates of capital and operating requirements for the proposed services. The cost estimates presented later in the report provide a rough estimate of the financial requirements of implementing certain passenger rail services. A more detailed evaluation of each individual service would be needed to provide more precise cost figures. Passenger rail -- Page 8 Benefits and costs of passenger rail In analyzing the rail system alternatives, it is important to understand the role of passenger rail services in a statewide multimodal network. While there are benefits to be derived from passenger rail service expansion, there are issues of cost to consider as well. Benefits of passenger rail Among the benefits of various passenger rail services are these: Passenger rail service has the potential to provide a quality transportation service as an alternative to automobile travel. It serves a niche market, generally offering fares, amenities and service levels higher than for intercity bus, but lower than for commercial air travel. Short to medium distance passenger rail services have been shown to serve passengers who are travelling for either business or pleasure. Travelers are offered a time- competitive alternative which allows for use of the trip time for reading, working, sleeping or socializing. These services can generate business and tourist related activity in the regions served. Long distance rail services are generally dominated by recreational travelers, and thus can generate significant benefits for the recreation/tourism industries in the communities they serve. High speed rail can provide trip times superior to automobile travel, and times competitive with air services (over short to medium distances). High speed rail can be a preferred choice for business travel, thus generating a variety of economic development benefits in communities served. Rail service is also somewhat unique among intercity transportation modes in its ability to serve the central downtown areas of cities. Rail provides direct access into the heart of downtown Milwaukee, Chicago and other Midwestern cities. This can be an advantage over other modes, as access to downtown areas often requires using congested highways (either from an airport, by riding a bus, or by driving a car). It is of some importance to note that intercity rail services -- those targeted to city-to-city travel over some distance -- do not provide significant benefits through diversion of automobiles from highways. A great deal of highway traffic, especially in congested urban areas, is generated by shorter trips within a local area. Intercity rail services cannot compete for these trips. WisDOT analyses have shown that even the most optimistic passenger rail ridership forecasts for key intercity services will divert only 5-6% of the total auto traffic from parallel highways. In fact, implementing new rail service could actually produce more highway traffic in a localized area, as people use their automobiles to drive to and from the rail station. Costs and other impacts Passenger rail services -- whether through conventional or high speed technologies -- can offer the Passenger rail -- Page 9 aforementioned benefits, but there are other issues to be considered. Among these are the costs and potential impacts of the systems: The actual monetary costs of implementing passenger rail services are high in relation to many of the actions proposed for other non-highway modes in the Translinks 21 alternatives. In most cases, tracks and right-of-way will need to be improved to allow higher operating speeds for passenger trains. The trains themselves will need to be purchased. And in almost all foreseeable service alternatives, an operating subsidy will need to be provided. The costs for implementing these services can be increased if capacity issues require further improvements to the rail infrastructure. While much of Wisconsin's rail system has excess capacity, many key passenger lines are slated for what are currently the busiest freight lines. In some cases, significant costs will be required to allow for safe and efficient interaction of the freight and passenger trains. An increase in train operations increases the impacts on communities. There may be more delays at rail-highway grade crossings due to increased train traffic. Noise of train operations will increase. While improvements in operating speed and the rail infrastructure can minimize these impacts - - since train volumes may be minimal in some cases -- these are still issues to be considered. It is not expected that conventional rail services would have a significant impact on competing commercial modes, namely air and bus services, but some limited diversion of passengers may occur. For high speed rail services, the potential of passenger diversion from commercial air service may increase. Passenger rail --Page 10 3. TRANSLINKS 21 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Through the analysis of Translinks 21, four alternative scenarios have been developed: Alternative #1: Maintaining current policies and programs -- this alternative essentially continues current state programs at current funding levels. Alternative #2: Taking new directions with current funding -- this alternative shifts a certain portion of transportation funds from their current allocation for the highway program to other modal programs, including for intercity public transportation. Limited new revenues are also generated. Alternative #3: Financing better transportation and more choices -- under this option, new revenue is generated to allow expansion of both highway and non-highway programs. Alternative #4: Paying for premium mobility -- for this final alternative, even more new revenue is generated in order to develop a broader array of highway and non-highway transportation services in Wisconsin. Passenger rail service options Each of these alternatives presents different levels of service and areas of coverage of the passenger rail system, thereby offering different levels of benefits and requiring a range of costs. The various actions presented in these alternatives include the following kinds of service options: Conventional rail, operating at maximum speeds of 79 MPH, generally provides a service time-competitive with personal auto travel. Amenities include regular coach seating, light food service and overhead luggage racks. For certain services of longer distance, sleeping compartments may be considered. High speed rail, operating at speeds of 125 MPH or higher, will usually provide trip times superior to auto travel, and may even approach time competition with commercial air service. A higher degree of services and amenities may offered, as the trains themselves will almost certainly be newly manufactured. Feeder bus services are proposed in these alternatives as a low-cost, incremental approach to building rail services. Feeder buses would provide dedicated, coordinated connecting service to trains at key locations. Feeder buses provide a low-cost alternative where potential markets for rail may need to be developed over time, or where rail tracks do not exist. Implementation years The alternative services presented are given proposed dates of implementation, generally following Passenger rail -- Page 11 five or ten year increments starting in 1995. The Translinks 21 planning horizon extends 25 years to the year 2020. This time spacing has ramifications on the cost estimates, as described below. Costs and cost sharing Each of the descriptions of the proposed services includes estimates of capital costs (one-time expenditures needed to implement the service, such as track improvement or equipment purchase) and annual operating support. In order to determine the total costs for a service, the annual costs are multiplied by the number of years, and then added to the one-time costs. For example, a service starting in the year 2000 would have 20 years worth of operating support which should be added to the one-time costs incurred when the service was started. In order to review a realistic range of possibilities for future passenger rail service options, the alternatives also present each option in the context of potential cost sharing arrangements which may include the federal government (or Amtrak) and the states of Illinois or Minnesota. In general, cost sharing assumptions for conventional rail services are roughly based on existing Amtrak/state cost sharing policies. Cost sharing for high speed rail are simple assumptions of potential federal/state shares. The summary of costs at the end of each scenario description also indicates the existing state funds available for passenger rail. This includes the current Chicago-Milwaukee program allocation (as a total for the 25-year time period) as well as the $50 million in bonding authority for the Green Bay and Madison extensions. Following the text description of the alternatives are two sets of attachments: Attachments A-1 and A-2, providing maps of the proposed services; and Attachment B, providing a one-page summary of the alternatives. Alternative #1: Maintaining current policies and programs Under this alternative, the state's program for financial support of Amtrak's Hiawatha Service would continue at present funding levels and present cost sharing arrangements. For the current fiscal year, $700,000 has been appropriated by Wisconsin for this service support, and it is assumed that this funding would continue, possibly with adjustments being made for inflation. Amtrak and the state of Illinois also contribute to this service, and their cost shares would also have to be maintained. It is worth noting that ridership and revenues generated by the Hiawatha Service have been increasing in the past five years, and there is the potential for the actual funds expended to support the service to decrease over time. However, it is impossible to accurately predict this circumstance, and the present $700,000 appropriation will be used in this alternative. Over a 25-year time horizon, this yields a total Wisconsin cost of $17.5 million, representing no increase in current state funding requirements. Passenger rail -- Page 12 Amtrak's Empire Builder trains do not receive any state financial support. It is expected that Amtrak would maintain present service levels on these trains in the future. Alternative #2: Taking new directions with current funding For Alternative #2, a redirection of existing transportation funding would occur, decreasing the allocation towards highway capacity projects, and shifting to non-highway modes. Alternative #2 would continue the state support for the Hiawatha Service at $700,000 annually. However, around the year 2000, this service would be replaced by high speed rail (described below). Therefore, Wisconsin cost for this service option yields a 5-year total of $3.5 million. Conventional rail to Green Bay and Madison Extensions of Amtrak service to Madison and Green Bay would occur around 2000. This would bring the benefits of rail service to the state's second and third largest metropolitan areas, providing quality alternatives for intercity travel. Unlike present policy requiring a federal cost share, Wisconsin would be responsible for 100% of all costs. The cost breakdown is as follows: For the Green Bay extension, $40.4 million is required for one-time capital, and $3.5 million is required for annual operating support. The total funds required will depend on the implementation date, but an estimated total cost of $96 million is assumed for Translinks 21. For the Madison extension, $34.0 million is required for one- time capital, and $1.4 million is required for annual operating support. Without a solid implementation year, Translinks 21 assumes a total estimated cost of $57 million for this extension. Chicago-Milwaukee high speed rail In the year 2000, high speed rail would be implemented in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. With maximum speeds of 125 MPH and up to 16 round-trips each day, this service would provide an attractive transportation option in Wisconsin's busiest intercity corridor. Under Alternative #2, this service would be implemented through a 50150 cost sharing arrangement between the states of Wisconsin and Illinois. For Wisconsin's 50% share, about $250 million in one- time capital costs would be required for start-up. Operating support would require an estimated $750,000 annually from Wisconsin as its 50% share. Over the 20-year planning period, therefore, the total Wisconsin cost is $265.0 million. Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities conventional rail At the same time, the state would expand conventional rail service in the Chicago-Milwaukee Twin Cities corridor, over the present Empire Builder route. The proposal is to add two daily round-trips exclusively within the corridor, as opposed to the Empire Builder which serves the corridor only as part of a long-distance route. These trains may allow for rail ridership to develop in a busy intercity corridor which does not presently have a true rail corridor service. Passenger rail -- Page 13 It is expected that these trains would run at high speed in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor, as would the Green Bay and Madison trains. However, the full extent of operational coordination between trains and corridor speeds has not been determined. If these services are to be implemented, a thorough operational study must be performed to determine these and other considerations. Estimated costs for the Chicago-Twin Cities enhancement include $42 million in capital costs which includes acquiring train sets and undertaking corridor improvements to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional trains. A rough estimate of $5.0 million for annual operating support is used for this service. A cost sharing arrangement is assumed which requires Wisconsin to pay 75% of costs, with the state of Minnesota paying 25% of costs. The resulting total Wisconsin costs over the 20-year timeframe is $106.5 million. Feeder bus services Feeder bus services would also be instituted in the year 2000 to provide direct, integrated connections into the passenger rail system. The extent to which the bus and rail operations would be integrated is not yet determined (e.g., through-luggage, joint ticketing, etc.), but the basis of operations is for the buses to serve almost exclusively as feeders to trains. Feeder bus service would be instituted in the following corridors which have a potential for rail ridership, but do not justify full rail service under this alternative: Madison - Platteville - Dubuque, over U.S. Highway 151; Milwaukee - Sheboygan - Manitowoc, using Interstate 43; Appleton - Stevens Point - Wausau - Rhinelander, using U.S. Highways 10, 51 and 8; and Tomah - Eau Claire - Superior, over Interstate 94 and U.S. Highway 53. For these four services, an estimated total of $5 million would be required for capital costs (stations and buses) and $600,000 annually would be required for operating support. It is assumed that Wisconsin would bear the full costs for both capital expenses and operational support. Therefore, the total state cost has been estimated at $17.0 million for the 20-year timeframe. Total Wisconsin costs for Alternative #2 Over the complete 25-year timeframe, the total amount expended by Wisconsin under this alternative is estimated to be about $545 million. The state's current funds available over the 25-year period is $67.5 million. Therefore, the additional 25-year funding required totals $477.5 million. Alternative #3: Financing better transportation and more choices Translinks 21 Alternative #3 assumes enhancements to the passenger rail system through extension to new areas, expansion of existing service and provision of access to the rail system through Passenger rail -- Page 14 dedicated feeder bus services. Alternative #3 includes many of the service options described in Alternative #2, but at different cost sharing arrangements. Chicago-Milwaukee conventional service Alternative #3 would continue the state support for the expanded Hiawatha Service at $700,000 annually. As in Alternative #2, the service would continue at conventional speeds through the year 2000, when high speed rail would be implemented in the corridor. Therefore, Wisconsin's total cost on a 5-year timeframe is about $3.5 million. Chicago-Milwaukee high speed rail In the year 2000, high speed rail would be implemented in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. With maximum speeds of 125 MPH and up to 16 round-trips each day, this service would provide an attractive transportation option in Wisconsin's busiest intercity corridor. Under Alternative #3, this service would be implemented through a 50/25/25 cost sharing arrangement (both capital and operating costs) between the federal government (50%) and the states of Wisconsin and Illinois. For Wisconsin's 25 % share, about $125 million in one-time capital costs would be required for start-up. Operating support would require an estimated $375,000 annually from Wisconsin. Over the 20-year planning period, therefore, the total Wisconsin cost is $132.5 million. Conventional rail to Green Bay and Madison The proposed extensions of conventional rail service to Green Bay and Madison would proceed in the year 2000, with an expectation of cost sharing by the federal government. With a state cost share of 65 % applied to these services over a 20-year period, the total Wisconsin costs for the Green Bay and Madison extensions are $71.8 and $40.3 million, respectively. Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities conventional rail At the same time, the state would expand conventional rail service in the Chicago-Milwaukee Twin Cities corridor as per Alternative #2. However, the trains would be limited to conventional speeds in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. The costs and cost sharing arrangements for this service are as described in Alternative #2, with the resulting total Wisconsin costs over the 20 year timeframe estimated at $106.5 million. Again, Translinks 21 does not include a full operational plan for the interaction between trains in the Chicago-Milwaukee high speed rail corridor and the connecting conventional rail corridors to the Twin Cities, Madison and Green Bay. Feeder bus services The four feeder bus services described in Alternative #2 would be included in Alternative #3 in the year 2000. With Wisconsin again providing 100% of the capital costs and operating support, the 20- year total Wisconsin cost is estimated to be $17.0 million. Passenger rail -- Page 15 Total Wisconsin costs for Alternative #3 Over the complete 25-year timeframe, the total amount expended by Wisconsin Alternative #3 is estimated to be about $371.5 million. With existing funding providing $67.5 million over the 25 years, an additional $304 million is required from state funding to implement these actions. Alternative #4: Paying for premium mobility Alternative #4 would implement a more extensive network of rail and feeder bus services, with a special emphasis on high speed rail service to provide fast and frequent service throughout more parts of the state. Conventional rail and feeder bus service Conventional rail and feeder bus service options and cost sharing arrangements for Alternative #4 are the same as in Alternative #3, but may be applied over different time periods: Chicago-Milwaukee conventional rail is replaced by high speed rail in the year 2000 (described in Alternatives #2 and #3). Therefore, the 5-year total cost for conventional rail in the corridor is $3.5 million. The Green Bay service has a 20-year timeframe, being implemented in the year 2000 with a federal cost share. The 20-year total Wisconsin cost for this service is estimated at $71.8 million. The Madison conventional rail extension would have a 10-year timeframe, being replaced in the year 2010 with high speed rail service from Milwaukee to the Twin Cities (described below). Assuming a federal cost share of 35%, the Wisconsin cost share of 65 % over the 10-year period is estimated to be $31.2 million. New conventional speed local service from Chicago to the Twin Cities would occur in the year 2000, but would be replaced by high speed rail in the year 2010. As with Alternatives #2 and #3, Wisconsin would assume 75% share of the costs for this service. The shorter timeframe yields a 10-year total cost of $69.0 million. The feeder bus services would be implemented in the year 2000 as described in Alternatives #2 and #3. Again, the total Wisconsin 20-year cost would be about $17.0 million. High speed rail service In the year 2000, high speed rail would be implemented in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor with the same service characteristics described in Alternative #2. For Alternative #3, however, a federal cost share of 50% is assumed, with the states of Wisconsin and Illinois each contributing 25 % towards all costs. Over the 20-year time period, therefore, the total Wisconsin cost is estimated to be $132.5 million. Passenger rail -- Page 16 The other high speed rail service in this alternative would occur in the year 2010, when high speed rail would be extended from Milwaukee to the Twin Cities. This 125 MPH service would be routed directly through Madison, thus replacing the conventional rail service previously implemented. Beyond Madison, the existing passenger route travels through La Crosse, but an alternate route through Eau Claire might be considered. If this service is to be implemented, a full analysis of the alternate route options would need to be undertaken in the future. The capital costs required to implement this service are estimated to be $1.2 billion, with annual operating support roughly estimated at $2.0 million, reflecting fairly strong demand levels. Translinks 21 assumes a federal cost share of 50%, with the remainder split evenly by Wisconsin and Minnesota. The total cost for Wisconsin over the 10-year timeframe is about $305.0 million. Additional conventional rail service In the year 2010, one more expansion of service would occur in the state to bring conventional rail to central Wisconsin. Translinks 21 proposes implementing conventional rail service beginning in Appleton, and running through Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls to the Twin Cities. At the same time, additional trains would be added in the Milwaukee-Green Bay corridor. The resulting service would have four round-trips between Milwaukee and Appleton. From Appleton to Green Bay, two round-trips would remain in service, while the other two trains would continue on the new route to the Twin Cities. For the additional Green Bay trains, WisDOT estimates total capital costs of $16.0 million to provide the required train-sets. Operating support is estimated to be $750,000 above the existing levels of support. With an assumed share of 35 % from federal sources and 65 % from Wisconsin, and calculated over a 10-year timeframe, the total Wisconsin cost for this service is $15.3 million. For the Appleton-Twin Cities route, some corridor improvement will be required, and train-sets will need to be acquired. While the corridor is in moderately good condition, the route is long (about 270 miles), and the resulting capital costs are high. WisDOT estimates total capital costs of about $405. 0 million, with total annual operating support estimated at $4. 0 million for this new service. Again assuming a 65 % Wisconsin share, the 10-year total cost is $289.3 million. Total Wisconsin costs for Alternative #4 To achieve this extensive network of passenger rail services, the total Wisconsin cost over the 25 year timeframe of Alternative #4 is estimated to be $934.5 million. After the existing funding of $67.5 million is applied, the additional state funding required totals $867 million. Other issues concerning the service alternatives Although the Translinks 21 analysis has been fairly thorough for the statewide passenger rail system, it cannot fully account for all of the nuances of how these rail options would truly operate Passenger rail -- Page 17 and interact. These determinations are important from a planning perspective in terms of costs, facility and equipment requirements, and demand forecasting. For example, the following issues remain unresolved: Can existing station facilities at Chicago, Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities accommodate necessary train operations (switching, turning, etc.)? How do the train sets for the various services interact; for example, will Chicago-Milwaukee high speed trains continue beyond the corridor for high speed or conventional services? How does this interaction affect the costs to obtain train sets for subsequent services? How does the need to change vehicles for a connecting service -- whether bus to train, or train to another train -- affect the demand levels for services, as opposed to services without a change of equipment? How does the ridership from one service affect the ridership for other services; for example, does direct rail service to Stevens Point divert those riders who otherwise would have driven to Portage to catch a train to Chicago? How does increasing service to a city -- such as Green Bay or Madison -- affect the original operating support estimates? Does the per-passenger subsidy decrease? Does the total subsidy decrease? How are operating costs allocated when trains of different services operate in the same corridor? For instance, Madison could be served by local corridor trains, the Empire Builder, Chicago-Twin Cities trains, and Chicago-Janesville trains. Who would actually operate the trains? Would it be Amtrak, the state, or a newly created interstate authority? These and other questions can only be answered through more complete analysis of each service. However, Translinks 21 has provided these four alternative scenarios, along with their respective cost and operational assumptions, as broad overview of passenger rail options for the state. These service-related issues cannot be fully analyzed without more exhaustive feasibility analyses for each service. Passenger rail -- Page 18 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. WISCONSIN TRANSLINKS 21 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT TRANSLINKS 21, CONTACT: DANIEL YEH MULTIMODAL PLANNING UNIT WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 7913 MADISON, WI 53707-7913 608/267-5127 FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES, CALL: OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 608/266-3581
