Final Alternatives Selection Report: 

Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail 

Alternatives 

Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 

Prepared for:

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Prepared by:

Quandel Consultants, LLC 

Version: October 26, 2011 

Revised November 1, 2012 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Table of Contents 

 

October 26, 2011 Page i 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................vi 

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Alternatives Selection Report..................................................................................1‐1

1.2 Background of Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ........................................................................1‐1

1.3 Background of Milwaukee‐Twin Cities High‐Speed Rail Corridor Program...............................1‐4

1.4 Project Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................1‐13

1.5 Route Alternatives Analysis .....................................................................................................1‐15

1.6 Public Involvement...................................................................................................................1‐16

1.7 Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives............................................................1‐17

1.8 Technical Documentation ........................................................................................................1‐21

2.0 Process to Identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives .......................... 2-1

2.1 Evaluation Criteria and Measure ...............................................................................................2‐1

2.2 Workshops to Identify the Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives....................2‐2

3.0 Route Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Number of Main Tracks..............................................................................................................3‐1

3.2 Degree of Curvature...................................................................................................................3‐4

3.3 Significant Grades ......................................................................................................................3‐7

3.4 Track Classification.....................................................................................................................3‐9

3.5 Results of Qualitative Assessment of Route Characteristics ...................................................3‐12

4.0 Travel Time ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Train Performance Calculator (TPC)...........................................................................................4‐1

4.2 Automobile Travel Time.............................................................................................................4‐5

4.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment.............................................................................................4‐7

5.0 Market Size ........................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Ridership Potential.....................................................................................................................5‐1

5.2 “Beltway” Intermodal Facilities .................................................................................................5‐3

5.2.1 Milwaukee-Area Beltway Intermodal Facilities ........................................................... 5-4

5.2.2 Twin Cities-Area Beltway Intermodal Facilities .......................................................... 5-8
Alternatives Selection Report 

Table of Contents 

 

October 26, 2011 Page ii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

5.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment...........................................................................................5‐13

6.0 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Cost Estimating Methodology for High‐Speed Rail on Shared Right‐of‐Way ............................6‐1

6.2 Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives......................................6‐2

6.3 Costs to Upgrade to High‐Speed Rail .........................................................................................6‐4

6.4 Cost of Right‐of‐Way Acquisition.............................................................................................6‐15

6.5 Cyclic Capital Costs...................................................................................................................6‐17

6.6 Results of Qualitative Assessment...........................................................................................6‐20

7.0 Operating Costs .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Track Maintenance Costs...........................................................................................................7‐1

7.2 Results of Qualitative Assessment.............................................................................................7‐3

8.0 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Rail‐Rail Crossings ......................................................................................................................8‐1

8.2 At‐Grade Crossings.....................................................................................................................8‐4

8.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment...........................................................................................8‐10

9.0 Reliability............................................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Quantity of Freight Conflicts......................................................................................................9‐1

9.2 Freight Density ...........................................................................................................................9‐5

9.3 Handoffs Between Owning Railroads ........................................................................................9‐6

9.3.1 Quantity of Handoffs From Class I Railroad to Class I Railroad ................................ 9-7

9.3.2 Quantity of Handoffs From Class I Railroad to Regional Railroad or Regional Railroad 

to Regional Railroad.................................................................................................................. 9-8

9.4 Train Control ............................................................................................................................9‐11

9.5 Results of Qualitative Assessment...........................................................................................9‐13

10.0 System Connectivity ........................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Intermodal Connections at the Termini...................................................................................10‐2

10.2 Intermodal Connections along Routes between the Termini..................................................... 12

10.2.1 Route 1 – Existing Amtrak ..................................................................................... 10-12

10.2.2 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester ................................................................................. 10-18
Alternatives Selection Report 

Table of Contents 

 

October 26, 2011 Page iii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.3 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River ............................................................................... 10-24

10.2.4 Route 4 – MWRRI-Madison ................................................................................... 10-29

10.2.5 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester ............................................................................... 10-35

10.2.6 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River ............................................................................. 10-41

10.2.7 Route 7– MWRRI-Madison-Prairie ........................................................................ 10-47

10.2.8 Route 8– Madison-Prairie-Rochester ..................................................................... 10-52

10.2.9 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River ................................................................. 10-58

10.2.10 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire ........................................................................... 10-63

10.2.11 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire ......................................................................... 10-68

10.2.12 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire ....................................................................... 10-73

10.2.13 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire ................................................. 10-77

10.2.14 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC .................................................... 10-82

10.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment.........................................................................................10‐89

11.0 Environmental Features ...................................................................................................... 11-1

11.1 Floodplains...............................................................................................................................11‐2

11.2 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................11‐4

11.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................11‐11

11.4 Historical/Cultural Resources.................................................................................................11‐16

11.5 Section 4(f)/6(f) Protected Property......................................................................................11‐22

11.6 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................11‐32

11.7 Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................................11‐36

11.8 Right‐of‐Way Takes................................................................................................................11‐39

11.8.1 La Crosse, WI – Grand Crossing, WI ..................................................................... 11-39

11.8.2 Prairie Du Chien, WI – Crawford, WI ..................................................................... 11-41

11.8.3 Owatonna, MN ....................................................................................................... 11-42

11.8.4 St. Paul, MN – St. Paul Union Depot, MN .............................................................. 11-43

11.9 Results of Qualitative Assessment.........................................................................................11‐45

12.0 Results of Qualitative Assessment of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives .................... 12-11
Alternatives Selection Report 

Table of Contents 

 

October 26, 2011 Page iv 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

12.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................12‐1

12.2 Routes of Concern....................................................................................................................12‐4

12.3 Environmental Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................12‐11

12.3.1 Environmental Concerns due to Right-of-Way Takes ............................................ 12-11

12.3.2 Environmental Impacts along the Mississippi River ............................................... 12-16

12.3.3 Environmental Conclusions ................................................................................... 12-18

12.4 Purpose and Need Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................12‐20

12.4.1 Review of Project Purpose and Project Need ........................................................ 12-20

12.4.2 Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives that do not Meet the Purpose and Need .... 12-21

12.5 Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives ................................12‐22

12.5.1 Final Evaluation of Routes ..................................................................................... 12-22

12.5.2 Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 12-27

Appendices

Appendix A - Interim Alternatives Selection Report 

Appendix B - Draft Purpose and Need Statement 

Appendix C - Alternatives Analysis Methodology 

Appendix D - Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

Appendix E - Cost Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail on Shared Right-of-Way 

Appendix F - Number of Main Tracks 

Appendix G - Degree of Curvature 

Appendix H - Significant Grades 

Appendix I - Travel Time 

Appendix J - Population Bands 

Appendix K - Milwaukee to Madison 2009 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

Track 2 Application 

Appendix L - Capital Cost Spreadsheets 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Table of Contents 

 

October 26, 2011 Page v 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Appendix M - MWRRI Planning Phase 5 Model for Annual Cyclic Capital Costs 

Appendix N - Freight Density Graphs 

Appendix O - Environmental Features Strip Map 

Appendix P - Letter from Wisconsin Department of Transportation to Commissioner of 

Minnesota Department of Transportation 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page vi 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Executive Summary

Purpose 

The Alternatives Selection Report identified the one reasonable and feasible passenger 

rail alternative within the Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. This 

report will clearly indicate the following: 

1. why and how the particular range of project route alternatives (potential 

passenger rail alternatives) was developed, 

2. how the results of the scoping process and other public and agency input was 

used in the alternatives analysis, and 

3. the process used to evaluate and eliminate the route alternatives to arrive at the 

reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative 

The Alternatives Selection Report will be presented to the Federal Railroad 

Administration, agencies, and the public for review and comment prior to the analysis 

leading to the identification of the preferred passenger rail alternative. 

Background of the MWRRI 

In 1996, nine Midwest states, including Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Amtrak formed 

the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). The planned MWRRI elements include: 

 Operation of a hub and spoke passenger rail system centered on Chicago 

 Use of 3,000 miles of existing rail right of way to connect rural and urban areas 

 Track and signal improvements and introduction of modern trains operating at 

speeds up to 110 mph 

 Provision of multi-modal connections to improve system access 

 Improvement in frequency, reliability, speed, and on-time performance 

The work of this initiative (MWRRI) has resulted in a well coordinated and integrated 

110-mph rail Business Plan that defines the way in which the rail system should be 

implemented. This Business Plan consists of various documents that were prepared - an 

Executive Summary (2004), MWRRI Project Notebook (2004), Appendices (2004), and 

Benefit Cost and Economic Analysis (2006). 

Background of the Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 

On June 23, 2009, the FRA issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the HighSpeed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in the Federal Register. In response, 

Mn/DOT submitted an application to develop a Tier 1 EIS document for new passenger 

rail service on the Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor, a segment of the Chicago to Twin 

Cities high-speed rail corridor. The FRA reviewed Mn/DOT's application for eligibility and 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page vii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

ranking with the criteria outlined in the NOFA. Based upon this evaluation, the FRA 

selected the State of Minnesota for an award of $600,000 for this project, through a 

cooperative agreement between FRA and Mn/DOT (the Grantee). 

Mn/DOT entered into a cooperative agreement with FRA to develop the Tier 1 EIS 

document for the Milwaukee-Twin Cities Corridor. Funding for the project has been 

committed through Minnesota and Wisconsin state funds and FRA’s HSIPR Program 

described in the previous paragraph. In addition to funding the project cooperatively, 

Mn/DOT and WisDOT have been working together on public involvement throughout 

both states. 

The project team was assembled specifically for the Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed 

Rail Corridor Program. The team is comprised of Mn/DOT, WisDOT, Amtrak, and 

Quandel Consultants staff members that have the technical expertise and experience in 

high-speed rail planning to produce a successful project. The following persons are part 

of the project team: 

 Mn/DOT 

o David Christianson – Freight Planning and Development, Minnesota 

Department of Transportation 

o Dan Krom – Director, Passenger Rail office, Minnesota Department of 

Transportation 

o Frank Pafko – Director, Office of Environmental Services, Minnesota 

Department of Transportation 

o Praveena Pidaparthi – Planning Director, Minnesota Department of 

Transportation 

 WisDOT 

o Jeff Abboud – Urban and Regional Planner, Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

o Ron Adams – Chief, Railroads and Harbor Section, Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation 

o Tom Beekman – Regional Systems Planning and Programming Chief, 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

o Donna Brown – Passenger Rail implementation Manager, Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation 

o Carrie Cooper – Urban Regional Planner, Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

o Crystal DuPont – Urban and Regional Planner, Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

o Ethan Johnson – Program and Planning Analyst, Wisconsin Department 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page viii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

of Transportation 

o Alyssa Macy – Program Planning Analyst, Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

o Arun Rao – Urban and Regional Planner, Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

 Amtrak 

o Walter Lander – Principal Officer, Corridor Planning, Amtrak 

 Quandel Consultants 

o Charlie Quandel, P.E. – President & CEO 

o Melanie Johnson, P.E. – Project Engineer 

Purpose and Need 

The draft Purpose and Need Statement was prepared by Mn/DOT and WisDOT in 

consultation with FRA to identify the purpose (desired outcomes) and needs (problems 

that are in need of a solution) of the project. The route alternatives analysis links the 

measures of effectiveness to the purpose and need to ensure continuity throughout the 

project. 

The Purpose and Need document addresses the purpose and need for the proposed 

action. Need is driven by the limitations and vulnerabilities of available travel modes 

between Milwaukee and Twin Cities. 

The purpose of the proposed action is to meet future regional travel demand and provide 

intermodal connectivity to existing and planned transportation systems in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin. The proposed action offers an opportunity to provide reliable and competitive 

passenger rail service as an attractive alternative transportation choice between 

Milwaukee and Twin Cities by: 

 Decreasing travel times, 

 Increasing frequency of service, and 

 Providing safe and reliable service. 

In addition, the project will: 

 Improve overall system connectivity in the interstate transportation network in 

conformance with statewide and regional transportation plans 

 Provide accessibility to major population centers, 

 Improve freight rail mobility, and 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page ix 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Minimize environmental impacts. 

The need for the proposed action exists because: 

 Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a significant 

burden on existing transportation infrastructure 

 Competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel do not exist in the 

corridor 

 As travel demand increases a new travel mode must be reliable to attract riders 

from existing travel modes ; 

 Intermodal connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. 

Route Alternatives Analysis Methodology 

The States, in consultation with FRA, prepared a route alternative analysis methodology 

for use in developing, evaluating, and comparing route alternatives that is completed in 

three levels of increasing specificity. For each level of analysis, criteria will be analyzed 

to both quantitatively and qualitatively describe the benefits and impacts and narrow the 

range of route alternatives based on the Project Purpose and Need. As a result, the 

analysis will focus on progressively fewer route alternatives with higher levels of scrutiny. 

The route alternative analysis will result in the preparation of a Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) that will identify preferred passenger rail alternatives and areas 

of the route or the entirety of the route designated for Project NEPA. In general, the 

screening will be completed as follows: 

 Level 1 analysis identifies the universe of route alternatives within the project 

study area. Routes within the universe are pre-screened against the draft 

Purpose and Need including physical constraints along the alternatives, route 

distance and route population. Routes that are obviously not suitable for 

passenger service are eliminated from further study. 

 Level 2 analyses utilize qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate 

engineering, travel market and environmental criteria. Route alternatives that are 

shown to have impacts that are extraordinary in nature will be eliminated. The 

result of the Level 2 analyses is the identification of the Reasonable and Feasible 

Passenger Rail Alternatives. 

 Level 3 analyses compare route alternatives to the No Build Alternative and to 

each other. The range of route alternatives will be further reduced to those that 

perform well, minimize or avoid impacts and are more cost effective by 

comparison. The result of the Level 3 analyses will be reported in a Tier 1 EIS 

document, after which the study team will identify the Preferred Passenger Rail 

Alternative for the corridor. 

The alternatives analysis evaluates route alternatives and not service alternatives. 

For one route alternative that has been identified as reasonable and feasible, there may 

be several service alternatives, each reflecting a different combination of service 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page x 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

characteristics such as maximum speed, frequencies, stopping patterns, and fare 

structure. The service alternatives will be evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS document. 

Public Involvement 

Public Involvement is a key activity within the NEPA process. The goals of public 

involvement are to engage the public in a meaningful and transparent way and build 

community consensus around recommendations. 

Following the publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register, six public 

involvement meetings and two agency scoping meetings were held in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin in November and December 2010, to inform the public and agencies about 

the Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. Representatives of 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and 

Quandel Consultants presented to the public in the following cities: 

 St. Paul, MN (Agency Scoping and Public Involvement) 

 Rochester, MN (Public Involvement) 

 Eau Claire, WI (Agency Scoping and Public Involvement) 

 La Crosse, WI/La Crescent, MN (Public Involvement) 

 Fond du Lac, WI (Public Involvement) 

 Madison, WI (Public Involvement) 

The Public Involvement Team presented on the following topics: 

 NEPA Process Overview 

 Purpose and Need of the Project 

 Methodology to identify Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 Methodology to identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 Methodology to identify Preferred Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 Service Development Planning 

 Project Schedule and next steps 

Identification of the Universe of Routes 

The Route Alternatives Analysis Methodology states that the Universe of Routes for the 

Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor must be identified. The Universe of Routes is comprised 

of the existing, abandoned, and out of service rail lines within the corridor. Using 

geographic (GIS) data from Minnesota DOT and Wisconsin DOT, twenty-six routes were 

identified as the Universe of Routes. These routes included the following: 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xi 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 1 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-Hastings-St. 

Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 2 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-RochesterOwatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 3 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Hastings-St. PaulMinneapolis 

 Route 4 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-St. 

Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 5 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-WinonaRochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 6 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-HastingsSt. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 7 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-WinonaSt. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 8 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-WinonaRochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 9 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-HastingsSt. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 10 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Camp Douglas-Wyeville-Merrillan-Eau 

Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 11 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Camp Douglas-WyevilleMerrillan-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 12- Milwaukee-Wauwatosa-Wyeville-Merrillan-Eau Claire-St. PaulMinneapolis 

 Route 12A - Milwaukee - Wiscona Jct.- Wyeville – Merrillan - Eau Claire - St. 

Paul -Minneapolis 

 Route 13 - Milwaukee-Neenah-Stevens Point-Marshfield-Chippewa Falls-Eau 

Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 14 - Milwaukee-Neenah-Stevens Point-Marshfield-Chippewa FallsWithrow-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 15 – Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Reedsburg-Sparta-La CrosseHastings-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 16 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Reedsburg-Sparta-La CrosseWinona-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 17 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Reedsburg-Sparta-La CrosseWinona-Rochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 18 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-RochesterRed Wing-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 19 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-WinonaRochester-Red Wing-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 20 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-WinonaRochester-Red Wing-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 21 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Reedsburg-Sparta-La CrosseWinona-Rochester- Red Wing-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 22 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-RochesterDodge Center-Randolph-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 23 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-WinonaRochester- Dodge Center-Randolph- Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 24 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-WinonaRochester- Dodge Center-Randolph- Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 25 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Reedsburg-Sparta-La CrosseWinona-Rochester- Dodge Center-Randolph- Inver Grove Heights-St. PaulMinneapolis 

Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

In order to identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives, each of the routes within 

the universe is assessed against a baseline route for the purpose of making comparative 

route evaluations. For this analysis, the baseline route defined in the MWRRI Project 

Notebook was used. It is defined as: 

 Milwaukee, WI-Madison, WI-Tomah, WI-La Crosse, WI-Red Wing, MN-St. Paul, 

MN-Minneapolis, MN. 

Three evaluation criteria were developed to compare the differences between the route 

alternatives and the baseline route. These evaluation criteria include the following: 

 Route Distance 

 Route Population 

 Physical Constraints 

To evaluate the route alternatives, a percentage difference between each route and the 

baseline is calculated for evaluation criteria #1 and #2. For evaluation criterion #3 

(Physical Constraints), the presence of physical constraints along a route eliminates a 

route from further analysis. 

Through assessments of the three evaluation criteria, the states identified fourteen 

routes, Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12A, 13, and 14, as the Potential 

Passenger Rail Alternatives. The potential passenger rail alternatives, as described 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xiii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

below, are subjected to a more detailed route alternative analysis in this report in order to 

identify the “reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives: 

 Route 1 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-Hastings-St. 

Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 2 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-RochesterOwatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 3 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Hastings-St. PaulMinneapolis 

 Route 4 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-Winona-St. 

Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 5 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-WinonaRochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 6 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La Crosse-HastingsSt. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 7 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-WinonaSt. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 8 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-WinonaRochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 9 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La Crosse-HastingsSt. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 10 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Camp Douglas-Wyeville-Merrillan-Eau 

Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 11 - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Camp Douglas-WyevilleMerrillan-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 12A- Milwaukee - Wiscona Jct.- Wyeville – Merrillan - Eau Claire - St. Paul 

-Minneapolis 

 Route 13 - Milwaukee-Neenah-Stevens Point-Marshfield-Chippewa Falls-Eau 

Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 14 - Milwaukee-Neenah-Stevens Point-Marshfield-Chippewa FallsWithrow-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

Process to Identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

Nine evaluation criteria and associated measures were developed in order to identify 

which of the potential passenger rail alternatives meet the project purpose and the 

project need for the proposed action. The measures for each evaluation criterion are 

assessed to ensure that a potential passenger rail alternative complements the project 

purpose and project need for the proposed action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xiv 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

passenger rail alternative. The potential passenger rail alternative that does not meet 

the project purpose and the project need of the proposed action will be eliminated. The 

following are the nine evaluation criteria used to evaluate the potential passenger rail 

alternatives: 

1. Route Characteristics 

2. Travel Time 

3. Market Size 

4. Capital Costs 

5. Operating Costs 

6. Safety 

7. Reliability 

8. System Connectivity 

9. Environmental Features 

Workshops 

A preliminary workshop was held on January 20, 2011 with the states and FRA to review 

the technical data that was developed for each of the fourteen potential passenger rail 

alternatives. This data is described above in section 2.1. Also at the workshop, the 

states and FRA discussed the use of “normative statements” in the evaluation of 

potential passenger rail alternatives. A normative statement is a value judgment given to 

data for the purpose of qualitatively assessing that data. The states and FRA agreed 

that a normative statement would be given to each measure to qualitatively assess the 

measure and to “rate” the routes using three colors; green, yellow, and red: 

 Routes assessed as “green” are more likely to be reasonable and feasible when 

compared to other routes 

 Routes assessed as “yellow” are sub-optimum when compared to “green” routes 

but can still be considered viable 

 Routes assessed as “red” are a poor choice when compared to “green” and 

“yellow” routes 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail alternative complements the project purpose and project need for the 

proposed action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. The 

potential passenger rail alternative that does not meet the project purpose and the 

project need of the proposed action will be eliminated. 

A workshop was held on March 11, 2011 with representatives of Mn/DOT, WisDOT, and 

Amtrak to review technical data associated with the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xv 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

and to qualitatively evaluate this data in order to identify a set of reasonable and feasible 

passenger rail alternatives for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. 

At the March workshop, the states were divided into three teams to assess the 

evaluation criteria and measures. The workshop was structured so that the measures 

were assessed independently for a given criterion and an overall assessment was given 

to that evaluation criterion based on the results of the assessment of the measures. The 

teams individually assessed and rated the routes, and then discussed the team 

assessments to reach a consensus assessment. This process was completed for all 

measures and criterion. 

Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

After the stakeholder workshop, four routes remained that could be identified as 

Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives: 

 Route 1 (Existing Amtrak) - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La CrosseWinona-Hastings-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 4 (MWRRI-Madison) - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La 

Crosse-Winona-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 10 (Amtrak-Eau Claire) - Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Camp DouglasWyeville-Merrillan-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

 Route 11 (Madison-Eau Claire) - Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Camp 

Douglas-Wyeville-Merrillan-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis 

Of these four routes, Routes 1 and 10 best met the purpose of decreasing travel time in 

the corridor, with essentially comparable end-to-end travel times determined by the TPC 

modeling. Notably, these two routes also were the only two that were ranked “green” or 

“more likely reasonable and feasible” without any “red” or “poor” assessments given in 

any single major category in the final cumulative analyses determined in the ConsensusBased Quality Assessment. A final evaluation was made to determine other distinct and 

significant variations between the four routes. In comparing these routes to one another, 

Route 1 had the following advantages over the other routes: 

 Route 1 has 0.0 miles of significant grades while Route 4 has 4.87 miles, Route 

10 has 14.38 miles, and Route 11 has 19.25 miles of significant grades. 

 Travel time between MTI and Milwaukee is 33 minutes less than Route 4 (route 

that connects to Madison), 3 minutes less than Route 10 through Eau Claire, and 

42 minutes less than Route 11 through Madison and Eau Claire; 

 Capital cost of Route 1 is $141 million less than Route 4, $550 million less than 

Route 10, and $690 million less than Route 11; 

 Track maintenance cost of Route 1 is $979,000 less than Route 4, $630,000 less 

than Route 10, and $1.608 million less than Route 11; and 

 99.8% of Route 1 has CTC while only 85.4% of Route 4, 45.5% of Route 10, and 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xvi 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

29.8% of Route 11 have CTC 

Additionally, Route 1 most successfully met each purpose and need for the proposed 

action to construct and operate a high-speed passenger rail corridor between Milwaukee 

and Minneapolis/St. Paul. 

Route 1 provided the greatest advantage of all routes by offering a competitive and 

attractive alternative mode of transportation. In order to attract rail users, the proposed 

action must provide conveniences that are competitive with or better than conveniences 

provided by other transportation modes to the majority of travelers in the corridor. This 

need was addressed by decreasing travel time from the current 6 hours and 30 minutes, 

which is the existing travel time for the Empire Builder between the Twin Cities and 

Milwaukee and also increasing the frequency of passenger rail service. Development of 

this route would not only establish high-speed, high-frequency passenger rail service, but 

also complement existing Amtrak service and improve its flexibility. Additionally, corridor 

project team members including FRA and Amtrak representatives were cognizant of the 

recent vacillation to completely fund the full high speed rail corridors in single funding 

cycle in favor of partial or incremental funding and building of a passenger rail route in 

phases allowing for incremental increases in frequency as well as “phased” reduction in 

travel time. 

The Vision of the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 

is to develop a robust intrastate and interstate intercity passenger rail system which 

results in improved travel options, costs and speeds for Minnesota and interstate 

travelers. One of the priority program elements identified in the Statewide Rail Plan is to 

advance corridors incrementally and simultaneously with Mn/DOT’s support; sequencing 

depending on financing, ROW acquisition and agreements with freight railroads1

. 

Project representatives considered the Vision and priority program of the Minnesota 

Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan in the final evaluation. 

Section 4.2.2 of the draft Project Purpose and Need acknowledged that improvements to 

infrastructure and mitigation of freight capacity issues could allow for increased train 

frequency and reduced travel times for passenger rail service in the corridor. Route 1 

currently has passenger service in that Amtrak’s Empire Builder serves the corridor, and, 

therefore, provided the best opportunity to implement a phased approach for 

infrastructure improvements and freight mitigation. The proper phasing of the 

improvements will achieve incremental reduction in travel time for each improvement 

allowing for an incremental increase in frequency of passenger rail service. In fact, 

Mn/DOT and WisDOT are currently exploring with Amtrak the feasibility of increasing the 

frequency of the current service from one round-trip per day to two with the introduction 

of the second Empire Builder train between the Twin Cities and Chicago via Milwaukee. 

Routes 4, 10, and 11 do not offer this benefit since each route required significant capital 

investment prior to the introduction of any passenger rail train service. Appendix L 

detailed the capital cost estimates for each route alternative. The Watertown- Madison-

 

1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan, February 2010 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xvii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Portage segments needed building prior to the introduction of passenger rail service on 

Route 4. The estimated capital improvements for these segments are in excess of $500 

million. Route 10 required the complete build of the Camp Douglas-Eau Claire-St Paul 

segments from Camp Douglas. Route 11, which also serves Eau Claire, required the 

complete build of the Route 4 and Route 10 segments. The estimated capital 

improvements for Route 10 and 11 needed prior to introducing any passenger rail 

service was in excess of $1.8 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively. While Route 10 in 

particular is indicated as a viable option for future expansion if and when a large an fullcoverage funding source can be obtained, waiting for this resource to materialize may 

unduly delay service implementation. 

Given all of the aforementioned considerations, project representatives determined that 

one reason to identify Route 1 as the reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative 

was because of the opportunities to incrementally implement a reduction in travel time 

and increase in frequency by phasing the build-out of the route. This phased approach 

recognizes the constraints associated with funding requirements for major infrastructure 

improvements at the state and federal levels and is consistent with the Minnesota 

Statewide Rail Plan. 

In their oversight role, the Federal Railroad Administration has also consistently sought 

to address concerns raised by interested parties from Wisconsin and Southeastern 

Minnesota, who advocate for a different routing, by explaining that the EIS is intended to 

look at “near-term” options for expanded passenger service in the corridor (e.g. “Phase 

1” of the MWRRI), and that a full build-out of the corridor in the longer term will examine 

other route alternatives. The FRA and the state DOT project representatives continue to 

operate in the context of the long-range vision that this is the first step or a ‘near-term’ 

focus of a high-speed passenger rail alternative in a highly viable corridor, one that in 

future phases will provide significantly better service in terms of speeds, frequency, 

supplemental routes and connections, and service coverage area as part of a full, robust 

system, ultimately with much enhanced levels of effectiveness and economic benefits. 

Finally, on August 31, 2011, Wisconsin’s Secretary of Transportation sent a letter to 

Mn/DOT stating that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will no longer pursue 

the continuation of the Milwaukee-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Study at this time. The 

letter further stated that WisDOT will continue to support intercity passenger rail by 

focusing Wisconsin’s resources on the Hiawatha and Empire Builder routes that have 

successfully serviced Wisconsin residents over the last 20 years. The letter further 

states that improving and enhancing these routes is Wisconsin’s first priority. The letter 

is attached as Appendix P. 

Because Route 1 more clearly meets the purpose and need, specifically related to a 

phased approach for implementation of high-speed intercity passenger rail service, 

Mn/DOT has identified Route 1 as the Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail 

Alternative. 

The figure below depicts the Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternative. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xviii 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Next Steps 

The next step in the project is to identify the preferred passenger rail alternative within a 

Tier 1 EIS document. Tiering is a staged approach to NEPA described in the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). Tiering addresses broad 

programs and issues in initial (Tier 1) analyses, and analyzes site-specific proposals and 

impacts in subsequent tier studies. The tiered process supports decision-making on 

issues that are ripe for decision and provides a means to preserve those decisions. 

Within the Tier 1 EIS, the reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative and a no 

build alternative will be evaluated to identify the preferred passenger rail alternative. The 

alternatives are evaluated based on: 

 Conceptual Engineering 

 Track Concepts 

 Capital Cost Estimate 

 Station Location Analysis 

 Environmental Analysis 

 Ridership 
Alternatives Selection Report 

Executive Summary 

 

October 26, 2011 Page xix 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Operating Costs 

 Assessment of Benefits 

The tiered environmental process will include a Draft Tier 1 EIS, a Final Tier 1 EIS, and a 

Tier 1 Record of Decision (ROD) to conclude Tier 1. Upon the conclusion of the Tier 1 

study, a preferred alternative will be selected by FRA and projects to be studied in Tier 2 

will be identified. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose of Alternatives Selection Report 

The Alternatives Selection Report presents the identification of the reasonable and 

feasible passenger rail alternatives within the Milwaukee-Twin Cities High Speed Rail 

Corridor Program. This report will clearly indicate the following: 

1. why and how the particular range of project route alternatives (potential 

passenger rail alternatives) was developed, 

2. how the results of the scoping process and other public and agency input was 

used in the route alternatives analysis, and 

3. the process used to evaluate and eliminate the route alternatives to arrive at the 

reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives 

The Alternatives Selection Report builds on a previous report, the Interim Alternatives 

Selection Report: Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives (the Initial 

Alternatives Selection Report), which describes how the universe of routes was 

developed and how the potential passenger rail alternatives were identified. See section 

1.5 for further description of the Interim Alternatives Selection Report. The Interim 

Alternatives Selection Report is included as Appendix A. 

The Alternatives Selection Report will be presented to the Federal Railroad 

Administration, agencies, and the public for review and comment prior to the analysis 

leading to the identification of the preferred passenger rail alternative. 

1.2 Background of Midwest Regional Rail Initiative 

In 1996, nine Midwest states, including Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Amtrak initiated 

the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). The MWRRI elements include: 

 Operation of a hub and spoke passenger rail system centered on Chicago 

 Use of 3,000 miles of existing rail right of way to connect rural and urban areas 

 Track and signal improvements and introduction of modern trains operating at 

speeds up to 110 mph 

 Provision of multi-modal connections to improve system access 

 Improvement in frequency, reliability, speed, and on-time performance 

The work of this initiative (MWRRI) has resulted in a well coordinated and integrated 

110-mph rail Business Plan that defines the way in which the rail system should be 

implemented. This Business Plan consists of various documents that were prepared - an 

Executive Summary (2004), MWRRI Project Notebook (2004), Appendices (2004), and 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Benefit Cost and Economic Analysis (2006)2. 

In 2007, the MWRRI States developed a Draft Purpose and Need for the MWRRI, a 

Scope of Work for undertaking preliminary engineering and environmental studies of the 

MWRRI Phase 1 Implementation corridors, and a Scope of Work for undertaking a 

programmatic environmental study of the other MWRRS corridor outside of Phase 1. 

On July 27, 2009 the Governors of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin and the Mayor of the City of Chicago 

executed a Memorandum of Understanding for the “Implementation of High- Speed Rail 

Passenger Service and Connections Involving Corridors Linking Cities in their 

Respective States”. This document affirms that “all MOU Participants recognize a 

priority to establish the Chicago Hub to corridors consisting of Chicago-St. Louis, 

Chicago to Milwaukee-Madison, and Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac, (MWRRI Phase 1 

Implementation) that would form a high speed hub in the heart of the nation with highspeed and conventional passenger service connections radiating to seven other 

Midwestern states”. 

The Milwaukee to Twin Cities corridor (MWRRI Phase 2 Implementation) was predicated 

on six round trip trains per day to the Twin Cities with four additional round trip trains per 

day to Madison and was scheduled for implementation one year after Phase 1. 

In March 2009, WisDOT, acting as the Secretariat for the MWRRI Steering Committee, 

entered into a cooperative agreement with FRA under the “Capital Assistance to States – 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service Program” for on-going planning work or MWRRI 

Planning Phase 7. The MWRRI Planning Phase 7 work was intended to provide basic 

information for the participant states as states proceed with meeting the requirements of 

the federal NEPA process for the preparation of a programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for route selection in MWRRI corridors. The Project Notebook of 2004 

and the Benefit Cost and Economic Analysis report of 2006 is the Plan for the MWRRI 

and addresses the elements that comprise a Service Development Plan (SDP) on a 

broad level. To meet the HSIPR application requirements, an SDP for the MWRRI 

system as a whole was developed to support the formulation of an SDP for each corridor 

of the MWRRI system. In 2009, individual corridor SDPs were prepared for corridors for 

which a Track 2 HSIPR application was submitted. 

Figure 1-1 depicts the Midwest Regional Rail System. 

 

 

2 http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/rail.htm
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

The Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, and Chicago-Milwaukee corridors were 

authorized for designation as high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors by the 

Secretary of Transportation in 1992. On December 11, 1998 Then FRA Administrator 

Molitoris announced the TEA-21 authorized extension of the Midwest High-Speed Rail 

Corridor from Milwaukee, WI to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, in the Federal Register. (Vol. 

63, No. 238/ page 68500). By 2001, Chicago-Cleveland, Chicago-Cincinnati, ChicagoIndianapolis-Louisville, and Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City were all designated highspeed intercity passenger rail corridors. 

Figure 1-2 depicts the current nationally designated high-speed intercity passenger rail 

corridors. 

Figure 1-1. Midwest Regional Rail System 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

1.3 Background of Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail 

Corridor Program 

1.3.1 Background of Program 

On June 23, 2009, the FRA issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the HighSpeed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in the Federal Register. In response, 

Mn/DOT submitted an application to develop a Tier 1 EIS document for new passenger 

rail service on the Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor, a segment of the Chicago to Twin 

Cities high-speed rail corridor. The FRA reviewed Mn/DOT's application for eligibility and 

ranking with the criteria outlined in the NOFA. Based upon this evaluation, the FRA 

selected the State of Minnesota for an award of $600,000 for this project, through a 

cooperative agreement between FRA and Mn/DOT (the Grantee). 

Mn/DOT entered into a cooperative agreement with FRA to develop the Tier 1 EIS 

document for the Milwaukee-Twin Cities Corridor. Funding for the project has been 

committed through Minnesota and Wisconsin state funds and FRA’s HSIPR Program 

described in the previous paragraph. In addition to funding the project cooperatively, 

Mn/DOT and WisDOT have been working together on public involvement throughout 

both states. 

1.3.2 Project Team 

The project team was assembled specifically for the Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed 

Rail Corridor Program. The team is comprised of Mn/DOT, WisDOT, Amtrak, and 

Figure 1-2. National High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Corridors 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Quandel Consultants staff members that have the technical expertise and experience in 

high-speed rail planning to produce a successful project. The following sections provide 

a brief biography on the key staff members. 

1.3.2.1 Mn/DOT Staff 

Daniel Krom, Director, Passenger Rail Office, Mn/DOT 

Dan Krom is the Director of Mn/DOT’s Passenger Rail Office. The Office was 

established in July 2009 as a result of the State legislature and the Governors support for 

passenger rail development in the state during the past legislative session. 

Dan recently worked as the Transit Manager for Dakota County, Minnesota. His 

responsibilities included the implementation of the first bus rapid transit line in Minnesota 

along the Cedar Avenue corridor connecting to the Hiawatha light rail line and downtown 

Minneapolis. 

Dan previously worked for Mn/DOT for 13 years starting his career in the Office of 

Transit, developing and managing funding for small urban and rural transit programs; 

Planning Supervisor in the Office of Freight, Railroads and Waterways managing the 

development of the first Twin Cities commuter rail system plan, Tri-State high speed rail 

studies and representative on the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative; and he served as 

Director of Federal Relations during the authorization of SAFETEA-LU. 

Dan also served as the Transit Manager for the City of Moorhead, Minnesota. He has a 

Bachelor of Science and Master of Arts degrees in Urban and Regional Studies from 

Minnesota State University (Mankato). 

Frank Pafko, Director, Office of Environmental Services, Mn/DOT 

Frank Pafko is Chief Environmental Officer and Director of the Office of Environmental 

Services for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). After a year and a 

half with the Department of Natural Resources in Ely Minnesota, Frank began his career 

with Mn/DOT in 1977 as an aquatic biologist. Over the next 24 years he assumed 

several leadership positions in the Office of Environmental Services including 

Transportation Assistant Chief Environmental Officer from 1995 to 2000. 

In 2001 he joined the Metro District as Area Manager. As Area Manager he was 

responsible for program delivery activities and development of relationships with 

transportation partners in Anoka, Ramsey and northern Hennepin counties. Frank was 

the first non-engineer to hold a program delivery management position with Mn/DOT. 

Frank has an impressive background in the field of Environmental Services. His 

achievements include developing and implementing environmental policy; providing 

environmental and regulatory expertise to internal & external clients; and building and 

maintaining strong relationships with other environmental agencies. He has made 

presentations on a variety of environmental topics at national conferences and has 

represented Mn/DOT on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Organization’s (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Environment and Transportation 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Resource Board Environmental Analysis Committee. Frank chairs the (AASHTO) 

Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Minnesota Scenic Byway Commission. He is 

also a Mississippi River Parkway Commissioner. Frank has a 1975 Bachelor of Science 

degree in Fisheries (Biology) from the University of Minnesota. 

David Christianson, Freight & Rail Planning and Development, Mn/DOT 

Dave has been involved with transportation as a vocation since 1973. His degree in 

Business Administration from University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire included independent 

study and internship with Santa Fe, Milwaukee Road, C&NW, and Illinois Central, 

including interaction with Alan Boyd, David Gunn, and Paul Reistrup. He spent 25 years 

in the private sector in the oil industry; warehousing, distribution, trucking and freight rail, 

and port and container operations. He has worked on I.C.C. ratemaking, the North East 

Rail Reorganization, Powder River Basin coal transportation, and intermodal facilities 

design, construction, and operation in the Port of Long Beach. In 12 years as intermodal 

manager at Long Beach Container Terminal, he was engaged with two terminal 

expansions, gate and data automation, the installation and operation of the Port’s second 

on-dock container rail terminal, and planning for the Alameda Corridor. 

Mr. Christianson also enjoyed seven years with the Metropolitan Council, the regional 

government of the Twin Cities, managing contracted transit operations and freight 

planning. He followed this experience with two years as a transportation consultant 

specializing in transit, freight, and rail design, engineering, and safety. Dave joined 

Mn/DOT in 2008 as a transportation planning manager. The office’s current work 

includes several regional freight transportation plans, the Minnesota Comprehensive 

Freight and Passenger Rail Plan (Dave is Project Manager for the State Rail Plan), 

statewide transportation policy, and numerous freight and passenger rail initiatives and 

projects. An accomplished public speaker, Mr. Christianson has delivered both technical 

and informational presentations to numerous regional and national organizations on 

topics ranging from safety and energy to high speed passenger rail. 

Praveena Pidaparthi, Planning Director, Mn/DOT 

Praveena Pidaparthi is the Planning Director in the Passenger Rail Office at Minnesota 

Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). Ms. Pidaparthi joined Mn/DOT in January 2009 

in the Office of Transit and moved to the Passenger Rail Office upon its creation in July 

2009. At Mn/DOT, she worked on the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Passenger 

and Freight Rail Plan and is currently involved in the development and management of 

passenger rail projects and activities in the state. 

Prior to joining Mn/DOT, Ms. Pidaparthi was a consultant transportation planner at Iteris, 

Inc. where she led and managed tasks for a number of local and national transportation 

projects including the ‘Access Minneapolis –Ten Year Transportation Action Plan’ and 

‘Parking and Smart Growth Study for the City of Los Angeles’. She also held 

transportation planner roles at McCombs Frank Roos Associates and SRF Consulting 

Group, Inc. and was involved in a variety of Mn/DOT studies and county transportation 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

plans. 

Ms. Pidaparthi’s educational background includes a Masters degree in Urban and 

Regional Planning from the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota and a 

Graduate Certificate in Transportation Studies from the Center for Transportation Studies 

at the University of Minnesota. Ms. Pidaparthi also has a Bachelor of Architecture 

degree from Andhra University in India. She is certified with the American Institute of 

Certified Planners (AICP). 

1.3.2.2 WisDOT Staff 

Ronald Adams, Chief, Railroads and Harbors Section, WisDOT 

Ronald Adams has worked for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation since 1984 in 

various positions dealing with the freight and passenger rail programs. Currently, Ronald 

is the Chief, Railroads and Harbors Section within the Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, 

Railroads and Harbors of the Division of Investment Management. 

Ronald has served as Chair, Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Steering Committee and 

Co-chair of AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Rail Transportation Passenger Rail Task 

Force. 

Previously, Ronald worked in the rail program area with the Washington State DOT 

(1979 – 1984) and the Kansas DOT (1976 – 1979). 

Ron has a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and Master of Business 

Administration from the University of Kansas. Ron is a Professional Engineer licensed in 

Kansas (since 1980) and Wisconsin (since 1999) 

Ronal retired as a CAPT in the Navy Reserve after 31 years of active and reserve duty 

Awards: AASHTO President’s Modal Award for Rail – 1997 

Amtrak’s Presidential Safety and Service Award as Distinguished State 

Partner - 2008 

Donna L. Brown, Passenger Rail Planning Manager, WisDOT 

Donna Brown, a 20-year veteran of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

(WisDOT), is the Passenger Rail Planning Manager for the state. Donna and her team 

are responsible for the environmental and planning, programming process for 

Wisconsin’s Passenger Rail program. 

Donna has a Masters Degree in Urban Policy from the University of Wisconsin -Madison, 

LaFollette Institute of Public Policy and a Bachelors Degree in Political Science from the 

UW-Madison, Political Science Department. 

Donna joined WisDOT in 1992, as a planning analyst intern in the Environmental 

Strategies Unit. In 1993, she advanced to Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality program 

manager and held a variety of planning positions throughout the Department through 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

1998. In 1999, Donna served as Section Chief for the Intercity Planning Section of the 

Bureau of Planning responsible for plan development of long range statewide 

transportation plans such as the State Highway, Rail and Airport plans. In February 

2001, she transferred to the Division of Districts and became the System Planning 

Manager for S.E. Region Transportation district. 

Since 2005, Donna has planned and worked on major projects such as the Marquette 

Interchange, I-94 North-South Corridor Study and SE Region Rehabilitation Program 

implementation. Working with MPOs, local units of government and communities to 

address transportation needs in the region. For the last two years, Ms. Brown has led the 

Zoo Interchange Corridor Study as Project Director guiding the development of the 

environmental impact statement study for the region’s major reconstruction projects. 

Carrie Cooper, Project Manager/Environmental Lead, WisDOT 

Carrie has worked in a variety of positions during her 17 years with WisDOT. She 

served as WisDOT’s District Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator for 12 

years where she performed transportation data and environmental analysis. In 2005, 

Carrie began working as an Environmental Planner writing Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS) for WisDOT mega projects. Her first project was the 35-mile I-94 

North-South Corridor Freeway EIS project in Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha Counties. 

She has also worked on the EIS for the I-94 Zoo Interchange mega project in Milwaukee 

County. Carrie was the WisDOT Environmental Lead for these mega projects and also 

served on the public involvement team. Carrie previously served as the Project Manager 

for the development of Environmental Assessments for Passenger Rail Stations in 

Madison, WI and Watertown, WI and the as the Environmental Lead on the Milwaukee to 

Madison High-Speed Rail Corridor. Carrie is currently the Environmental Lead for a 

Train Car Maintenance Facility in Milwaukee and is the WisDOT Project Manager for the 

Design and Construction of the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station (MARS) platform & 

canopy extension project in Milwaukee, and the Truesdell Crossover project along the 

Canadian Pacific Rail line in Kenosha County. 

Carrie has a B.S. in Environmental Studies and Geography from Western Michigan 

University. 

Crystal DuPont, Urban Regional Planner, WisDOT 

A 17-year veteran of WisDOT, Crystal is a lead Passenger Rail Planner. She is 

responsible for environmental, planning and programming processes as they relate to 

the Amtrak intercity passenger rail service. Crystal currently serves as WisDOT’s project 

manager for the Milwaukee Train Shed project. 

Crystal joined WisDOT District Operations programming in 1995 the lead for the Adopt-aHighway, State sign program, and Consultant Services Contract management. In 1999, 

Crystal added Equal Rights responsibilities for Title IV activities for the SE Region 

including Disadvantage Business Enterprise, Environmental Justice and Labor 

compliance, Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity (AA/EEO) efforts. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

In January 2002, Crystal transferred to the System Planning, Multi Modal Unit as Urban 

and Regional Planner for the SE Region transportation district. As a team leader she 

has planned and conducted analysis on a broad range of multimodal and demand 

management transportation studies on major projects including the Marquette 

Interchange, I-94 North-South Corridor Study, the I-94 Zoo Interchange Corridor Study 

and SE Region rehabilitation program implementation. In this role she works with all 

levels of management and government including Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs), local units of government and communities to address transportation needs in 

the region. 

Crystal led the State’s first environmental justice efforts on the I-94 North-South Corridor 

Study and I-94 Zoo Interchange Corridor Study guiding the development of 

Environmental Justice Analysis study for the region’s major freeway reconstruction 

projects completing the draft Environmental Justice Analysis document for review and 

consideration. She served as the WisDOT Lead for these efforts on region and mega 

projects and also on the public involvement team. 

Crystal attended the University of Minnesota, Duluth. 

Arun Rao, Urban and Regional Planner, WisDOT 

Arun has 10 years of experience in transportation planning working for the Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Arun is an Urban and Regional Planner 

responsible for passenger rail planning and analysis in the Bureau of Planning and 

Economic Development, and works closely with the Passenger Rail Unit responsible for 

Wisconsin’s passenger rail program. Arun also works on multimodal planning and transit 

issues, and is a WisDOT liaison to three Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 

Since 2006, Arun has had extensive experience in intercity passenger rail planning. This 

has included developing the passenger rail chapter of the draft Wisconsin Rail Plan 

2030, working on Wisconsin’s High Speed Rail ARRA grant applications and other 

Federal Railroad Administration grant applications, analyzing Amtrak ridership data, 

developing trains schedule scenarios, participating on the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative (MWRRI) Steering Committee, providing technical support for MWRRI plans 

and reports, and working on passenger rail NEPA documents and rail capacity studies. 

Arun has also worked on Department passenger rail reports, testimonies, train 

equipment acquisition effort, and review of federal legislation and rulemaking. Arun has 

provided information for States for Passenger Rail Coalition efforts, Midwest Governors’ 

High Speed Rail Group, and other organizations. Arun also has played a key role in 

developing parameters and scoping of passenger rail studies. 

Arun has a Masters Degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of 

Wisconsin –Madison and a Bachelor in Business Administration in Real Estate and 

Urban Land Economics from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. 

Jeffry J. Abboud, Urban and Regional Planner, WisDOT 

Jeffry has been an Urban and Region Planner for the Wisconsin Department of 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Transportation since 1992. His duties have included: 

 District Railroad Coordinator, 1998 – 2000 where he was responsible of all 

interaction between Railroads and the Department within the District 

 Highway Corridor Planning, 2000 to present, where he was responsible for 

Freeway Designation and Conversion Studies, STH’s 29, 35 & 64, 2000 to 

present 

 Transportation Planning Advisor to Local Communities where he was a TDP 

Committee Member for Eau Claire Transit 2004 

 Metropolitan Planning Organization Liaison where he was an Advisory 

Committee Member for the Met Council Transportation Policy Plan. 2007 

 Northern Lights Express, TAC Member. 2009 to present 

 IH 94 Gateway Corridor Study TAC Member 2010 to present 

 Milwaukee to Twin Cities High Speed Passenger Rail Region Team Member, 

2009 to present 

Previous positions were with the City of Eau Claire as a Transportation Planner from 

1974 – 1981 and with Dayton Hudson Corporation as an Operation Supervisor with a 

Target Retail Store, 1982 - 1992 

Jeffry has a Bachelor of Science in Urban/Transportation Emphasis and a Bachelor of 

Business Administration from UW-Eau Claire. 

Tom Beekman, Regional Systems Planning and Programming Chief, WisDOT 

Tom has been with WisDOT for over 25 years and has been in his current position of 

Regional Systems Planning and Programming Chief for over 10 years. In that position, 

Tom is the responsible manager for any highway or other multi-modal engineering and 

environmental studies on the current or future state transportation system. These efforts 

have included direct management over dozens of environmental studies ranging from 

simply environmental assessment (EA) to complex environmental impact statements 

(EIS), including the first Tiered EIS efforts done at WisDOT. This current position is also 

the responsible manager for identifying all future improvement projects for the Northwest 

Region which has an annual construction budget of between $120M to $200M, and a 6-

Year Improvement Program of between $750M and $1B. From 1990 to 2000, Tom 

served as the WisDOT District 6 Technical Services Supervisor for surveys, plats, utility 

coordination, railroad coordination, CADDS, and automated highway engineering design, 

as well as direct supervision of several design projects. From 1989 to 1990, Tom was a 

construction supervisor for WisDOT District 5. From 1986 to 1989, Tom was a WisDOT 

District 5 staff engineering working in construction, design, and planning. From 1983-

1985, Tom was a student engineer at WisDOT working in District 6, District 1, and 

Central Office Traffic. 

Tom has a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

University of Wisconsin – Madison (1985). 

Ethan Johnson, Program and Planning Analyst, WisDOT 

Ethan Johnson is a Program and Planning Analyst with twelve years of experience 

monitoring and analyzing the performance of Wisconsin's intercity passenger rail service, 

as well as planning for future high-speed rail service in the state. 

Ethan began his employment with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in 1999 

as a Program and Planning Analyst in the Bureau of Planning and Economic 

Development. In 2010 Ethan joined the Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads and 

Harbors, where he continued to work on intercity passenger rail analyses and planning in 

addition to his new duties working with Wisconsin's freight rail grant and loan assistance 

programs. 

For the past twelve years Ethan has served on the WisDOT team that has performed 

Secretariat duties for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), an eight-state effort 

to develop a Midwest high-speed rail system hubbed in Chicago. Ethan has helped 

manage the multi-state MWRRI effort. He also has provided considerable input into the 

MWRRI technical planning process, as the Midwest states developed detailed ridership 

and revenue forecasts, operating strategies, and infrastructure and equipment 

investment plans. 

Ethan also worked with other WisDOT staff to develop long-range transportation 

planning documents for Wisconsin. For Connections 2030, Wisconsin's current all-mode, 

long-range transportation plan, Ethan led the development of the intercity passenger rail 

component of the plan. Ethan also contributed to the development of the intercity 

passenger rail section of the current Draft State Rail Plan 2030. 

Since 1999 Ethan has been responsible for analyzing Amtrak performance data for the 

Hiawatha Service and the Empire Builder. Ethan produces a monthly Hiawatha Service 

performance report that is distributed to key internal and external stakeholders. He also 

conducts specific analyses of Amtrak service in Wisconsin as needed. 

Ethan has a joint Masters Degree in Public Affairs-Masters Degree in Environmental 

Science (MPA-MSES) from Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental 

Science (SPEA), as well as a Bachelors Degree in Engineering Mechanics (BSEM) from 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

1.3.2.3 Amtrak Staff 

Walter L. Lander, Principal Officer, Corridor Planning, National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) 

Walter has 40 years of broad experience in the railroad industry. At Amtrak, Walter 

manages a wide range of responsibilities from stakeholder representative for station, 

infrastructure and operating projects to performing high level corridor feasibility studies, 

such as the Ohio 3-C Corridor Study. He also provides technical support and Amtrak 

internal coordination for various state and regional initiatives related to passenger rail 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

corridor improvements. He is a member of several technical advisory committees for 

long range planning at Amtrak, including the Chicago Union Station Master Plan. His 

position is a point of contact with state and governmental officials, municipal planning 

organizations, host rail carriers, consultants and project stakeholders. 

Walter’s railroad career began in 1971 as a Field Engineer with the Illinois Central 

Railroad where he progressed through a number of roles in Engineering, Maintenance of 

Way, Economic Analysis, and Operations, culminating with the position of Director of 

Transportation Planning. 

In 1987 Walter joined RoadRailer as Marketing Manager for Terminal Services working 

on the development of new RoadRailer terminals on the CSX and NS systems. 

In 1989 he moved to Ragnar Benson Inc., a Chicago area general contractor, where he 

specialized for 15 years in the design and construction of railway facilities, including 

serving as Senior Project Engineer for two major intermodal construction projects – the 

BNSF San Bernardino, CA Intermodal Yard and the Union Pacific Rochelle, IL 

Intermodal Yard. He also served as Project Engineer and Project Manager for a number 

of railroad yard, main line, and locomotive shop construction projects. 

Beginning in 2004, Walter worked as an independent consultant on both domestic and 

international projects. He spent two years with TERA International Group as a Railway 

Engineering and Intermodal Specialist. With TERA International he worked on railway 

feasibility and due diligence studies in Beijing, China for the Asian Development Bank 

and in Windhoek, Namibia for the US Trade and Development Agency, respectively. He 

also served as a railway technical advisor for a McKinsey and Company intermodal 

facilities cost study in Beijing, China. 

Prior to joining Amtrak in 2008, Walter worked for two years with HDR Engineering 

where he served as Resident Engineer for the BNSF double track project west of 

Omaha, the reconstruction of CN’s Johnston Yard in Memphis, and preliminary work on 

the DM&E extension to the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. 

Walter holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Mississippi State University 

and is an AREMA member. 

1.3.2.4 Quandel Consultants, LLC Staff 

Charles Quandel, President and CEO, Quandel Consultants, LLC 

Charlie has more than 30 years of experience as a professional engineer with the last 20 

years dedicated to the development of high speed/intercity ground transportation 

systems, both steel-wheel/steel-rail and magnetic levitation, and transit systems in the 

Midwest. He has served as the project manager or project engineer on more than twenty 

high speed ground transportation programs including the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative, Florida High Speed Rail, Ohio Hub, Rocky Mountain (Colorado) High Speed 

Rail, and Twin Cities to Duluth Intercity Rail. He has served as project manager or 

project engineer on transit projects in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan. He has also 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

served as a consultant to AMTRAK and Lockheed Martin on special rail projects. He has 

facilitated more than 30 alternative analysis workshops in Pennsylvania, Florida, New 

York, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, and Minnesota 

Melanie K. Johnson, Project Engineer, Quandel Consultants, LLC 

Melanie is a professional engineer with experience in the transportation industry. Her 

experience includes planning and project management on rail projects, and final design, 

construction observation, and plans, specifications, and estimates for traffic signal 

projects. In the rail industry, Melanie has served as Task Manager for the MilwaukeeTwin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program, the Ohio Statewide Passenger Rail 

Project, and the Northern Lights Express Passenger Rail Project. 

Melanie has a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Purdue University. 

1.4 Project Purpose and Need3

The Draft Purpose and Need Statement was prepared by Mn/DOT and WisDOT in 

consultation with FRA to identify the purpose (desired outcomes) and needs (problems 

that are in need of a solution) of the project. The route alternatives analysis (discussed 

in section 1.5) links the measures of effectiveness to the purpose and need to ensure 

continuity throughout the project. The Draft Purpose and Need Statement is provided as 

Appendix B. 

This document addresses the purpose and need for the proposed action. Need is driven 

by the limitations and vulnerabilities of available travel modes between Milwaukee and 

Twin Cities. The purpose of the project is to meet future regional travel needs in the 

Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor through improvements to the level and quality of regional 

passenger rail service and providing connections to other existing and planned 

transportation systems and the roadway network. 

Proposed Action

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the Wisconsin Department 

of Transportation (WisDOT), in cooperation with the FRA, propose to construct and 

operate a high-speed passenger rail corridor between Milwaukee, Wisconsin and 

Minneapolis/St. Paul (Twin Cities), Minnesota. The Milwaukee-Twin Cities high-speed 

rail corridor program is part of a larger network of high speed passenger rail corridors in 

the Midwest, with a hub in Chicago, Illinois. 

Project Purpose

The purpose of the proposed action is to meet future regional travel demand and provide 

intermodal connectivity to existing and planned transportation systems in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin. The proposed action offers an opportunity to provide reliable and competitive 

 

3 Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program, Draft Purpose and Need Statement, March 2011 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

passenger rail service as an attractive alternative transportation choice between 

Milwaukee and Twin Cities by: 

 Decreasing travel times, 

 Increasing frequency of service, and 

 Providing safe and reliable service. 

In addition, the project will: 

 Improve overall system connectivity in the interstate transportation network in 

conformance with statewide and regional transportation plans 

 Provide accessibility to major population centers, 

 Improve freight rail mobility, and 

 Minimize environmental impacts. 

Project Need

The need for the proposed action is based on the limitations and vulnerabilities of 

available travel modes between Milwaukee and Twin Cities. Existing transportation 

modes, including highway, bus, and air travel, have inherent problems including 

congested highways near the Milwaukee, Madison, and Twin Cities metro areas and 

airport capacity issues at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Milwaukee’s 

General Mitchell International Airport. Improved and expanded passenger rail service 

can provide an alternative mode and/or relief to these congested roadways and airports. 

The need for the proposed action exists because: 

1. Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a significant 

burden on existing transportation infrastructure 

2. Competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel do not exist in the 

corridor 

3. As travel demand increases a new travel mode must be reliable to attract riders 

from existing travel modes ; 

4. Intermodal connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. 

Minnesota and Wisconsin DOTs and local metropolitan planning organizations anticipate 

consistent increases in total daily vehicle-miles traveled on their freeway systems; much 

of these increases are expected to occur under congested conditions. As needed 

highway capacity expansion is physically constrained or exceeds available funds, future 

travel demands will need to be met through alternative travel modes and travel demand 

management. 

Table 1-1 shows the relationship between the purpose and the identified needs of the 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

project, as discussed in sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2. The table demonstrates how 

addressing a specific need will aid in achieving a project purpose. Some of the 

relationships between purpose and need are direct; such as the relationship between the 

purpose of Improve Overall System Connectivity and the need of Existing Intermodal 

Connectivity is Limited. 

Table 1-1. Matrix of Project Purpose vs. Project Need 

NEEDS 

Increased 

Travel Demand 

Competitive and 

Attractive 

Alternative Modes 

of Travel do not 

Exist 

New Travel 

Mode Must be 

Reliable to 

Attract Riders 

Existing 

Intermodal 

Connectivity is 

Limited 

PURPOSE 

Decrease Travel 

Times X X X X 

Increase Frequency 

of Service X X X 

Provide Safe and 

Reliable Service X X X X 

Improve Overall 

System 

Connectivity

X X X X 

Provide 

Accessibility to 

Major Population 

Centers 

X X X X 

Improve Freight 

Rail Mobility X 

Minimize 

Environmental 

Impacts 

X X X 

1.5 Route Alternatives Analysis 

The States, in consultation with FRA, prepared a route alternative analysis methodology 

for use in developing, evaluating, and comparing route alternatives that is completed in 

three levels of increasing specificity. For each level of analysis, criteria will be analyzed 

to both quantitatively and qualitatively describe the benefits and impacts and narrow the 

range of route alternatives based on the Project Purpose and Need. As a result, the 

analysis will focus on progressively fewer route alternatives with higher levels of scrutiny. 

The route alternative analysis will result in the preparation of a Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) that will identify preferred passenger rail alternatives and areas 

of the route or the entirety of the route designated for Project NEPA. In general, the 

screening will be completed as follows: 

 Level 1 analysis identifies the universe of route alternatives within the project 

study area. Routes within the universe are pre-screened against the draft 

Purpose and Need including physical constraints along the route alternatives, 

route distance and route population. Routes that are obviously not suitable for 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

passenger service are eliminated from further study. 

 Level 2 analyses utilize qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate 

engineering, travel market and environmental criteria. Route alternatives that are 

shown to have impacts that are extraordinary in nature will be eliminated. The 

result of the Level 2 analyses is the identification of the Reasonable and Feasible 

Passenger Rail Alternatives. 

 Level 3 analyses compare route alternatives to the No Build Alternative and to 

each other. The range of route alternatives will be further reduced to those that 

perform well, minimize or avoid impacts and are more cost effective by 

comparison. The result of the Level 3 analyses will be reported in a Tier 1 EIS 

document, after which the study team will identify the Preferred Passenger Rail 

Alternative for the corridor. 

The alternatives analysis evaluates route alternatives and not service alternatives. 

For one route alternative that has been identified as reasonable and feasible, there may 

be several service alternatives, each reflecting a different combination of service 

characteristics such as maximum speed, frequencies, stopping patterns, and fare 

structure. The service alternatives will be evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS document. 

The full route alternatives analysis methodology is included as Appendix C. 

1.6 Public Involvement 

Public Involvement is a key activity within the NEPA process. The goals of public 

involvement are to engage the public in a meaningful and transparent way and build 

community consensus around recommendations. 

Following the publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register, six public 

involvement meetings and two agency scoping meetings were held in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin in November and December 2010 to inform the public and agencies about the 

Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. Representatives of 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and 

Quandel Consultants presented to the public in the following cities: 

 St. Paul, MN (Agency Scoping and Public Involvement) 

 Rochester, MN (Public Involvement) 

 Eau Claire, WI (Agency Scoping and Public Involvement) 

 La Crosse, WI/La Crescent, MN (Public Involvement) 

 Fond du Lac, WI (Public Involvement) 

 Madison, WI (Public Involvement) 

The Public Involvement Team presented on the following topics: 

 NEPA Process Overview 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-17 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Purpose and Need of the Project 

 Methodology to identify Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 Methodology to identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 Methodology to identify Preferred Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 Service Development Planning 

 Project Schedule and next steps 

1.7 Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

The Interim Alternatives Selection Report reports on the identification of Potential 

Passenger Rail Alternatives. The purpose of the report is to clearly indicate why and 

how the particular range of project route alternatives was developed. 

In the Interim Alternatives Selection Report, twenty-six route alternatives were identified 

as the Universe of Routes. The Universe of Routes is comprised of existing and 

historical passenger rail segments that were in service post-World War II. 

In order to identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives, each of the routes within 

the universe of routes is assessed against a baseline route for the purpose of making 

comparative route evaluations. For this analysis, the baseline route defined in the 

MWRRI Project Notebook was used. It is defined as: 

 Milwaukee, WI-Madison, WI-Tomah, WI-La Crosse, WI-Red Wing, MN-St. Paul, 

MN-Minneapolis, MN. 

For this initial analysis, Route 4 was selected to be the baseline route since it was the 

route used between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities to develop the Midwest Regional Rail 

System (MWRRS)4

. 

Based on the draft Purpose and Need of the project, evaluation criteria and associated 

measures were developed to compare the differences between the route alternatives 

and the baseline. These criteria address the basic feasibility of the route alternatives. 

The evaluation criteria and measures and the link these criteria and measures have to 

the purpose and need are described in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1. Evaluation Criteria and Measures 

Evaluation Criteria Measure Link to Purpose and Need 

Route Distances 

Provide a quantifiable means to measure 

and compare route length from end point 

to end point 

Travel Time 

Route Populations Provide a quantifiable means to measure 

and compare ridership potential Travel Demand 

 

4 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. June 2004. MWRRI Project Notebook.
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-18 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Physical Constraints 

Provide locations where physical 

constraints are within abandoned rightsof-way Minimize Capital Costs 

In order to evaluate the route alternatives, a percentage difference between each route 

and the baseline (each route alternative is compared against the baseline, Route 4 - 

Milwaukee, WI-Madison, WI-Tomah, WI-La Crosse, WI-Red Wing, MN- St. Paul, MNMinneapolis, MN) is calculated for evaluation criteria #1 and #2. For evaluation criterion 

#3 (Physical Constraints), the presence of physical constraints along a route eliminates a 

route from further analysis. 

A “normative statement” is used to assess each route against the baseline route. A 

normative statement is a value judgment given to data for the purposes of qualitatively 

assessing that data. The recommendation of whether a route alternative should be 

eliminated from further analysis or retained as a potential passenger rail alternative for 

further analysis is based on how the data for each criterion compares against the 

normative statement and the baseline route. 

As described in section 1.6, a set of Public Involvement Meetings was held in November 

and December 2010 to present the NEPA Process, the Public Involvement Plan, the 

draft Purpose and Need, an overview of the route Alternatives Analysis process, and the 

routes that were identified as the potential passenger rail alternatives. Comments were 

received from the public which resulted in the addition of three routes (Routes 2, 3, and 

10) to the group of potential passenger rail alternatives. 

A workshop was held on December 9, 2010 with the states and FRA to review the route 

Alternatives Analysis process and the results of the route Alternatives Analysis. 

Additionally, the process to identify reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives 

was discussed. The participants agreed that the nine evaluation criteria and measures, 

shown in Table 2-1 in section 2.1, would be used to identify which of the potential 

passenger rail alternatives meet the project purpose and the project need for the 

proposed action, and to identify the reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives. 

Upon further review by the FRA, one additional route was identified as a potential 

passenger rail alternative. This route, known as Route 12A, is similar to Route 12, but 

Route 12A utilizes Canadian Pacific and WSOR through Wiscona Junction, and the 

Union Pacific through Butler Junction West to Wyeville. See section 3.0 in Appendix A - 

Interim Alternatives Selection Report for a complete description of Route 12A. 

As documented in the Interim Alternatives Selection Report, the twenty-six (26) route 

alternatives in the universe of routes between Milwaukee and Minneapolis/St. Paul were 

assessed using the normative statements for the three evaluation criteria – route 

distance, corridor population, and route defects. Through interactive analysis among the 

representatives of the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation and 

Quandel Consultants, fourteen (14) routes, Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12A, 

13, and 14, as shown in Figure 1-3, were identified as “potential passenger rail 

alternatives”. The potential passenger rail alternatives, as described below, are 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-19 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

subjected to a more detailed route alternative analysis in this report in order to identify 

the “reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route (Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La CrosseWinona-Hastings-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester (Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La CrosseWinona-Rochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River (Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Tomah-La 

Crosse-Hastings-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 4 – MWRRI-Madison (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-Tomah-La 

Crosse-Winona-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Portage-TomahLa Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. PaulMinneapolis) 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-PortageTomah-La Crosse-Hastings-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du Chien-La 

Crosse-Winona-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie du 

Chien-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights-St. PaulMinneapolis) 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-Prairie 

du Chien-La Crosse-Hastings-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire (Milwaukee-Watertown-Portage-Camp DouglasWyeville-Merrillan-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC (Milwaukee-Watertown-Madison-PortageCamp Douglas-Wyeville-Merrillan-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - (Milwaukee-Wiscona Jct., Wyeville-MerrillanEau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire (Milwaukee-Neenah-Stevens 

Point-Marshfield-Chippewa Falls-Eau Claire-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC (Milwaukee-Neenah-Stevens PointMarshfield-Chippewa Falls-Withrow-St. Paul-Minneapolis) 
October 26, 2011 Page 1-20 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 1-3. Milwaukee-Twin Cities Identification of Potential Passenger Ra
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-21 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

1.8 Technical Documentation 

Two technical documents have been prepared concurrently with the Alternatives 

Selection Report to aid in the evaluation of the fourteen potential passenger rail 

alternatives that were identified in the Initial Alternatives Selection Report. Each of these 

technical documents is included as an appendix to the Alternatives Selection Report. 

1.8.1 Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

The Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives, included as 

Appendix D, was prepared from information gathered during field observations between 

August 2010 and January 2011. 

The fourteen Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives consist of track segments (described 

in detail in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the Interim Alternatives Selection Report). For the 

purposes of field observation, these track segments were divided at logical breakpoints, 

such as at a change in track ownership, into track sub-segments. The Engineering 

Assessment Report is provided in two forms: by sub-segment and by route. The 

Engineering Assessment Report by sub-segment is provided first, followed by the report 

by route. 

The elements of the Engineering Assessment Report, included in the report by subsegment and the report by route, is the following information: 

 Sub-segment description, 

 Description of existing passenger service, 

 Existing maximum speed (freight and/or passenger), 

 Locations of yards and junctions, 

 Major infrastructure elements, 

 Infrastructure needs to operate high-speed rail service, 

 Capital costs for each sub-segment and route, and 

 Constraints related to each sub-segment. 

The Infrastructure Needs section describes the improvements required to allow for 110 

mph operation along each route. Using the Cost Estimating Methodology (further 

described in section 1.8.2) and the field observations, the conceptual improvements and 

associated conceptual costs are estimated. 

The Constrains section includes identification of constraints that were observed in the 

field that would or could have limiting effects on the capacity or efficiency of the subsegment. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

1.0 – Introduction 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 1-22 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

1.8.2 Cost Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail on Shared Right-ofWay 

The Cost Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail on Shared Right-of-Way, included 

as Appendix E, serves as the basis for the conceptual cost estimates provided in section 

6.0 of the Alternatives Selection Report for the fourteen potential passenger rail 

alternatives. 

The cost estimates were approached at a high level conceptual effort based on limited 

information regarding overall track and infrastructure conditions, railroad operations, and 

input from the owning railroads. The validity of these estimates rests on the assumptions 

that were gained from available railroad track charts and timetables, aerial mapping, 

input from state departments of transportation and visual observations of the railroads 

made from publicly accessible locations 

The unit costs employed by the MWRRI were originally developed as part of MWRRI 

Phase 3B in 1997. Those unit costs were based on previous high speed rail feasibility 

studies available at that time and cost information provided by Amtrak. Since then, each 

of the unit costs was updated to 2002 dollars, which were the most recent costs available 

for the MWRRI at the time of the update. For this methodology, the 2002 unit costs were 

updated to 2010 dollars using the inflation factors listed in the Producer Price Index (PPI) 

PCUBHVY ‘PPI Inputs for Other Heavy Construction’, which increased unit costs from 

2002 by a factor of 1.48 (March 2010 was the most recent month for which PPI data was 

available). 

Once the 2010 unit costs were derived, they were compared to current year industry cost 

estimates for railroad related construction; during this comparison, if a unit cost was 

found to be out of line with current trends, it was adjusted to better reflect current 

conditions in the market. The pay items and their associated unit costs were then 

reviewed for their applicability to the four projects mentioned above. Some of the line 

items were found to be not applicable to this effort and were removed; in a few cases, 

line items had to be added to completely address the infrastructure development being 

proposed for the HSR system. 

The revised base set of unit costs addresses typical passenger rail infrastructure 

construction elements expected to be found within proposed and future projects 

including: roadbed and trackwork, systems, facilities, structures, and grade crossings. 

The unit costs are reasonable for developing the capital costs under either normal 

contractor bidding procedures or under railroad force account agreements for 

construction. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

2.0 – Process to Identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 2-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

2.0 PROCESS TO IDENTIFY REASONABLE AND 

FEASIBLE PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Evaluation Criteria and Measure 

Nine evaluation criteria and associated measures were developed in order to identify 

which of the potential passenger rail alternatives meet the project purpose and the 

project need for the proposed action. The measures for each evaluation criterion are 

assessed to ensure that a potential passenger rail alternative complements the project 

purpose and project need for the proposed action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible 

passenger rail alternative. The potential passenger rail alternative that does not meet 

the project purpose and the project need of the proposed action will be eliminated. 

Table 2-1 defines the evaluation criteria and measures and the link the criteria and 

measures have to the purpose and need.

Table 2-1. Evaluation Criteria and Measure to Identify Reasonable and Feasible 

Passenger Rail Alternatives 

Evaluation Criteria Measure Link to Purpose and 

Need 

Route Characteristics 

 Number of main tracks 

 Horizontal curvature 

 Significant grades 

 Miles/Percent of single vs. double track 

 Miles/Percent abandoned and out of service track 

 Miles/Percent Class 1 main vs. regional/shortline 

Travel Time 

Travel Time 

 Travel time at 110 mph (after accounting for 

recovery, dwell, and handoff times) 

 Travel time vs. automobile travel time 

Travel Time 

Market Size 

 Population centers served within a 20-mile 

bandwidth 

 Intermodal station outside terminal area 

Travel Demand 

Capital Cost 

 Cost to upgrade to high-speed rail (order of 

magnitude) 

 Cost of additional right-of-way (order of 

magnitude) 

 Cyclic capital costs (order of magnitude) 

Minimize Capital Costs 

Operating Costs  Track maintenance costs (order of magnitude) Minimize Operating Costs 

Safety  Number of rail-rail crossings 

 Number of at-grade crossings 

Competitive and Attractive 

Service 

Reliability 

 Freight conflicts (yards, etc.) 

 Shared track use (capacity) 

 Handoffs from Class 1-Class 1 

 Handoffs from Class 1-regional/shortline 

 Train Control 

 Public Ownership of Route 

Competitive and Attractive 

Service 
Alternatives Selection Report 

2.0 – Process to Identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 2-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

System Connectivity  Number of intermodal facilities Intermodal Connectivity 

Environmental 

Features 

 Potential impacts of: 

o Floodplains 

o Wetlands 

o Threatened or Endangered Species 

o Cultural resources 

o 4(f)/6(f) protected properties 

o Environmental justice 

o Hazardous materials 

Minimize Environmental 

Impacts 

Technical data is collected and developed for each of these routes. This data includes: 

1. Geometric data and information on the quantity of tracks, existing freight density 

and existing permissible freight speeds for each route alternative are collected. 

Based on this technical data, the speed profiles and route travel times are 

developed for each route alternative. 

2. Population centers, interstate crossings, commercial airports for each route will 

be geographically illustrated. 

3. Freight conflicts on each route, the extent of shared track usage, handoffs, and 

existing signals and communications systems for each route 

4. Number of rail-rail crossings and number of public and private at-grade crossings 

for each route alternative 

5. Connections to commuter rail and other modes of transportation for each 

potential route alternative 

6. Cost to upgrade each potential route alternative based on existing track 

infrastructure conditions. 

7. The operating maintenance and cyclic capital costs broadly estimated based 

using the Summary of Midwest Regional Rail System Maintenance Costs 

developed in MWRRI Phase 6 and is based upon the FRA Technical Monograph: 

Estimated Maintenance Costs for Mixed High Speed Passenger and Freight Rail 

Corridors dated August 2004. 

8. GIS and Geospatial Data Collection and Mapping to assess the potential impacts 

of the following key environmental criteria on each route alternative: floodplains, 

wetlands, historic, cultural, and archaeological sites, 4(f)/6(f) protected 

properties, threatened or endangered species, hazardous materials, and areas 

that are likely to engender issues of environmental justice. 

Each of the potential passenger rail alternatives is evaluated in the following sections 

according to the measures shown in Table 2-1. 

2.2 Workshops to Identify the Reasonable and Feasible 

Passenger Rail Alternatives 

2.2.1 January 20, 2011 Preliminary Workshop 

A preliminary workshop was held on January 20, 2011 with the states and FRA to review 

the technical data that was developed for each of the fourteen potential passenger rail 
Alternatives Selection Report 

2.0 – Process to Identify Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 2-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

alternatives. This data is described above in section 2.1. Also at the workshop, the 

states and FRA discussed the use of “normative statements” in the evaluation of 

potential passenger rail alternatives. A normative statement is a value judgment given to 

data for the purpose of qualitatively assessing that data. The states and FRA agreed 

that a normative statement would be given to each measure to qualitatively assess the 

measure and to “rate” the routes using three colors; green, yellow, and red: 

 Routes assessed as “green” are more likely to be reasonable and feasible when 

compared to other routes 

 Routes assessed as “yellow” are sub-optimum when compared to “green” routes 

but can still be considered viable 

 Routes assessed as “red” are a poor choice when compared to “green” and 

“yellow” routes 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail alternative complements the project purpose and project need for the 

proposed action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. The 

potential passenger rail alternative that does not meet the project purpose and the 

project need of the proposed action will be eliminated. 

2.2.2 March 11, 2011 Workshop 

A workshop was held on March 11, 2011 with representatives of Mn/DOT, WisDOT, and 

Amtrak to review technical data associated with the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

and to qualitatively evaluate this data in order to identify a set of reasonable and feasible 

passenger rail alternatives for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. 

At the March workshop, the states were divided into three teams to assess the 

evaluation criteria and measures listed in Table 2-1. The workshop was structured so 

that the measures were assessed independently for a given criterion and an overall 

assessment was given to that evaluation criterion based on the results of the 

assessment of the measures. The teams individually assessed and rated the routes, 

and then discussed the team assessments to reach a consensus assessment. This 

process was completed for all measures and criterion. 

The workshop began with a review of the draft Purpose and Need document. The states 

were advised to consider the project purpose and the project need while assessing the 

routes. The project purpose and project need are shown in sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3, 

respectively. 

The workshop participants were then presented with data on the evaluation criteria and 

measures shown in Table 2-1. Sections 3.0-11.0 of the Alternatives Selection Report 

show the data that was presented to the participants and the qualitative assessment 

process. Section 12.0 presents the results of the qualitative assessment. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

3.0 ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS 

Route characteristics describe the configuration of the railroad and its physical aspects 

that can affect the performance of the trains on a route. In order to evaluate each 

potential passenger rail alternative on the basis of route characteristics, four measures 

must be considered: number of main tracks, degree of curvature, significant grades, and 

track classification. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The route characteristics criterion is tied to the project purpose of decreasing travel 

times, increasing frequency of service, and improving freight rail mobility, and the project 

need for competitive and attractive alternative modes in the corridor. If a potential 

passenger rail alternative does not meet the project purpose or project need, the route 

will be eliminated from further analysis. 

3.1 Number of Main Tracks 

The number of main tracks that exists currently or formerly on a route is an indicator of 

the potential capacity of a route that is needed to accommodate high speed intercity 

passenger rail trains. 

A greater number of main tracks that currently exist usually indicate that the current 

operations on the route have a need for this additional capacity to handle the current 

level of operations. Where operating speeds vary by category of trains, faster trains may 

need to overtake slower trains moving in the same direction while both trains continue at 

their normal speeds. Where this occurs in both directions at the same time, the 

presence of 3 or more main tracks may be required due to the limited capacity of the 

existing tracks and roadbed to sustain existing operations. 

A single main on a one track roadbed is an indicator that the current operations may 

have a need for additional capacity. However, faster trains may need to overtake slower 

trains moving in the same direction required a second track. Furthermore, faster trains 

moving in the opposite direction will require a second main. These conditions will require 

that the track roadbed needs expansion or another independent roadbed needs to be 

constructed to accommodate to accommodate the faster trains. 

A former two main track roadbed with one main removed is an indicator that the current 

operations have additional capacity available if the second main track was rebuilt on the 

existing roadbed to accommodate the faster trains. 

Normative Statement: A route that has a two track roadbed with one main removed has 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

more capacity to accommodate faster trains than a route that has two main tracks or a 

route that has a single main track roadbed. 

The number of main tracks is identified for each route using railroad track charts and 

time tables. Where track charts and time tables are not available, licensed aerial 

imaging software is used to identify the number of tracks. The data is entered into the 

Rail Corridor Alternatives Analysis Tool (RCAATTM) for the purposes of generating a 

table and chart depicting the data. 

Table 3-1 and Chart 3-1 depict the number of miles and the percentage of total route 

miles of single, double, and out of service/abandoned track for each route. Sidings 

greater than three miles in length were counted as double track. The number of existing 

and proposed main tracks by milepost is provided in Appendix F. 
Alter

3.0 – 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-3 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 3-1. Number of Main Tracks 

Route 

Miles of 

Single Track 

without 

Second 

Roadbed 

% of Total Route 

Miles that are 

Single Track 

without Second 

Roadbed 

Miles of 

Single Track 

with an 

Existing 

Second 

Roadbed 

% of Total 

Route Miles 

that are 

Single Track 

with an 

Existing 

Second 

Roadbed 

Miles of 

Double 

Track 

% of Total 

Route Miles 

that are Double 

Track 

Miles o

of Serv

Abando

Trac

1 –Amtrak Route 7.00 2% 243.07 72% 85.42 25% 0.00 

2 – AmtrakRochester 160.62 42% 164.37 42% 61.82 16% 0.00 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 34.91 10% 137.37 41% 164.52 49% 0.00 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 73.01 21% 221.72 63% 58.79 17% 0.00 

5 – MadisonRochester 210.63 52% 162.90 40% 31.31 8% 0.00 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 67.12 19% 153.70 43% 134.00 38% 0.00 

7 – Madison-Prairie 133.66 36% 138.21 37% 103.20 28% 0.00 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 288.30 68% 58.49 14% 79.60 19% 0.00 9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 167.07 44% 27.00 7% 182.30 48% 0.00 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 3.30 1% 251.54 76% 66.40 20% 9.60 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 72.01 21% 231.36 66% 35.89 10% 9.60 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 8.80 3% 303.60 90% 24.28 7% 0.00 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

239.18 65% 84.87 23% 20.58 6% 21.9

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 337.24 91% 0.00 0% 12.82 4% 21.9
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 4, 10, 11, and 12A have the greatest number of twotrack roadbeds with one existing main track removed. Routes 1, 4, 10, 11, and 12A have 

more capacity to accommodate faster trains than the remaining routes. 

3.2 Degree of Curvature 

Degree of curvature reduces the maximum speed at which a train may safely negotiate a 

curved segment of track. The greater the degree of curvature, the lower the maximum 

speed of the train will be, and the longer the running time will be through the segment. 

Curve restrictions can be mitigated or eliminated by increasing the superelevation of the 

track in the curve or by realigning the track where possible. However, due to the 

existence of natural features such as waterways, wetlands, mountains, and man-made 

structures, it is often difficult to realign track to reduce curvature. 

The maximum permissible speed on a route is a function of the curve geometry, 

superelevation, and permissible unbalance of the operating equipment. Because it has 

Chart 3-1. Number of Main Tracks 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

not been determined whether tilt or non-tilt equipment will be used, the assumed 

unbalance must be permissible for both types of equipment. The optimal superelevation 

of freight rail through a curve at 60 mph is 2.5”. Therefore, a maximum superelevation of 

2.5” was used for passenger rail. The maximum allowable unbalance of a conventional 

suspension train is 4”. The formula E = 0.0007*D*v2

, where E = the total allowable 

unbalance, D = the degree of curvature, and v = the speed through the curve, was used 

to calculate the maximum allowable degree of curvature for passenger rail. At 110 mph, 

the maximum degree of curvature for passenger rail is 45 minutes. 

Normative Statement: A route with the least amount of curves greater than 45 minutes is 

better than a route with more curves. 

Degree of curvature data, including curve location and length are collected from available 

track charts and are inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes of generating a table and 

chart depicting the data. 

The number of miles and percentage of total route miles with curvature greater than 45 

minutes is shown for each route in Table 3-2 and Chart 3-2. The degree of curvature by 

milepost is provided in Appendix G. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 3-2. Degree of Curvature 

Route 

Number of Miles 

with Curvature >45 

Minutes 

% of Total Route 

Miles with Curvature 

>45 Minutes 

1 –Amtrak Route 36.87 10.99% 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 39.89 10.99% 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 34.26 10.17% 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 37.85 10.71% 

5 – Madison-Rochester 43.50 10.74% 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 35.24 9.93% 

7 – Madison-Prairie 35.83 9.09% 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 41.48 9.63% 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 33.22 7.94% 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 27.43 8.29% 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 28.04 8.09% 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 24.55 7.29% 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 32.42 8.85% 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 37.79 10.16% 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 9, 10, 11, and 12A have the least amount of curves 

greater than 45 minutes. Routes 9, 10, 11, and 12A are better than the remaining 

routes. 

3.3 Significant Grades 

Significant grades along a route require a train to have additional power to ascend and 

descend the grade. If a train’s power-to-weight ratio is sufficient to maintain normal 

speed on flat track, the train will lose speed as it climbs a grade. The speeds of all 

following trains are reduced to the speed of the slowest train. 

Significant grades are defined as grades greater than 1%. The location and length of 

significant grades are collected from railroad track charts. The grades are assumed to be 

less than 1% for abandoned track. The data is inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes 

of generating a table and chart depicting the data. 

Chart 3-2. Degree of Curvature 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Normative Statement: A route with the least amount of grades greater than 1% is better 

than a route with more grades. 

The number of miles and percentage of total route miles with grades greater than 1% is 

shown for each route in Table 3-3 and Chart 3-3. Grades by milepost are provided in 

Appendix H. 

Table 3-3. Significant Grades 

Route Number of Miles with 

Grades > 1% 

% of Total Route Miles 

with Grades > 1% 

1 –Amtrak Route 0.00 0.00%

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 17.98 4.65%

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 0.13 0.04%

4 – MWRRI-Madison 4.87 1.38%

5 – Madison-Rochester 22.85 5.64%

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 5.00 1.41%

7 – Madison-Prairie 0.09 0.02%

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 18.07 4.24%

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 0.22 0.06%

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 14.38 4.35%

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 19.25 5.52%

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 14.69 4.36%

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 20.77 5.67%

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 8.55 2.30%
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 5, 8, 10, 11,12A and 13 have more than 14 miles of 

grades greater than 1%. Routes 1, 3, 7, and 9 have the least amount of grades greater 

than 1%. Routes 1, 3, 7, and 9 are better than the remaining routes. 

3.4 Track Classification 

Classifications for active railroad lines are determined by the railroad’s operating 

revenue. Class I railroads are large freight railroad companies such as Norfolk Southern 

or BNSF. Regional railroads often provide local and connecting freight rail service over 

former Class I rail routes for larger areas that still have a significant number of customers 

who use rail service frequently, but where total revenues are not enough to justify 

operation and maintenance by a Class I railroad. Shortline railroads are typically small 

railroads that serve the remaining rail customers on a portion of a former Class I railroad 

route. Due to operating revenue and frequent use of the track, Class I railroad tracks are 

usually designed for heavy, frequent and/or fast trains and are better maintained. 

Chart 3-3. Significant Grades 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Track that is not being used for railroad service can either be classified as out of service 

or abandoned. Track that has been taken out of service by its railroad owner is generally 

not maintained and the right-of-way is usually discontinued. Abandoned track is track 

that has been released from railroad ownership. After a railroad has been given the right 

to abandon a line segment by the Surface Transportation Board, the land could be sold 

to a private party, for public use, or returned to the adjacent land owners. 

To accommodate 110 mph train operations on a Class I railroad, an upgrade of existing 

track with tie replacement, additional ballast and surfacing may be sufficient. To 

accommodate 110 mph train operations on a regional or shortline railroad, more 

extensive improvements are required, including a total replacement of sub-ballast, 

roadbed, ties, ballast, rail and replacement or rehabilitation of bridges and drainage 

structures. Abandoned and out of service track typically require major reconstruction to 

accommodate 110 mph operations. 

Normative Statement: Previous studies undertaken for incremental build high-speed rail 

programs indicate that the use of regional railroads provides more accessibility because 

of freight capacity issues. Therefore, a route utilizing more regional railroad-owned track 

is better than a route using less regional railroad-owned track. 

All track classification information was obtained from track charts and timetables and is 

inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes of generating a table and chart depicting the 

data. 

Miles and percentage of total route miles for each railroad class is shown by route in 

Table 3-4 and Chart 3-4. 
Alter

3.0 – 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-11 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 3-4. Track Classification 

Route 

Miles 

Owned by 

Class I 

Railroad 

% of Total 

Route Miles 

Owned by 

Class I Railroad 

Miles Owned by 

Regional/ 

Shortline 

Railroad 

% of Total Route 

Miles Owned by 

Regional/ 

Shortline 

Railroad 

Miles of Out 

of Service 

Track 

% of Total 

Route Miles of 

Out of Service 

Track 

Miles o

Abandon

Track 

1 –Amtrak Route 333.88 99.5% 1.61 0.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

2 – AmtrakRochester 385.19 99.6% 1.61 0.4% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 335.19 99.5% 1.61 0.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

4 – MWRRIMadison 317.11 89.7% 36.41 10.3% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

5 – MadisonRochester 368.42 91.0% 36.42 9.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 318.41 89.7% 36.42 10.3% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

7 – MadisonPrairie 245.70 65.5% 129.37 34.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 296.51 69.5% 129.88 30.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF River 246.50 65.5% 129.87 34.5% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 320.35 96.8% 0.89 0.3% 9.60 2.9% 0.00 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 303.57 87.0% 35.69 10.2% 9.60 2.8% 0.00 

12A – WyevilleEau Claire 333.99 99.2% 2.69 0.8% 0.00 0% 0.00 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

336.90 91.9% 29.63 8.1% 0.00 0.0% 21.90 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 342.04 92.0% 8.02 2.2% 0.00 0.0% 21.90 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 operate on right-ofway owned by Class I Railroads for at least 85% of the system, with Routes 1, 3, and 

12A having close to 100% of track owned by a Class I Railroad. Routes 7, 8, and 9 

depend on using 90 miles-128 miles of regional railroads. Routes 7, 8, and 9 are better 

than the remaining routes because the routes have better accessibility than the 

remaining routes. 

3.5 Results of Qualitative Assessment of Route Characteristics 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the Number of 

Main Tracks, Degree of Curvature, Significant Grades, and Track Classification based on 

the qualitative assessment completed for these measures. Using the color rating for the 

measures, an overall route characteristics rating was assigned to each route based on 

the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures received. Table 3-5 

depicts the color rating for each route for the measures and the overall route 

characteristics criteria. 

Chart 3-4. Track Classification 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 3-5. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route Number of 

Main Tracks 

Degree of 

Curvature 

Significant 

Grades 

Track 

Classification 

Overall Route 

Characteristics 

Rating 

1 –Amtrak 

Route 

2 – AmtrakRochester 

3 – AmtrakBNSF River 

4 – MWRRIMadison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – MadisonBNSF River 

7 – MadisonPrairie 

8 – MadisonPrairieRochester 

9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF 

River 

10 – AmtrakEau Claire 

11 – MadisonEau Claire-TC 

12A – 

Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

13 – 

MilwaukeeFond du LacEau Claire 

14 – 

MilwaukeeFond du LacChip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with route characteristics 

data and engaged in discussions regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of 

each route. The following captures the overall qualitative assessment and rating for each 

route: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – The workshop attendees discussed that Route 1 has 

243 miles (72% of the total route miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. 

This indicates that Route 1 has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains 

than other routes. The route is rated yellow for route characteristics because the 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

number of main tracks and significant grades are good, but the majority of track 

is owned by a Class I railroad and the workshop participants felt it would be 

difficult to mitigate the degree of curvature. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – Route 2 has 164 miles (42% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates 

that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. However, 

Route 2 encounters significant grades between Winona and Rochester. The 

track has a 600 foot elevation change from the river basin area to the plateau to 

Rochester over a short distance. The construction of a second track in this area 

will be very difficult. This route is rated red for route characteristics because the 

route does not meet the project purpose of decreasing travel times and the 

project need for competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – Route 3 has 137 miles (41% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates 

that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. However, 

Route 3 utilizes the BNSF River route between La Crosse, WI and Hastings, MN. 

The BNSF River route has a very high freight density. In order to accommodate 

high-speed passenger trains, a third track will have to be built. A new track 

would be built in the Mississippi River. This route is rated yellow for route 

characteristics because the number of main tracks and significant grades are 

good, but the majority of track is owned by a Class I railroad and the workshop 

participants felt it would be difficult to mitigate the degree of curvature. Overall, 

the route was average. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – Route 4 has 223 miles (63% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates 

that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. The route is 

rated yellow for route characteristics because the number of main tracks, 

significant grades and track owned by a Class I railroad are average. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – Route 5 has 163 miles (40% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates 

that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. However, 

Route 5 encounters significant grades between Winona and Rochester. Similarly 

to Route 2, the track has a 600 foot elevation change from the river basin area to 

the plateau to Rochester over a short distance. The construction of a second 

track in this area will be very difficult. This route is rated red for route 

characteristics because the route does not meet the project purpose of 

decreasing travel times and the project need for competitive and attractive 

alternative modes of travel. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – Route 6 has 154 miles (43% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates 

that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. However, 

Route 6 utilizes the BNSF River route between La Crosse, WI and Hastings, MN. 

The BNSF River route has a very high freight density. In order to accommodate 

high-speed passenger trains, a third track will have to be built. A new third track 

would be built in the Mississippi River. This route is rated yellow for route 

characteristics because the number of main tracks, degree of curvature, 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

significant grades, and track owned by Class I railroads are average. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – Route 7 has 138 miles (37% of the total route miles) 

of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates that the 

route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. However, Route 7 

utilizes the BNSF River route between Prairie du Chien, WI and La Crosse, WI. 

The BNSF River route has a very high freight density. In order to accommodate 

high-speed passenger trains, a third track will have to be built. A new third track 

would be built in the Mississippi River. The route is rated green for route 

characteristics because the significant grades and track owned by a Class I 

railroad were good, and the participants felt that the number of main tracks and 

degree of curvature were average. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – Route 8 has 58 miles (14% of the total 

route miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this 

indicates that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. 

However, Route 8 utilizes the BNSF River route between Prairie du Chien, WI 

and La Crosse, WI. The BNSF River route has a very high freight density. In 

order to accommodate high-speed passenger trains, a third track will have to be 

built. A new third track would be built in the Mississippi River. Additionally, 

Route 8 encounters significant grades between Winona and Rochester. Similarly 

to Route 2, the track has a 600 foot elevation change from the river basin area to 

the plateau to Rochester over a short distance. The construction of a second 

track in this area will be very difficult. The route is rated yellow for route 

characteristics because while the track owned by a Class I railroad was good and 

the degree of curvature was average, the participants felt that it would be difficult 

to mitigate the number of main tracks and significant grades. Overall, the route 

was average. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – Route 9 has 27 miles (7% of the total 

route miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. However, Route 9 utilizes 

the BNSF River route between Prairie du Chien, WI and Hastings, MN. The 

BNSF River route has a very high freight density. In order to accommodate highspeed passenger trains, a third track will have to be built. A new third track 

would be built in the Mississippi River. The route is rated green for route 

characteristics because the track owned by a Class I railroad, significant grades, 

and degree of curvature were all good. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – Route 10 has 252 miles (76% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this indicates 

that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. The route is 

rated yellow for route characteristics because although it will be difficult to 

mitigate significant grades, the number of main tracks and degree of curvature 

were good. Overall, the route was average. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – Route 11 has 231 miles (66% of the total 

route miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this 

indicates that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. The 

route is rated yellow for route characteristics because the degree of curvature 

was good and the significant grades would be difficult to mitigate, but the number 

of main tracks and track owned by a Class I railroad were average. Overall, the 
Alternatives Selection Report 

3.0 – Route Characteristics 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 3-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

route was average. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire – Route 12A has 303.6 miles (90%) of the total 

route miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, this 

indicates that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. 

This route is rated yellow for route characteristics because the number of main 

tracks and degree of curvature were good, but the significant grades and track 

owned by a Class I railroad were not good. Overall, the route was average. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire - Route 13 has 85 miles (23% of 

the total route miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. As with Route 1, 

this indicates that the route has a greater capacity to accommodate faster trains. 

However, the route travels through highly undulating territory from Fond du Lac, 

WI west to the state line. Constructing a second track in this type of territory is 

very expensive. The route is rated red for route characteristics because the 

route does not meet the project purpose of decreasing travel times and improving 

freight rail mobility, and the project need for competitive and attractive alternative 

modes of travel. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – Route 14 has 0 miles of single 

track on a double track roadbed. This indicates that the entire length of the route 

will require construction of new track on a new roadbed. This is a very high 

expense due to the undulating territory west of Fond du Lac. The route is rated 

red for route characteristics because the route does not meet the project purpose 

of decreasing travel times and improving freight rail mobility, and the project need 

for competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

4.0 TRAVEL TIME 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The travel time criterion is tied to the project purpose of decreasing travel times, and the 

project need for competitive and attractive alternative modes in the corridor. If a potential 

passenger rail alternative does not meet the project purpose or project need, the route 

will be eliminated from further analysis. 

4.1 Train Performance Calculator (TPC) 

The RCAATTM is used to determine the estimated travel time for each potential 

passenger rail route for comparison. The train performance calculator employs the 

following parameters and assumptions. These parameters and assumptions are likely to 

prove aggressive in actual implementation, as speed may be further restricted for 

operation and safety considerations. 

 Typical modern passenger train performance characteristics are modeled 

including: 

o Acceleration of 1.11 miles per hour per second for speeds from 0-50 

mph, 0.50 miles per hour per second for speeds from 50-80 mph, and 

0.24 miles per hour per second for speeds from 80-110 mph. 

o Deceleration of 1.00 mile per hour per second from 110-0 mph 

 Passenger equipment will employ tilt technology, allowing operations at 6 inches 

of unbalance 

 Enhanced superelevation is employed in curves on all tracks used by passenger 

trains, not exceeding a maximum of 4.0 inches. 

 Municipal speed restrictions are eliminated as the corridor will be “sealed” with 4-

quadrant gates at public crossings in high speed territory 

 Passenger speed is limited to a maximum of 90 mph between La Crosse, WI and 

Hastings, MN and 110 mph everywhere else 

 Possible degradation in performance due to grades is not considered 

 Travel times are calculated including a schedule pad as recommended by the 

FRA in the Rail Corridor Transportation Plan. The formula to calculate pad is 

1.07*T + M*(0.5*L/S + W + D/S), 

Where T is the Train performance calculator run time, M is the number of meets 

with other passenger trains, L is the distance between passing tracks in miles, D 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

is the distance in miles from home signal at passing track to distant signal at 

passing track, S is the average speed in miles per minutes, and W is the 

interlocking operating time. Typically, the pad ranges from 7% for a double-track 

alignment to approximately 15-20% for a single track with passing sidings. 

 The speed profiles and travel times are computed with no freight interference. 

Sufficient freight infrastructure must be constructed to allow relatively 

independent operations. 

Geometric features including tangent segments, grades, and curves, have been loaded 

into a spreadsheet for use in estimating passenger train travel times under the 

assumptions noted above. Where track charts could not be obtained, such as for 

abandoned railroad rights-of-way, curvature was determined by using aerial photography 

and geometric calculations in CAD software. 

Theoretical travel times (including pad) are calculated for each route between Milwaukee 

and Minneapolis with 2 minute station stops at eleven locations along each route. 

Additional intermediate station stops will increase travel times. For the purpose of 

comparing route travel times, each of the routes has terminal locations at the Milwaukee 

Intermodal Station and at the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange via St. Paul Union 

Depot. The use of these terminals for comparing route alternatives is consistent 

throughout this evaluation. Intercity passenger rail models are predicated on the basis 

that the lower the travel time, the greater the ridership at the terminal cities. 

Normative Statement: Routes with lower travel times are better than routes with higher 

travel times. 

The travel times calculated by RCAATTM are listed in Table 4-1 and Chart 4-1. 

Speed profile graphs are provided in Appendix I. The graphs depict the estimated 

speeds achieved as a passenger train travels from Milwaukee to Twin Cities subject to 

geometric restrictions throughout the system and imposed speed limits. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 4-1. Travel Time 

Route TPC Travel Time with 

Pad 

1 –Amtrak Route 4 hrs 35 min 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 5 hrs 22 min 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 4 hrs 31 min 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 5 hrs 8 min 

5 – Madison-Rochester 5 hrs 38 min 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 5 hrs 4 min 

7 – Madison-Prairie 5 hrs 17 min 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 5 hrs 47 min 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 5 hrs 13 min 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 4 hrs 38 min 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 5 hrs 17 min 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 4 hrs 27 min 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 5 hrs 5 min 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 5 hrs 18 min 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 4-1 shows that the difference in travel time between Routes 1 and 4 is 33 minutes 

(5 hrs 8 min less 4 hrs 35 min). Routes 1 and 4 use the same right-of-way between 

Milwaukee and the Twin Cities except for the segment between Watertown and Portage. 

Route 1 is direct from Watertown to Portage, whereas Route 4 follows a right-of-way 

from Watertown to Portage through Madison. Route 4 is 23.1 miles longer than Route 1 

resulting in the difference of 33 minutes in travel time. 

Table 4-1 shows that the difference in travel time between Routes 10 and 11 is 39 

minutes (5 hrs 17 min less 4 hrs 38 min). Routes 10 and 11 use the same right-of-way 

between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities except for the segment between Watertown and 

Portage. Route 1 is direct from Watertown to Portage, whereas Route 4 follows a rightof-way from Watertown to Portage through Madison. Route 11 is 23.1 miles longer than 

Route 10 resulting in the difference of 39 minutes in travel time. 

The reason for the difference in travel time between Routes 1 and 4 (33 minutes) and 

Chart 4-1. Travel Time 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Routes 10 and 11 (39 minutes) is because of the method used to calculate the schedule 

pad. Schedule pad is calculated based on total miles of single track on a route and is not 

calculated by segment. Route 1 has 250.07 miles of single track and Route 4 has 

294.73 miles of single track. The difference between Routes 1 and 4 is 44.66 miles. 

Route 10 has 254.84 miles of single track and Route 11 has 303.37 miles of single track. 

The difference between Routes 10 and 11 is 48.53 miles. Since the pad is calculated 

based on the overall number of miles of single track, the schedule pad for Routes 10 and 

11 will be greater than the schedule pad for Routes 1 and 4. 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 3, 10, and 12A have the lowest travel times. Routes 

1, 3, 10, and 12A are faster than the remaining routes. 

4.2 Automobile Travel Time 

As discussed in section 4.2.1 of the Draft Purpose and Need document, the high-speed 

passenger rail service between Milwaukee and Twin Cities must provide travel times that 

are competitive with or better than the travel time by auto in order to attract users. At the 

March 11, 2011 workshop, the participants discussed what travel time should be used as 

the automobile travel time. Four websites were used to estimate automobile travel time; 

the times ranged from 5 hours to 6 hours. It was determined that the most appropriate 

automobile travel time between the termini should be estimated at 5 hours 30 minutes 

using I-94. 

Normative Statement: Routes with the greatest difference between rail travel times and 

automobile travel time are more competitive and better than routes with lesser 

differences between rail and automobile travel times. 

Table 4-2 and Chart 4-2 depict the difference in travel time between automobile and 

high-speed rail for each route. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 4-2. Automobile Travel Time 

Route Travel Time 

Difference between 

Rail Travel Time and 

Automobile Travel 

Time 

Automobile 5 hrs 30 min - 

1 –Amtrak Route 4 hrs 35 min (55 min) 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 5 hrs 22 min (8 min) 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 4 hrs 31 min (59 min) 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 5 hrs 8 min (22 min)

5 – Madison-Rochester 5 hrs 38 min 8 min 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 5 hrs 4 min (26 min) 

7 – Madison-Prairie 5 hrs 17 min (13 min) 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 5 hrs 47 min 17min 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River 5 hrs 13 min (17 min) 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 4 hrs 38 min (52 min) 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC 5 hrs 17 min (13 min) 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 4 hrs 27 min (1 hrs 3 min) 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 5 hrs 5 min (25 min) 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 5 hrs 18 min (12 min) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 3, 10, and 12A have rail travel times that are more 

than 50 minutes shorter than the automobile travel time. Routes 1, 3, 10, and 12A will 

provide more competitive travel times than the remaining routes. 

4.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the Travel Time 

and Automobile Travel Time based on the qualitative assessment completed for these 

measures. Using the color rating for the measures, an overall travel time rating was 

assigned to each route based on the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the 

measures received. Table 4-3 depicts the color rating for each route for the measures 

and the overall travel time criteria. 

A speed limit of 90 mph was used between La Crosse, WI and Hastings, MN because of 

co-mingling between passenger and freight rail on the BNSF River line. It was assumed 

that since passenger and freight trains would be co-mingling, the maximum speed of the 

Chart 4-2. Difference between Rail Travel Time and Automobile Travel Time
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

passenger trains would be limited to 90 mph. In discussions with FRA, it was requested 

that a maximum speed of 110 mph be used on the BNSF River line. RCAAT was used 

to calculate the travel time at 110 mph between La Crosse and Hastings. A time savings 

of 10 minutes was calculated. However, this does not affect the results of the qualitative 

assessment shown below because the assessments of Route 3, Route 6, and Route 9 

would have remained the same even if 10 minutes had been subtracted from the overall 

travel time for these routes.

Table 4-3. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route Travel Time Automobile Travel Time Overall Travel Time 

Rating 

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 

7 – Madison-Prairie 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with travel time and 

difference between rail and automobile travel time data and engaged in discussions 

regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of each route. There was 

consensus among all attendees that travel time is a critical evaluation criterion essential 

for the success of this project. The following captures the qualitative assessment for 

each route: 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – At the workshop, the teams assessed the travel time 

and difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 1. 

The teams discussed that Route 1 had a good travel time because it is a direct 

route with no reverse moves. Additionally, Route 1 has a travel time that is 

significantly shorter than the automobile travel time. The route is rated green for 

travel time. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 2. The 

teams discussed that since the travel time was similar to the automobile travel 

time, the route received a “red” assessment. The teams discussed that all routes 

through Rochester have an increase in travel time for high speed intercity 

passenger rail service due to the increased distance to travel through Rochester, 

and the reverse move required at St. Paul Union Depot. Overall, the route is 

rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 3. Route 

3 has a good travel time because it is a relatively direct route with no reverse 

moves. Route 3 has a travel time significantly shorter than the automobile travel 

time. This route is rated green for travel time. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – The teams assessed the travel time and difference 

between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 4. Route 4 has an 

increase in travel time due to the increased distance to travel through Madison. 

Additionally, depending on the location of the Madison station, a reverse move 

may be required. The route has a travel time that is less than the automobile 

travel time, but not significantly less. This route is rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 5. Route 

5 was assessed as having one of the worst travel times because of the increased 

distance traveled through Madison and Rochester, and at least one reverse 

move is required. Additionally, Route 5 has a travel time greater than the 

automobile travel time. The route is rated red for travel time because the route 

did not meet the project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of 

travel. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 6. The 

route has an increase in travel time due to the increased distance to travel 

through Madison. As stated during discussions of Route 4, depending on the 

location of the Madison station, a reverse move may be required. Additionally, 

Route 6 has a travel time that is less than the automobile travel time, but not 

significantly less. This route is rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – The teams assessed the travel time and difference 

between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 7. The route has an 

increase in travel time due to the increased distance to travel through Madison. 

As stated during discussions of Route 4, depending on the location of the 

Madison station, a reverse move may be required. The teams discussed that 

since the travel time was similar to the automobile travel time, the route received 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

a “red” assessment. Overall, the route is rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 8. Route 

8 was assessed as having one of the worst travel times because of the increased 

distance traveled through Madison and Rochester, and at least one reverse 

move is required. Additionally, Route 8 has a travel time greater than the 

automobile travel time. The route is rated red for travel time because the route 

did not meet the project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of 

travel. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – The teams assessed the travel time 

and difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 9. 

The route has an increase in travel time due to the increased distance to travel 

through Madison. As stated during discussions of Route 4, depending on the 

location of the Madison station, a reverse move may be required. Additionally, 

Route 9 has a travel time that is less than the automobile travel time, but not 

significantly less. The route is rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 10. 

Route 10 has a good travel time because it is a relatively direct route with no 

reverse moves. Additionally, the route has a travel time significantly shorter than 

the automobile travel time. The route is rated green for travel time. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 11. The 

route has an increase in travel time due to the increased distance to travel 

through Madison. As stated during discussions of Route 4, depending on the 

location of the Madison station, a reverse move may be required. The teams 

discussed that since the travel time was similar to the automobile travel time, the 

route received a “red” assessment because the route did not meet the project 

need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of travel. Overall, the 

route is rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - The teams assessed the travel time and 

difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 12A. 

Route 12A has a good travel time because it is a direct route with no reverse 

moves. Additionally, the route has a travel time significantly shorter than the 

automobile travel time. The route is rated green for travel time. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire – The teams assessed the travel 

time and difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 

13. The teams agreed that Route 13 has an average travel time and the travel 

time is less than the automobile travel time, but not significantly less. 

Additionally, teams came to the consensus that routes traveling through Fond du 

Lac are long and do not capture the population that other routes with similar 

travel times do. This route is rated yellow for travel time. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – The teams assessed the travel 

time and difference between rail travel time and automobile travel time for Route 

14. The teams agreed that Route 13 has an average travel time and the travel 
Alternatives Selection Report 

4.0 – Travel Time 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 4-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

time is less than the automobile travel time, but not significantly less. 

Additionally, teams came to the consensus that routes traveling through Fond du 

Lac are long and do not capture the population that other routes with similar 

travel times do. This route is rated yellow for travel time. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

5.0 MARKET SIZE 

Market size is an indicator of the size of the potential ridership base for a route. 

Successful train operations require consistent and sustainable ridership. To achieve this, 

two measures must be evaluated: the ridership potential of each route and the availability 

of stations to serve the potential riders. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The market size criterion is tied to the project purpose of providing accessibility to major 

population centers. If a potential passenger rail alternative does not meet the project 

purpose, the route will be eliminated from further analysis. 

5.1 Ridership Potential 

A reasonable assumption for estimating market size is that the market size in a 

passenger rail corridor is directly related to the population within the service area. Based 

on this assumption, route populations are calculated for each route alternative using GIS 

software and US Census data from the year 2000. The populations for each route 

alternative include census tract populations found within a 20-mile band of the track, and 

within a 20 mile radius of each of the terminal stations. Maps depicting the population 

bands for each of the potential passenger rail alternatives are shown in Appendix J. 

Normative Statement: Routes with greater populations are better than routes with lesser 

populations. 

The route populations for each route are shown in Table 5-1 and Chart 5-1. The 

difference between the most and least populous routes is 538,602, which represents less 

than 13% of any route total. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 5-1. Route Populations 

Route Route Populations 

1 –Amtrak Route 4,189,108 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 4,364,774 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 4,191,266 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 4,531,967 

5 – Madison-Rochester 4,709,506 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 4,536,198 

7 – Madison-Prairie 4,516,380 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 4,692,046 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River 4,520,512 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 4,189,633 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC 4,534,565 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 4,170,904 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 4,534,499 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 4,556,877 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 5 and 8 have the greatest populations. Routes 5 and 8 

are better than the remaining routes because each will provide a good opportunity for a 

potential ridership base. 

5.2 “Beltway” Intermodal Facilities 

A “beltway” intermodal facility is a facility that provides access to the communities that 

are adjacent to terminal areas. These facilities allow fast and efficient access to the rail 

route from the surrounding highway network without the time and expense that would be 

required to reach the terminal in the central business district. Beltway intermodal stations 

can reduce the total trip time by eliminating redundant travel to or from the route’s 

terminal in the central business district. For the purposes of this analysis, the 

communities to the north and west of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station (MKE) and the 

communities to the southeast and east of the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange 

(MTI) are considered for beltway intermodal facilities. 

None of the potential beltway intermodal facilities have been selected as station 

Chart 5-1. Market Size 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

locations, and none of the facilities are funded. The potential locations cited in the 

following sections were selected because of the proximity of each location to a potential 

high-speed rail line and beltway highway routes. Station locations will be studied and 

defined in the Tier 1 EIS document. 

Normative Statement: Routes with a greater number of beltway intermodal facilities are 

better than routes with fewer beltway intermodal facilities. 

Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 discuss potential beltway intermodal facility locations in the 

Milwaukee and Twin Cities areas. 

5.2.1 Milwaukee-Area Beltway Intermodal Facilities 

There are several Milwaukee-Area locations that are considered as potential beltway 

intermodal facilities. The first location is Brookfield, WI, a suburb of Milwaukee with a 

population of 38,6005

. The potential Brookfield station is located east of the intersection 

of Brookfield Road and River Road in Brookfield, WI and is accessible from the adjacent 

Canadian Pacific Watertown Line. The potential station is approximately 12 miles 

northwest of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station. Brookfield is accessible from US Route 

45 three miles to the east and Interstate 94 two miles to the south. A station at this 

location is currently not funded. 

Figure 5-1 depicts the potential beltway intermodal facility in Brookfield. 

 

 

5

www.census.gov, year 2000 Census data
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

The second Milwaukee-area location for a potential beltway intermodal facility is 

Granville, WI. Granville is a neighborhood of Milwaukee, approximately 12 miles 

northwest of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station. Although an exact location for the 

potential Granville station was not specified in either the draft Wisconsin State Rail Plan 

or the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook, the station will be located 

adjacent to the Wisconsin & Southern Line. Granville is accessible from US Route 45 

and US Route 41 two miles to the west. A station at this location is currently not funded. 

Figure 5-2 depicts the area in which the potential beltway intermodal facility in Granville 

would be located. 

Canadian Pacific 

RR 

Proposed 

Brookfield Station 

Location 

US 45 

I-94 

Figure 5-1. Brookfield Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 5-2. Granville Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility 

The third Milwaukee-area location for a potential beltway intermodal facility is Park Knoll, 

WI. Park Knoll is a neighborhood of Milwaukee, approximately 10 miles northwest of the 

Milwaukee Intermodal Station. Although an exact location for the potential Park Knoll 

station was not specified in either the draft Wisconsin State Rail Plan or the Midwest 

Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook, the station will be located adjacent to the Union 

Pacific Line. Park Knoll is directly adjacent to US Route 45 and is accessible from US 

Route 41 less than one mile to the east. 

Figure 5-3 depicts the area in which the potential beltway intermodal facility in Granville 

would be located. 

US 45/US 41 

Wisconsin & 

Southern RR 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 5-3. Park Knoll Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility 

US 45 

Union Pacific RR 

US 41 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

5.2.2 Twin Cities-Area Beltway Intermodal Facilities 

There are several Twin Cities-Area locations that are considered as potential beltway 

intermodal facilities. The first location is Rosemount, MN, a southern suburb of St. Paul 

with a population of 14,6006

. Rosemount is approximately 14 miles south of St. Paul. 

Rosemount is considered an important intermodal location because of its close proximity 

to Apple Valley, a populous area of suburban St. Paul7

. Although an exact location for 

the potential Rosemount station was not specified in either the Minnesota State Rail Plan 

or the Tri-State III High-Speed Rail Study, the station will be located adjacent to the 

Union Pacific Albert Lea Line. Rosemount is accessible from Interstate 35 eight miles to 

the west. A station at this location is currently not funded. 

None of the potential beltway intermodal facilities have been selected as station 

locations, and none of the facilities are funded. The potential locations cited in the 

following sections were selected because of the proximity of each location to a potential 

high-speed rail line and beltway highway routes. Station locations will be studied and 

defined in the Tier 1 EIS document. 

Figure 5-4 depicts the area in which the potential beltway intermodal facility in 

Rosemount would be located. 

 

6

www.census.gov, year 2000 Census data 7 Tri-State III High-Speed Rail Study Minnesota Segment Assessment, Transportation Economics & Management 

Systems, Inc. September 2009 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 5-4. Rosemount Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility 

A second potential beltway station in the Twin Cities-area is Newport, MN, a southern 

suburb of St. Paul with a population of 3,5008

. Newport is approximately 10 miles 

southeast of St. Paul. Newport is an important potential state site due to its location 

adjacent to Interstate 494 and US Routes 10 and 61; a beltway facility in Newport would 

provide excellent park-and-ride opportunities. Newport is 1.5 miles south of I-494, and 

directly adjacent to US Routes 10/61. Although a station has not been proposed for 

Newport, it should be considered because of its convenient location. An exact location 

for the potential Newport station was not specified in either the Minnesota State Rail Plan 

or the Tri-State III High-Speed Rail Study; however, the station will be located adjacent to 

the Canadian Pacific River or BNSF St. Paul Lines. 

 

8

www.census.gov, year 2000 Census data

Apple Valley, MN 

Union Pacific RR 

I-35E 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 5-5 depicts the area in which the potential beltway intermodal facility in Newport 

would be located. 

A third potential beltway station in the Twin Cities-area is Vadnais Heights, MN, a 

northern suburb of St. Paul with a population of 13,1009

. Vadnais Heights is 

approximately 10 miles north of St. Paul. Vadnais Heights is an important potential state 

site due to its location adjacent to Interstates 694 and 35E; a beltway facility in Vadnais 

Heights would provide excellent park-and-ride opportunities. Vadnais Heights is just 

over a mile west of I-35E and 2 miles north of I-694. Although a station has not been 

proposed for Vadnais Heights, it should be considered because of its convenient 

location. An exact location for the potential Vadnais Heights station was not specified in 

 

9

www.census.gov, year 2000 Census data

I-494 

Canadian 

Pacific/BNSF RR 

US 10/61 

Figure 5-5. Newport Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

either the Minnesota State Rail Plan or the Tri-State III High-Speed Rail Study; however, 

the station will be located adjacent to the Canadian Pacific St. Paul/Withrow Lines. 

Figure 5-6 depicts the area in which the potential beltway intermodal facility in Vadnais 

Heights would be located. 

The final potential beltway station in the Twin Cities-area is Oakdale, MN, an eastern 

suburb of St. Paul with a population of 26,70010. Oakdale is approximately 8 miles east 

of St. Paul. Oakdale is an important potential state site due to its location adjacent to 

Interstates 94 and 694; a beltway facility in Oakdale would provide excellent park-andride opportunities. Oakdale is directly adjacent to I-694 and is 1 mile north of I-94. 

Although a station has not been proposed for Oakdale, it should be considered because 

of its convenient location. An exact location for the potential Oakdale station was not 

 

10

www.census.gov, year 2000 Census data

I-694 

Canadian Pacific 

RR 

I-35E 

Figure 5-6. Vadnais Heights Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

specified in either the Minnesota State Rail Plan or the Tri-State III High-Speed Rail 

Study; however, the station will be located adjacent to the Union Pacific Altoona Line. 

Figure 5-7 depicts the area in which the potential beltway intermodal facility in Oakdale 

would be located. 

Table 5-2 depicts the number of beltway intermodal facilities for each route. 

I-694 

Union 

Pacific 

RR 

I-94 

Figure 5-7. Oakdale Potential Beltway Intermodal Facility
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 5-2. Beltway Intermodal Facilities 

Route Number of Beltway 

Intermodal Facilities 

1 2 

2 2 

3 2 

4 2 

5 2 

6 2 

7 2 

8 2 

9 2 

10 2 

11 2 

13 2 

14 2 

Qualitative Assessment: All of the routes have an equivalent number of beltway 

intermodal facilities. One route is not better than another. 

5.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the ridership 

potential and beltway intermodal facilities based on the qualitative assessment 

completed for these measures. Using the color rating for the measures, an overall 

market size rating was assigned to each route based on the number of “green”, “yellow”, 

and “red” ratings the measures received. Table 5-3 depicts the color rating for each 

route for the measures and the overall market size criteria. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 5-3. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route Ridership 

Potential 

Beltway 

Intermodal 

Facilities 

Overall Market 

Size Rating 

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 

7 – Madison-Prairie 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with the market size data 

and engaged in discussions regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of 

each route. The following captures the qualitative assessment for each route: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – At the workshop, the teams assessed the ridership 

potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 1. The teams discussed that 

the existing Amtrak route has low ridership potential compared to the other 

routes. The teams also discussed the fact that since there are an equal number 

of beltway intermodal facilities for all of the routes, the routes are rated “yellow” 

for that measure. Overall, this route is rated yellow for market size. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 2. The teams 

discussed that since Route 2 has an average ridership potential and all of the 

routes have a “yellow” rating, the route is rated yellow for market size. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 3. The teams 

discussed that Route 3 has low ridership compared to the other routes. The 

route is rated yellow for market size. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – At the workshop, the teams assessed the ridership 

potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 4. The teams came to the 

consensus that Route 4 has good ridership potential because it serves Madison. 

The route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 5. The teams came 

to the consensus that Route 5 has good ridership potential because it serves 

Madison and Rochester. The route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 6. The teams came 

to the consensus that Route 6 has good ridership potential because it serves 

Madison. This route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – At the workshop, the teams assessed the ridership 

potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 7. The teams came to the 

consensus that Route 7 has good ridership potential because it serves Madison. 

This route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 8. The teams came 

to the consensus that Route 8 has good ridership potential because it serves 

Madison and Rochester. The route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

the ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 9. The teams 

came to the consensus that Route 9 has good ridership potential because it 

serves Madison. This route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 10. The teams 

discussed that Route 10 has low ridership compared to the other routes. The 

route is rated yellow for market size. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 11. The teams 

came to the consensus that Route 11 has good ridership potential because it 

serves Madison. This route is rated green. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 12A. The teams 

discussed that Route 12A has low ridership compared to the other routes. The 

route is rated yellow for market size. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 13. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

5.0 – Market Size 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 5-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

The teams came to the consensus that Route 13 has good ridership potential. 

This route is rated green for market size. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the ridership potential and beltway intermodal facilities for Route 14. 

The teams came to the consensus that Route 14 has good ridership potential. 

This route is rated green for market size.
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

6.0 CAPITAL COSTS 

Capital costs for the Milwaukee-Twin Cities high speed rail corridor program include the 

costs to upgrade the track to accommodate 110 mph operations, the cost of right-of-way 

acquisition, and cyclic capital costs. 

Capital costs are developed using the Cost Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail 

on Shared Right-of-Way (Appendix E) and are based on field observations that are 

included in the Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

(Appendix D). 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The capital costs criterion is tied to the project need of providing competitive and 

attractive alternative modes in the corridor. If a potential passenger rail alternative does 

not meet the project purpose, the route will be eliminated from further analysis. 

6.1 Cost Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail on Shared 

Right-of-Way 

The purpose of the Cost Estimating Methodology is two-fold: to serve as a written 

methodology for establishing unit costs for pay items related to the construction of highspeed rail corridors on shared right-of-way, and to serve as a methodology for identifying 

the capital improvements required to accommodate 110 mph operations. 

As described in the Cost Estimating Methodology, unit costs developed within the 

MWRRI Phase 3B in 1997 were used as baseline costs. Since 1997, the unit costs have 

been updated to 2002 (MWRRI Phase 4) using inflation factors listed in the Producer 

Price Index (PPI) PCUBHVY ‘PPI Inputs for Other Heavy Construction’. For this 

methodology, the 2002 unit costs were updated to 2010 dollars using the PPI 

PCUBHVY. Once the 2010 unit costs were derived, each unit cost was compared to 

current year industry unit cost estimates for railroad-related construction to ensure that 

the derived unit costs reflected current market conditions. 

The development of high-speed passenger rail corridors with train operations up to 110 

mph will require that the track and infrastructure have the ability to support the proposed 

speeds. Design considerations and capital improvements for the construction of 

trackwork, structures, systems, and crossings have been developed to address the 

requirements for operating at 110 mph. Each pay item that was assigned a unit cost is 

included in the methodology with a description of the materials and labor that are 

included in the unit cost. 

The Cost Estimating Methodology serves as an integral part of establishing the 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

framework by which the capital improvements and capital cost estimates were 

determined. 

6.2 Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail 

Alternatives 

The purpose of the Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives 

is to document the field observations that were made between August 2010 and January 

2011 and provide documentation of the capacity and efficiency constraints and 

infrastructure improvements required to implement high-speed passenger rail operations. 

Field observations were made from public vantage points such as highway-rail grade 

crossings, highway overpasses, adjacent public property and other locations such as 

passenger station platforms. Some of the information included in the Engineering 

Assessment was obtained from the timetables and track charts of the railroads. Other 

information was provided by persons familiar with various aspects of the covered 

territory. 

Each of the potential passenger rail routes consist of several route segments as 

described in the Interim Alternatives Selection Report. Within the route segments are 

track sub-segments. The information in the Engineering Assessment is presented by 

track sub-segment. Table 6-1 lists the endpoint of each segment and sub-segment. 

Table 6-1. Route Segments and Sub-Segments 

Segment Segment Endpoints Sub-Segment Sub-Segment Endpoints 

A Milwaukee-Grand Avenue 

Junction 1 Milwaukee-Grand Avenue 

Junction 

B & C Grand Avenue JunctionWatertown 2 Grand Avenue JunctionWatertown 

D Grand Avenue Junction-North 

Milwaukee 3 Grand Avenue Junction-North 

Milwaukee 

E Watertown-Portage 36 Watertown-Portage 

F Watertown-Madison 6 Watertown-Madison 

G Madison-Portage 8 Madison-Portage 

J Madison-Prairie du Chien-La 

Crosse 

9 Madison-Prairie du Chien 

12 Prairie du Chien-La Crosse 

K Portage-Camp Douglas 11 Portage-Camp Douglas 

L Camp Douglas-Wyeville 15 Camp Douglas-Wyeville 

M Wyeville-Eau Claire 18 Wyeville-Eau Claire 

N & O Camp Douglas-La Crosse 16 Camp Douglas-La Crosse 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

P Chippewa Falls-Eau Claire 19 Chippewa Falls-Eau Claire 

Q La Crosse-Hastings 20 La Crosse-Hastings 

R La Crosse-Winona 21 La Crosse-Winona 

S & V Winona-Red Wing-Hastings 24 Winona-Red Wing-Hastings 

T, W, & X Winona-Rochester-Owatonna 25 Winona-Rochester-Owatonna 

Z Owatonna-Inver Grove Heights 

26 Owatonna-Northfield 

42 Northfield-Inver Grove Heights 

AA Hastings-St. Paul Junction 

28 Hastings-Hoffman Avenue 

29 Hoffman Avenue-Division Street 

34 Division Street-St. Paul Junction 

BB Inver Grove Heights-Robert Street 27 Inver Grove Heights-Robert Street 

CC Chippewa Falls-Seventh Street 

22 Chippewa Falls-Withrow 

30 Withrow-Soo Junction 

31 Soo Line Junction-Seventh Street 

DD Eau Claire-Seventh Street 

23 Eau Claire-Westminster Street 

32 Westminster Street-Seventh 

Street 

EE Seventh Street-St. Paul Junction 33 Seventh Street-St. Paul Junction 

FF St. Paul Junction-St. Paul Union 

Depot 35 St. Paul Junction-St. Paul Union 

Depot 

GG St. Paul Union Depot-Robert 

Street 41 St. Paul Union Depot-Robert Street 

HH Robert Street-Minneapolis 

Transportation Interchange 

37 Robert Street-Chestnut Street 

38 Chestnut Street-Merriam Park 

39 Merriam Park-Minneapolis 

Junction 

40 Minneapolis Junction-Minneapolis 

Transportation Interchange 

II North Milwaukee-Chippewa Falls 

4 North Milwaukee-Mill Road 

5 Mill Road-Granville 

7 Granville-West Bend 

10 West Bend-Eden 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

13 Eden-Fond du Lac 

14 Fond du Lac-Owen 

17 Owen-Chippewa Falls 

JJ Butler Junction West-Wyeville 

46 Butler Junction West-Adams 

47 Adams-Wyeville 

KK North Milwaukee-Butler Junction 

West 

43 North Milwaukee-Canco 

44 Canco-Wiscona Jct. 

45 Wiscona Jct.-Butler Junction West 

The Engineering Assessment provides the following information for each track subsegment: 

 Sub-segment number and description 

 Existing passenger service 

 Maximum track speed 

 Yards and junctions 

 Major infrastructure elements 

 Photographs 

 Infrastructure needs 

 Constraints 

The field observations and assessment of infrastructure needs are directly used to 

estimate the capital costs required to upgrade existing track to high-speed rail. 

6.3 Costs to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail 

Costs to upgrade to high-speed rail were estimated using field observations that are 

included in the Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives, 

included as Appendix D of this report, and the Cost Estimating Methodology for HighSpeed Rail on Shared Right-of-Way, included as Appendix E of this report. After the 

total infrastructure costs were calculated, contingencies and soft costs were calculated to 

determine the total cost to upgrade to high-speed rail. 

Contingencies for project development and construction, and “soft costs” relating to 

Design Engineering, Insurance and Bonding, Program Management, Construction 

Management and Inspection, Engineering Services during Construction, Integrated 

Testing and Commissioning and Erosion Control and Water Quality Management have 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

been added to the cost estimate. A contingency additive of 30% of construction costs 

has been applied to the infrastructure capital cost estimates. A 24% additive for 

Professional Services and Environmental based on the sum of the work elements and 

contingency has also been included in the capital cost estimate. 

Special Elements serve as placeholders for conservative estimates for large and/or 

complex engineering projects that have not been estimated on the basis of unit costs and 

quantities. Placeholders are used where detailed engineering requirements are not fully 

known.” 

Capital cost spreadsheets will be included as a separate appendix from the Cost 

Estimating Methodology for High-Speed Rail on Shared Right-of-Way, which identifies 

the costs utilized for the following special elements: 

 Rail yard placeholders (See Appendix C of the Cost Estimating Methodology) 

 Access to signal/switch locations 

 Maintenance of way spur 

 Rail-rail flyovers 

 ARRA application funds 

 Upgrades near MTI 

 Structural Reconfiguration of the west approach to SPUD 

 Rehabilitation of swing bridges 

 Construction of lift bridges 

 Marshland settlement issues in Wisconsin 

 Restoration of a 2nd track structure 

 Retaining Wall costs 

 Restoration of track 

 Bike path/trail relocation 

Right-of-way acquisition is required where new track or other infrastructure is proposed 

to be built outside of existing railroad right-of-way. Additional property may be necessary 

to add roadbed and tracks, to change the degree of curvature in a curve to permit higher 

operating speeds, or to construct a connecting track between segments of track at a 

junction. For existing rail corridors, it is assumed that additional right-of-way 50’ in width 

is needed. The number of linear miles of land acquisition required to accommodate the 

proposed infrastructure is determined for each route. The cost for right-of-way 

acquisition in rural areas is $185,680 per mile and the cost of right-of-way acquisition in 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

urban areas is $557,580 per mile. These costs were verified with local sources in 

Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

As stated previously, the quantities of trackwork, structures, systems, crossings, and 

special elements are estimated for each route based on the field observations. 

Improvements and costs between Milwaukee and Madison are obtained from the 2009 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Track 2 grant that Wisconsin DOT applied 

for. This application is provided in Appendix K. 

Capital cost spreadsheets are included as Appendix L of this document. 

Normative Statement: Routes with lower costs to upgrade to high-speed rail are better 

than routes with higher costs to upgrade to high-speed rail. 

The following tables show the costs to upgrade to high-speed rail for each route broken 

down by cost element. 

Table 6-2. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 1 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $617,411

Structures $175,705

Systems $168,447

Crossings $132,767

Allocations for Special Elements $492,274

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $1,586,604

Contingency $396,296

Professional Services and 

Environmental $412,148

Total Route Cost $2,395,049

Route Cost Per Mile $7,105
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-3. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 2 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $875,125 

Structures $166,704 

Systems $203,682 

Crossings $146,082 

Allocations for Special Elements $399,074 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $1,790,667 

Contingency $457,515 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $475,816 

Total Route Cost $2,723,998 

Route Cost Per Mile $6,949 

Table 6-4. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 3 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,214,472 

Structures $381,194 

Systems $164,046 

Crossings $91,001 

Allocations for Special Elements $417,374 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,268,087 

Contingency $600,741 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $624,771 

Total Route Cost $3,493,599 

Route Cost Per Mile $10,350 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-5. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 4 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $625,101 

Structures $120,877 

Systems $177,250 

Crossings $138,944 

Allocations for Special Elements $725,062 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $1,787,233 

Contingency $366,812 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $381,484 

Total Route Cost $2,535,529 

Route Cost Per Mile $7,120 

Table 6-6. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 5 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $882,814 

Structures $111,876 

Systems $212,485 

Crossings $152,259 

Allocations for Special Elements $631,862 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $1,991,296 

Contingency $428,030 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $445,151 

Total Route Cost $2,864,478 

Route Cost Per Mile $6,970 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-7. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 6 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,222,162 

Structures $326,366 

Systems $172,849 

Crossings $97,178 

Allocations for Special Elements $650,162 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,468,716 

Contingency $571,256 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $594,107 

Total Route Cost $3,634,079 

Route Cost Per Mile $10,265 

Table 6-8. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 7 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,117,852 

Structures $265,460 

Systems $217,848 

Crossings $152,143 

Allocations for Special Elements $711,462 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,464,766 

Contingency $570,071 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $592,874 

Total Route Cost $3,627,711 

Route Cost Per Mile $9,472 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-9. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 8 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,375,566 

Structures $256,459 

Systems $253,083 

Crossings $165,458 

Allocations for Special Elements $618,262 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,668,828 

Contingency $631,290 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $656,542 

Total Route Cost $3,956,660 

Route Cost Per Mile $8,984 

Table 6-10. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 9 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,707,241 

Structures $409,267 

Systems $209,667 

Crossings $110,376 

Allocations for Special Elements $621,462 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $3,058,013 

Contingency $748,046 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $777,967 

Total Route Cost $4,584,026 

Route Cost Per Mile $11,963 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-11. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 10 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,083,356 

Structures $157,283 

Systems $185,481 

Crossings $131,263 

Allocations for Special Elements $370,374 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $1,927,757 

Contingency $498,642 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $518,588 

Total Route Cost $2,944,987 

Route Cost Per Mile $8,744 

Table 6-12. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 11 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,091,046 

Structures $102,455 

Systems $194,283 

Crossings $137,440 

Allocations for Special Elements $603,162 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,128,386 

Contingency $469,157 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $487,924 

Total Route Cost $3,085,467 

Route Cost Per Mile $8,672 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-13. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 12A 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,353,470 

Structures $247,688 

Systems $235,115 

Crossings $206,831 

Allocations for Special Elements $161,966 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,205,070 

Contingency $657,648 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $683,954 

Total Route Cost $3,518,601 

Route Cost Per Mile $10,451 

Table 6-14. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 13 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $1,353,470 

Structures $247,688 

Systems $235,115 

Crossings $206,831 

Allocations for Special Elements $161,966 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $2,205,070 

Contingency $657,648 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $683,954 

Total Route Cost $3,546,672 

Route Cost Per Mile $9,675 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-15. Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail by Cost Element – Route 14 

Cost Element Cost to Upgrade to High-Speed 

Rail (thousands) 

Trackwork $958,169 

Structures $234,384 

Systems $220,082 

Crossings $215,187 

Allocations for Special Elements $128,000 

Sub-Total Construction 

Elements $1,755,823 

Contingency $526,747 

Professional Services and 

Environmental $451,932 

Total Route Cost $2,924,454 

Route Cost Per Mile $7,581 

The overall costs to upgrade to high-speed rail for each route are shown in Table 6-16 

and Chart 6-1. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-16. Costs to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail 

Route 

Costs to 

Upgrade to 

High-Speed Rail 

1 –Amtrak Route $2,395,049,000 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester $2,723,998,000 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River $3,368,300,000 

4 – MWRRI-Madison $2,535,529,000 

5 – Madison-Rochester $2,864,478,000 

6 – Madison-BNSF River $3,634,079,000 

7 – Madison-Prairie $3,627,711,000 

8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester $3,956,660,000 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River $4,584,026,000 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire $2,944,987,000 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC $3,085,467,000 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire $3,518,601,000 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacEau Claire $3,546,672,000 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacChip-TC $2,924,454,000 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 14 have the lowest costs to 

upgrade to high-speed rail. These routes are better than the remaining routes. 

6.4 Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisition 

Right-of-way acquisition is required where new track or other infrastructure is proposed 

to be built outside of existing railroad right-of-way. Additional property may be necessary 

to add roadbed and tracks, to change the degree of curvature in a curve to permit higher 

operating speeds, or to construct a connecting track between segments of track at a 

junction. For existing rail corridors, it is assumed that additional right-of-way 50’ in width 

is needed. The number of linear miles of land acquisition required to accommodate the 

proposed infrastructure is determined for each route. 

The Cost of right-of-way acquisition shown in Table 6-17 is presented by sub-segment 

for each route and is quantified in the capital cost estimate in Appendix L – Capital Cost 

Spreadsheets. The need for the right-of-way acquisition for each of the sub-segments 

Chart 6-1. Costs to Upgrade to High-Speed Rail 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

and routes is described in Appendix D, Engineering Assessment of the Potential 

Passenger Rail Alternatives by Sub-Segment and by Route. 

Normative Statement: Routes with lower costs to acquire right-of-way are better than 

routes with higher costs to acquire right-of-way acquisition. 

The cost of right-of-way acquisition for each route is shown in Table 6-17 and Chart 6-2. 

Table 6-17. Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisition 

Route Cost of Right-ofWay Acquisition 

1 –Amtrak Route $3,141,000 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester $27,397,000 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River $24,283,000 

4 – MWRRI-Madison $3,141,000 

5 – Madison-Rochester $27,397,000 

6 – Madison-BNSF River $24,283,000 

7 – Madison-Prairie $20,370,000 

8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester $44,626,000 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River $39,979,000 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire $32,135,000 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC $32,135,000 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire $56,817,000 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacEau Claire $23,753,000 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacChip-TC $11,152,000 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-17 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 4, and 14 have the lowest right-of-way acquisition 

costs. These routes are better than the remaining routes. 

6.5 Cyclic Capital Costs 

Cyclic capital costs are the dollar value of the costs required to perform cyclical 

maintenance tasks on a railroad. Cyclical maintenance tasks are those that are 

undertaken at regular intervals and which are necessary to preserve the expected life of 

the track structure. Cyclical maintenance tasks include track surfacing, rail grinding and 

profiling, ballast replenishment and cleaning, rail defect removal and similar maintenance 

for structures and signal components. These tasks are normally performed on a cyclic 

basis to avoid shutting the railroad down completely to replace the components which 

otherwise may fail all at once. 

Cyclic capital costs are derived from “steady state” track-segment-specific maintenance 

costs defined by ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc. in Technical Monograph: Estimating 

Maintenance Costs for Mixed High Speed Passenger and Freight Rail Corridors 

Chart 6-2. Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisition 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-18 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

(Technical Monograph). In the Technical Monograph, ZETA-TECH calculates the 

maintenance costs per track mile for various operating scenarios. The costs take into 

consideration the following parameters: 

 Annual tonnage (MGT) by tonnage categories 

 Track geometry by broad curvature category 

 Maximum operating speed 

 Mix of passenger and freight 

 Tie type 

There are 216 cost matrices which correspond to the number of combinations of track, 

topology, traffic mix, and operating speed. In order to determine the cyclic capital costs 

for a particular route, a route is divided into shorter segments corresponding to an 

individual matrix element. Then, the cost per mile for each element is multiplied by the 

segment mileage. The sumation of the costs for each segment is the total route cyclic 

capital cost. 

The MWRRI Planning Phase 5 developed a model that computed the maintenance costs 

for the entire Midwest Regional Rail System using the FRA Technical Monograph. The 

model cacluated the cyclic capital costs to estimate the future spending required to 

replace components that wear out. These costs included rail replacement, tie renewals, 

surfacing, ballast replacement and similar activities. Using the MWRRI Planning Phase 

5 model (Appendix M), the annual cyclic capital costs for the route alternatives were 

developed. 

Normative Statement: Routes with lower cyclic capital costs are better than routes with 

higher cyclic capital costs. 

Table 6-18 and Chart 6-3 depict the cyclic capital costs by route.
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-19 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-18. Annual Cyclic Capital Costs 

Route Cyclic Capital 

Costs 

1 –Amtrak Route $4,112,000 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester $4,948,000 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River $4,222,000 

4 – MWRRI-Madison $5,067,000 

5 – Madison-Rochester $5,903,000 

6 – Madison-BNSF River $5,177,000 

7 – Madison-Prairie $5,448,000 

8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester $6,285,000 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River $5,559,000 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire $4,256,000 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC $5,211,000 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire $4,311,000 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacEau Claire $4,679,000 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacChip-TC $4,726,000 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-20 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 3, 10, 12A, 13 and 14 have the lowest cyclic capital 

costs. These routes are better than the remaining routes. 

6.6 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the costs to 

upgrade to high-speed rail, the cost of right-of-way acquisition, and the cyclic capital 

costs based on the qualitative assessment completed for these measures. Using the 

color rating for the measures, an overall capital cost rating was assigned to each route 

based on the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures received. 

Table 6-19 depicts the color rating for each route for the measures and overall capital 

cost criteria. 

Chart 6-3. Cyclic Capital Costs 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-21 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 6-19. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route 

Cost to 

Upgrade to 

High-Speed Rail 

Cost of Rightof-Way 

Acquisition 

Cyclic Capital 

Costs 

Overall Capital 

Cost Rating 

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 

7 – Madison-Prairie 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with the capital cost data 

and engaged in discussions regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of 

each route. The teams came to a consensus that the cost of right-of-way acquisition is 

not a discriminator because, relative to the other costs, the cost to acquire right-of-way is 

not a significant amount. The teams agreed that the cost of right-of-way would be 

removed from assessment. The following captures the qualitative assessment for each 

route: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 1. Since the existing 

Amtrak route had a low cost to upgrade to high-speed rail and a low cyclic capital 

cost, the route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 2. Overall, the cost 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-22 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

to upgrade to high-speed rail was low and the cyclic capital costs were average 

for Route 2. The route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost 

to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 3. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was average and the cyclic capital costs were low for 

Route 3. The route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 4. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was low and the cyclic capital costs were average for 

Route 4. The route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 5. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was low but the cyclic capital costs were high for 

Route 5. The route is rated yellow for capital costs. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost 

to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 6. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was average and the cyclic capital costs were 

average for Route 6. This route is rated yellow for capital costs. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 7. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was average and the cyclic capital costs were 

average for Route 7. This route is rated yellow for capital costs. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

cost to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 8. The cost 

to upgrade to high-speed rail was high and the cyclic capital costs were high for 

Route 8. The route is rated red for capital costs because the route did not meet 

the project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of travel. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

the cost to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 9. The 

cost to upgrade to high-speed rail was high and the cyclic capital costs were 

average for Route 9. The route is rated yellow for capital costs. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 10. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was low and the cyclic capital costs were low for 

Route 10. The route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

cost to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 11. The cost 

to upgrade to high-speed rail was low and the cyclic capital costs were average 

for Route 11. This route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - At the workshop, the teams assessed the cost 

to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 12A. The cost to 

upgrade to high-speed rail was average and the cyclic capital costs were low for 
Alternatives Selection Report 

6.0 – Capital Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 6-23 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Route 12A. The route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the cost to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 

13. The cost to upgrade to high-speed rail was average and the cyclic capital 

costs were low for Route 13. This route is rated green for capital costs. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the cost to upgrade to high-speed rail and cyclic capital costs for Route 

14. The cost to upgrade to high-speed rail was low and the cyclic capital costs 

were low for Route 14. This route is rated green for capital costs. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

7.0 – Operating Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 7-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

7.0 OPERATING COSTS 

Operating costs are the costs incurred to maintain the infrastructure and equipment and 

to operate the train service on a route. Track maintenance costs are the normal 

discriminators between routes. However, if one route is longer than the others, and the 

travel time using that route is significantly greater than the other routes, the longer route 

may require one or more additional intercity passenger train sets and additional 

operating crews to provide the number of scheduled trips over that route distance. 

Since track maintenance costs are the major operating cost discriminator between 

routes, track maintenance costs are developed and assessed for each route. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The operating costs criterion is tied to the project need of providing competitive and 

attractive alternative modes in the corridor. If a potential passenger rail alternative does 

not meet the project purpose, the route will be eliminated from further analysis. 

7.1 Track Maintenance Costs 

Track maintenance costs are the costs that are incurred to perform the required periodic 

inspection, servicing, repair, and maintenance activities needed to keep a railroad 

operational on a daily basis. These activities are often smaller actions performed “under 

traffic” by the track, bridge, and signal personnel of the owning railroad. 

Track maintenance costs are derived similarly to cyclic capital costs, as discussed in 

section 6.5. ZETA-TECH defined the track maintenance costs in Technical Monograph: 

Estimating Maintenance Costs for Mixed High Speed Passenger and Freight Rail 

Corridors (Technical Monograph). In the Technical Monograph, ZETA-TECH calculates 

the maintenance costs per track mile for various operating scenarios. The costs take 

into consideration the following parameters: 

 Annual tonnage (MGT) by tonnage categories 

 Track geometry by broad curvature category 

 Maximum operating speed 

 Mix of passenger and freight 

 Tie type 

There are 216 cost matrices which correspond to the number of combinations of track, 

topology, traffic mix, and operating speed. In order to determine the track maintenance 

costs for a particular route, a route is divided into shorter segments corresponding to an 
Alternatives Selection Report 

7.0 – Operating Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 7-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

individual matrix element. Then, the cost per mile for each element is multiplied by the 

segment mileage. The sumation of the costs for each segment is the total route track 

maintenance cost. 

The MWRRI Planning Phase 5 developed a model that computed the maintenance costs 

for the entire Midwest Regional Rail System using the FRA Technical Monograph. The 

model cacluated the maintenance costs for such tasks as inspection, spot repairs, and 

routine maintenance. Using the MWRRI Planning Phase 5 model (Appendix M), the 

annual track maintenance costs for the rail alternatives were developed 

Normative Statement: Routes with lower track maintenance costs are better than routes 

with higher track maintenance costs. 

Table 7-1 and Chart 7-1 depict the track maintenance costs by route.

Table 7-1. Track Maintenance Costs 

Route Track Maintenance 

Costs 

1 –Amtrak Route $6,228,000 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester $7,292,000 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River $6,715,000 

4 – MWRRI-Madison $7,207,000 

5 – Madison-Rochester $8,270,000 

6 – Madison-BNSF River $7,694,000 

7 – Madison-Prairie $7,393,000 

8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester $8,457,000 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River $7,880,000 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire $6,858,000 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC $7,836,000 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire $6,946,000 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacEau Claire $7,238,000 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du LacChip-TC $7,314,000 
Alternatives Selection Report 

7.0 – Operating Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 7-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 3, 10, and 12A have the lowest track maintenance 

costs. These routes are better than the remaining routes. 

7.2 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the track 

maintenance costs based on the qualitative assessment completed for this measure. 

Using the color rating for the measures, an overall operating cost rating was assigned to 

each route based on the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures 

received. Table 7-2 depicts the color rating for each route for the measure and overall 

operating cost criteria. 

Chart 7-1. Track Maintenance Costs 
Alternatives Selection Report 

7.0 – Operating Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 7-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 7-2. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route 

Track 

Maintenance 

Costs 

Overall 

Operating Cost 

Rating 

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 

5 – Madison-Rochester 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 

7 – Madison-Prairie 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 

12 – Wyeville-Eau Claire 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with the operating cost data 

and engaged in discussions regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of 

each route. The following captures the qualitative assessment for each route based on 

operating costs: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 1. The existing Amtrak route had the lowest track 

maintenance costs. The route is rated green for operating costs. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 2. Route 2 had average track maintenance costs 

compared to the other routes. The route is rated yellow for operating costs. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 3. Route 3 had one of the lowest track 

maintenance costs. The route is rated green for operating costs. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

7.0 – Operating Costs 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 7-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 4. Route 4 had average track maintenance costs 

compared to the other routes. The route is rated yellow for operating costs. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 5. Route 5 had one of the highest track 

maintenance costs. The route is rated red for operating costs because it does 

not meet the project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of 

travel. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 6. Route 6 had average track maintenance costs 

compared to the other routes. The route is rated yellow for operating costs. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 7. Route 7 had average track maintenance costs 

compared to the other routes. This route is rated yellow for operating costs. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

track maintenance costs for Route 8. Route 8 had the highest track maintenance 

cost of all the routes. The route is rated red for operating costs because it does 

not meet the project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of 

travel. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

the track maintenance costs for Route 9. Route 9 had a high track maintenance 

cost. The route is rated red for operating costs because it does not meet the 

project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of travel.. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed the track 

maintenance costs for Route 10. Route 10 has a low track maintenance cost. 

The route is rated green for operating costs. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

track maintenance costs for Route 11. Route 11 has a high track maintenance 

cost. The route is rated red for operating costs because it does not meet the 

project need for a competitive and attractive alternative mode of travel. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

track maintenance costs for Route 12A. Route 12A had a low track maintenance 

cost. The route is rated green for operating costs. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the track maintenance costs for Route 13. This route had average 

track maintenance costs. The route is rated yellow for operating costs. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the track maintenance costs for Route 14. This route had average 

track maintenance costs. The route is rated yellow for operating costs.
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

8.0 SAFETY 

Passenger, pedestrian, train, and vehicle safety within railroad right-of-way is of utmost 

importance. In order to ensure safe operation on a rail line, safety guidelines outlined in 

the Highway-Rail Grade Grossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail11 and the

Pedestrian Grade Crossing Guidance12 are used to determine the necessary 

modifications needed to implement to existing rail-rail and at-grade crossings. 

Information regarding rail-rail and at-grade crossings is taken from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) Office of Safety Analysis crossing database. 

Wisconsin’s experience has identified the need for the development of a “grade crossing 

diagnostic team” to visually evaluate and analyze what should be done in terms of rail 

crossing needs and closures. WisDOT would encourage the same approach during the 

Tier 1 EIS phase of the project. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The safety criterion is tied to the project purpose of providing safe and reliable service. If 

a potential passenger rail alternative does not meet the project purpose, the route will be 

eliminated from further analysis. 

8.1 Rail-Rail Crossings 

Rail-rail crossings are locations where the track(s) of one railroad or rail line crosses the 

track(s) of another railroad at grade. At these locations, a complex piece of trackwork 

known as a “crossing diamond” is used to permit the passing of trains through the 

crossing. Crossing diamonds may cause the maximum operating speed to be limited to 

79 mph. By building a grade separation, trains traveling at speeds greater than 79 mph 

will be able to continue through crossing diamonds without reducing speeds. The 

following is a list of the rail-rail crossings within the Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor: 

 Duplainville, WI (Canadian Pacific crosses Canadian National) 

 Watertown, WI (Canadian Pacific crosses Union Pacific) 

 Grand Junction, WI (Canadian Pacific crosses BNSF) 

 Wyeville, WI (Union Pacific crosses Union Pacific) 

 Merrillan, WI (Union Pacific crosses Canadian National) 

 

11 http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HwyRailXingGuidelines110609.pdf

12 Pedestrian Grade Crossing Guidance, Draft, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, 

December 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Junction City, WI (Canadian National crosses Canadian National) 

 Chippewa Falls, WI (Canadian National crosses Union Pacific) 

 Bald Eagle, MN (Canadian Pacific crosses Minnesota Commercial) 

 Robert Street, MN (Union Pacific crosses Canadian Pacific) 

If a grade separation is not considered feasible, several upgrades will need to be 

implemented to allow high speed passenger trains to travel through a rail-rail crossing. 

In order to allow adequate warning for trains approaching the crossing along the 

intersecting rail line, signal spacing on the approaches to the crossing will be increased 

proportional to the authorized track speed at that location. The signals on the 

intersecting rail line may need to be relocated to allow room for the placement of switch 

point derails or for new connection tracks. Switch point derails may be required on the 

line intersecting the high speed rail line to provide failsafe protection for the high speed 

line. 

Normative Statement: Routes with fewer rail-rail crossings are better than routes with 

more rail-rail crossings. 

Rail-rail crossings on each route are identified directly from railroad track charts and are 

inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes of generating a table and chart depicting the 

data. The quantity of these crossings for each route is shown in Table 8-1 and Chart 8-

1. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 8-1. Number of Rail-Rail Crossings 

Route Number of Rail-Rail 

Crossings 

1 –Amtrak Route 3 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 4 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 2 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 3 

5 – Madison-Rochester 4 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 2 

7 – Madison-Prairie 2 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 4 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River 3 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 4 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 4 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 4 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 1 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 3 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Route 13 has the least amount of rail-rail crossings and is 

better than the remaining routes.

8.2 At-Grade Crossings 

At-grade crossings are locations where the track(s) of a railroad intersect with a public or 

private roadway, highway, or pedestrian walkway or recreational trail at grade. At public 

crossings, a public agency has jurisdiction over the standards, installation, and 

maintenance of those crossings. At private crossings, a railroad has granted an entity 

the right to cross the railroad for a specific purpose, such as farming or access to parcels 

of owned-land bisected by the railroad. The agreement between the railroad and the 

property owner determine the ownership, warning devices, maintenance, and accident 

liability at the crossing. 

In order to increase the level of safety at crossings, the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Chart 8-1. Number of Rail-Rail Crossings 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail13 published by the FRA in November 2009 

emphasized that “crossing consolidation is the cornerstone of effective planning for highspeed rail.” Although grade crossing closure requires significant effort, minimizing the 

number of at-grade crossings is more cost effective when compared to other safety 

alternatives (upgrading warning devices, maintaining warning devices and crossing 

surfaces through the lifecycle, expenses associated with maintenance of track structure 

at crossing location, etc.)14. In areas where there are several at-grade crossing within a 

short distance of each other, closing several crossings and directing traffic to a crossing 

chosen to remain in use that has been provided with enhanced safety measures 

(approximately one at-grade crossing per mile in rural settings or as the situation 

requires in more congested urban settings) would provide a lower probability of an atgrade crossing collision. Public crossings are critical safety locations because the 

Average Daily Traffic over these crossings is higher than private crossings and public 

crossings are generally located in metropolitan or municipal areas. 

The FRA also emphasized that closing private at-grade crossings should be an “integral 

part of the crossing safety strategy for any HSR corridor” since movements over private 

crossings are a greater risk to persons on trains. This is because heavy trucks and 

agricultural equipment are prevalent at private crossings and are slow to clear the 

crossings. By eliminating private crossings and providing an alternate route to the 

crossing holder, risk of a collision will be decreased. However, private crossings are 

more manageable than public crossings, in that the traffic over the crossings is 

considerably lower than at public crossings. The private crossing traffic generally can be 

re-routed more easily. 

If it is not feasible to close at-grade crossings, the concept of a “sealed corridor” should 

be applied to those crossings which are crossed at a speed of 79 mph or greater. After 

closure of any possible at-grade crossings has occurred, safety measures including four 

quadrant gates, median separators, and longer gate arms should be installed for all 

remaining public crossings. Additionally, the cross-sectional profile of at-grade crossings 

should be assessed to determine if the height difference between the crossing and 30 

feet from the outside of the crossing is greater than 3 inches. This type of crossing is 

known as a “hump crossing” and can cause low-profile or long vehicles to scrape the 

pavement at the crest of the crossing. There is also a potential for these vehicles to 

become stuck at a hump crossing. Roadway modifications should be made to correct 

the profile of the crossing. 

Pedestrian railroad crossings are also considered to be at-grade crossings and require 

similar safety considerations as roadway at-grade crossings. FRA recommends that 

railroads with busy passenger stations located on multi-track rail lines with frequent 

freight service should investigate the application of a high-capacity grade separation 

 

13 http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HwyRailXingGuidelines110609.pdf

14 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail: Version 1.0, U.S. Department of 

Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, November 2009
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

structure to carry large volumes of pedestrians to and from their busy passenger 

platforms. If a crossing is not located in a high-volume freight and passenger service 

area, there are other measures available to enhance pedestrian crossing safety.15 These 

measures include: 

 Train-borne audible and visual warnings 

 Station-sited audible and visual warnings 

 Swing gates 

 Access for persons with disabilities 

 Infrastructure at crossings to improve safety – includes visually contrasting 

surface materials and a smooth crossing surface 

 Station signing 

 Fencing at and near passenger platforms 

 Enforcement initiatives at and near passenger stations16

Normative Statement: Routes with fewer at-grade public crossings are safer than routes 

with more at-grade public crossings, and routes with fewer at-grade private crossings are 

safer than routes with more at-grade private crossings. 

At-grade crossings on each route are identified directly from railroad track charts and are 

inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes of generating a table and chart depicting the 

data. The number of at-grade crossings (including pedestrian crossings) by route is 

shown in Table 8-2, Chart 8-2, and Chart 8-3. 

 

 

15 Pedestrian Grade Crossing Guidance, Draft, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, 

December 2010

16 Pedestrian Grade Crossing Guidance, Draft, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, 

December 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 8-2. Number of At-Grade Crossings 

Route 

Number of 

Public At-Grade 

Crossings 

Number of 

Private At-Grade 

Crossings 

Total Number of 

At-Grade 

Crossings 

1 –Amtrak Route 312 163 475 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 382 225 607 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 268 143 411 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 327 175 502 

5 – Madison-Rochester 396 237 633 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 282 155 437 

7 – Madison-Prairie 303 199 502 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 371 261 632 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 281 196 477 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 320 157 477 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 334 169 503 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 170 262 432 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 389 220 609 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 386 260 646 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Figure 8-2. Number of At-Grade Crossings – Public and Private 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 8-3. Number of At-Grade Crossings - Total 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12A have the fewest number 

of total at-grade crossings, and are therefore safer than the remaining routes. Note that 

Route 3, the Amtrak-BNSF River route, has the fewest number of total at-grade 

crossings because the route runs adjacent to the Mississippi River.

8.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the Number of 

Rail-Rail Crossings and the Number of At-Grade Crossings based on the qualitative 

assessment completed for these measures. Using the color rating for the measures, an 

overall safety rating was assigned to each route based on the number of “green”, 

“yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures received. Table 8-3 depicts the color rating for 

each route for the measures and the overall safety criteria. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 8-3. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route Number of Rail-Rail 

Crossings 

Number of At-Grade 

Crossings Overall Safety Rating 

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 

7 – Madison-Prairie 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with Number of Rail-Rail 

Crossings and the Number of At-Grade Crossings data and engaged in discussions 

regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of each route. The following 

captures the qualitative assessment for each route: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – At the workshop, the teams assessed the number of 

rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 1. There was consensus among the 

teams to assess the at-grade crossings based on the total number of crossings, 

rather than the number of public vs. private crossings separately. The existing 

Amtrak route has an average number of rail-rail crossings and total at-grade 

crossings compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for 

safety. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the number 

of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 2. Route 2 has a high number of railrail and at-grade crossings compared to the other routes. Overall, this route was 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

rated red for safety because it does not meet the project purpose of providing 

safe and reliable service. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 3. Route 3 has an average 

number of rail-rail crossings and a low number of total at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated green for safety. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – At the workshop, the teams assessed the number 

of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 4. Route 4 has an average number 

of rail-rail crossings and total at-grade crossings compared to the other routes. 

Overall, the route was rated yellow for safety. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 5. Route 5 has a high 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings compared to the other routes. Overall, 

this route was rated red for safety because it does not meet the project purpose 

of providing safe and reliable service. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 6. Route 6 has an average 

number of rail-rail crossings and a low number of total at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated green for safety. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – At the workshop, the teams assessed the number of 

rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 7. Route 7 has an average number of 

rail-rail crossings and total at-grade crossings compared to the other routes. 

Overall, the route was rated yellow for safety. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 8. Route 8 has a high 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings compared to the other routes. Overall, 

this route was rated red for safety because it does not meet the project purpose 

of providing safe and reliable service. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

the number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 9. Route 9 has an 

average number of rail-rail crossings and total at-grade crossings compared to 

the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for safety. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 10. Route 10 has a high 

number of rail-rail crossings and an average number of total at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for safety. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 11. Route 11 has a high 

number of rail-rail crossings and an average number of total at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for safety. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 12A. Route 12A has a high 
Alternatives Selection Report 

8.0 – Safety 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 8-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

number of rail-rail crossings and a low number of total at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for safety. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire - At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 13. Route 13 

has a low number of rail-rail crossings and a high number of total at-grade 

crossings compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for 

safety. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings for Route 14. Route 14 

has an average number of rail-rail crossings and a high number of total at-grade 

crossings compared to the other routes. Overall, the route was rated yellow for 

safety. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

9.0 RELIABILITY 

Reliability identifies the most common non-casualty variables involved in railroad 

operations that can impact the operating and schedule performance of trains on a route. 

These variables include the quantity of freight conflicts along a route, the freight density 

along a route, the number of handoffs between railroad owners a route has, and the type 

of train control a route has. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The reliability criterion is tied to the project purpose of providing safe and reliable service, 

and the project need for a reliable new travel mode to attract riders from existing travel 

modes. If a potential passenger rail alternative does not meet the project purpose or 

project need, the route will be eliminated from further analysis. 

9.1 Quantity of Freight Conflicts 

Freight conflicts along a route include yards, terminal, and junction areas where freight 

train activity occurs or could occur. Sometimes the rail freight traffic involves the 

switching of major industries which are the railroad’s customers. Other times, the rail 

freight traffic may involve yard switch engines, local freight trains, and complete freight 

train movements in and out of towns, freight classification yards, junctions and/or railroad 

crew change points. In all of these cases, the freight railroads are using their tracks to 

serve their freight customers. The significance of these locations is that, if not properly 

addressed in the planning stage, these locations can represent “bottlenecks” to the 

movement of high-speed rail passenger trains. Generally, it is better for a route to have 

fewer freight conflicts and fewer severe conflicts. 

Three categories have been established to classify the freight conflicts along the routes. 

Category A includes smaller town sidings or yards and key junctions with a lower level of 

freight activity. Category B includes active mainline yards and terminals. Category C 

includes major terminal areas. Freight conflicts associated with Category C are more 

severe than freight conflicts associated with Categories A and B. Freight conflicts 

associated with Category B are more severe than freight conflicts associated with 

Category A. All of the yard, terminal and junction areas between Milwaukee and St. Paul, 

except those in the Milwaukee-Madison Sub-segment, were evaluated using the MWRRI 

Capital Cost Methodology and have been categorized as follows: 

Category A:

 New Lisbon, WI 

 Camp Douglas, WI 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Adams, WI 

 Wyeville, WI 

 Hastings-St. Croix, MN 

 Rochester, MN 

 Junction City, WI 

 Owen, WI 

 Withrow, MN 

 Cardigan Jct., MN 

Category B:

 Madison, WI (Only the M&P Sub in Madison) 

 Portage, WI (Columbia-Portage Jct.-West Portage) 

 La Crosse, WI - La Crescent, MN 

 Winona, MN 

 Red Wing, MN 

 Crawford, WI - Prairie du Chien, WI 

 Eau Claire, WI (Altoona Jct.-Eau Claire-MP 85) 

 East St. Paul, MN (Hazel Park Jct. to CP Westminster Street) 

 Oshkosh, WI 

 Neenah, WI 

 Stevens Point, WI 

 Marshfield, WI 

 Chippewa Falls, WI 

 Owatonna, MN 

 Northfield, MN 

Category C:

 North Milwaukee, WI (Grand Ave. Jct.) 

 Fond du Lac, WI - North Fond du Lac, WI 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Roseport, MN - South St. Paul, MN-SPUD 

 Soo Jct., MN - CP Westminster Street, MN - SPUD 

 Newport, MN - Hoffman Avenue, MN - SPUD 

In order to judge the severity of the conflicts, a 1 has been assigned to Category A 

conflicts; 2 to Category B; and 3 to Category C. Therefore, the level of severity of the 

freight conflicts is shown in parentheses next to the “quantity of total freight conflicts” in 

the last column of the table. 

Normative Statement: Routes with fewer freight conflicts and fewer severe conflicts are 

better than routes with more freight conflicts and more severe conflicts. 

The quantity of freight conflicts and the level of freight severity for each route are shown 

in Table 9-1 and Chart 9-1. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 9-1. Quantity of Freight Conflicts 

Route 

Quantity of 

Category A 

Freight Conflicts 

Quantity of 

Category B 

Freight Conflicts 

Quantity of 

Category C 

Freight Conflicts 

Quantity of Total 

Freight Conflicts 

(Level of 

Severity) 

1 –Amtrak Route 3 4 1 8 (14) 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 3 5 1 9 (16) 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 3 2 1 6 (10) 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 3 5 1 9 (16) 

5 – Madison-Rochester 3 6 1 10 (18) 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 3 3 1 7 (12) 

7 – Madison-Prairie 1 4 1 6 (12) 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 1 5 1 7 (14) 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River 1 2 1 4 (8) 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 3 3 1 7 (12) 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 3 4 1 8 (14) 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 2 2 2 6 (12) 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 2 7 3 12 (25) 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 4 5 3 12 (23) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 3 and 9 have the lowest quantity of freight conflicts and 

the lowest level of freight severity. Routes 13 and 14 have the greatest number of freight 

conflicts and the greatest number of severe freight conflicts. 

9.2 Freight Density 

Freight density is the measurement of the amount of trains per day that move over a 

segment of railroad. Freight density increases proportionally with the number of trains 

running on a route, and inversely with the number of tracks within a route. A single track 

route with 40 trains per day would have a greater “freight density” than a double track 

route with the same number of trains. 

Freight density can affect operations on a rail line, especially when trains with various 

speeds and priorities are traveling in the same direction or in both directions on a route. 

For example, there are times where freight trains traveling in the same direction move at 

45 and 60 MPH, and passenger trains move at 79 and 110 MPH on the route. The faster 

Chart 9-1. Quantity of Freight Conflicts and Level of Freight Severity 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

freight trains will need to overtake the slower ones to maintain their schedules. The 

passenger trains can be expected to overtake the slower and faster freight trains. The 

same situation may occur in the opposing direction (on the other track) at the same time. 

In such cases, depending on the train density, even two-Main-Track-CTC with freight 

sidings may be insufficient to move the required volume of trains without delay. 

Therefore, well-coordinated train operations are very important to the success of the 

passenger and freight railroad operations. The most reliable train operations are those 

which are carefully scheduled to operate on schedule in a specific time slot. To 

accomplish this, passenger and freight train schedules must be coordinated between 

railroads and operators. Plans and preparations must be made in all departments and 

with all partners to accomplish the required logistics and support the scheduled 

operations. 

It is imperative to have well-coordinated train operations in order to efficiently run freight 

and passenger trains on the same track. However, it will be much more difficult to 

achieve well-coordinated operations on routes with high freight density than routes with 

lower freight density. The normative statement takes this into account and only 

evaluates freight density, since it is not possible at this level of evaluation to assess how 

well-coordinated operations will be with a given freight carrier. 

Normative Statement: Routes with lower freight density are better than routes with 

higher freight density. 

Freight density data was obtained from Wisconsin through the WisDOT Rail Crossing 

Information System and from Minnesota through the Office of Freight and Commercial 

Vehicle Operations. The data was provided in units of trains per day. This data was 

inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes of generating a table and chart depicting the 

data. 

Graphs depicting the freight density by milepost for each route are included in Appendix 

N. 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 7 and 8 have high freight density because each utilizes 

the BNSF River Route between Prairie du Chien and La Crosse (approximately 42 miles) 

– a stretch of track with over 40 trains per day. Additionally, Routes 3 and 6 utilize the 

BNSF River Route between La Crosse and Hastings (approximately 105 miles). This 

section of BNSF track also runs over 40 trains per day. Route 9 has the greatest overall 

freight density because it utilizes BNSF between Prairie du Chien and Hastings – a 

stretch of approximately 145 miles. Routes 10, 11, and 12A have the lowest freight 

densities and are better than the remaining routes. 

9.3 Handoffs Between Owning Railroads 

Locations where the control or dispatching of a train moves from one railroad to another 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

are called handoffs. Since each handoff presents the opportunity for a delay, a route 

with fewer handoffs would have the advantage. The number of handoffs between Class I 

and Class I, Class I and Regional, and Regional and Regional railroads are discussed 

below. The assessment of the overall number of handoffs between railroads occurs 

during the Qualitative Assessment by the project stakeholders. 

9.3.1 Quantity of Handoffs From Class I Railroad to Class I Railroad 

Because Class I railroads generally have better communications and a greater 

availability of assets, handoffs between one Class I railroad and another Class I railroad 

will provide the most efficient of the handoffs. However, the least amount of handoffs 

provides the most efficient operations. 

Normative Statement: Routes with fewer Class I-Class I handoffs are better than routes 

with a greater number of Class I-Class I handoffs. 

Table 9-2 and Chart 9-2 depict the number of Class I-Class I handoffs. 

Table 9-2. Quantity of Handoffs from Class I Railroad to Class I Railroad 

Route 

Quantity of 

Handoffs from 

Class I Railroad to 

Class I Railroad 

1 –Amtrak Route 1 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 3 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 2 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 1 

5 – Madison-Rochester 3 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 2 

7 – Madison-Prairie 2 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 4 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River 1 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 1 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 1 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 1 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 2 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 3 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Route 8 has the greatest number of Class I to Class I handoffs. 

Routes 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12A each have 1 Class I-Class I handoff. These routes are 

the better than the remaining routes. 

9.3.2 Quantity of Handoffs From Class I Railroad to Regional Railroad or 

Regional Railroad to Regional Railroad 

Handoffs between a Class I railroad and a regional railroad are more likely to incur 

delays than a handoff between two Class I railroads. Handoffs between two regional 

railroads are the least efficient type of handoffs. 

Normative Statement: Routes fewer Class I-Regional or Regional-Regional handoffs are 

better than routes with a greater number of Class I-Regional or Regional-Regional 

handoffs. 

Table 9-3 and Chart 9-3 depict the number of Class I-regional and regional-regional 

Chart 9-2. Quantity of Handoffs from Class I Railroad to Class I Railroad 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

railroad handoffs. 

Table 9-3. Quantity of Handoffs from Class I Railroad to Regional Railroad or Regional 

Railroad to Regional Railroad 

Route 

Quantity of Handoffs from 

Class I to Regional or 

Regional to Regional 

1 – Amtrak Route 2 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 2 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 2 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 4 

5 – Madison-Rochester 4 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 4 

7 – Madison-Prairie 4 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 4 

9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF 

River 4 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 4 

11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC 6 

12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 4 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 6 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 6 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Chart 9-3. Quantity of Handoffs from Class I Railroad to Regional Railroad or Regional 

Railroad to Regional Railroad 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 11, 13, and 14 have the greatest number of Class I to 

regional or regional-regional handoffs. Routes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are better than 

Routes 11, 13, and 14. Routes 1, 2, and 3 have the fewest number of handoffs and are 

better than the remaining routes. 

9.4 Train Control 

A dispatching system is the type of control system a railroad uses to authorize and 

prioritize train movements along a route. The dispatching system in use directly affects 

the efficiency of the route and the utilization of its physical capacity. 

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) is a type of signal system in which the track turnouts 

and signals are controlled by a train dispatcher or CTC operated located at a remote 

control center. The dispatcher or operator may use the CTC system to select routes, 

align switches, and set signals authorizing movements in advance of a train’s arrival. 

This system allows for more efficient operation along a route. CTC is the system that 

has the greatest ability to achieve the full productivity of a rail on which it is installed. 

Routes with a greater percentage of miles of track with CTC are more reliable. 

Normative Statement: Routes with a greater percentage of miles of track with CTC are 

better than routes with a lower percentage of miles of track with CTC. 

This data was inputted into RCAATTM for the purposes of generating a table and chart 

depicting the data. Table 9-4 and Chart 9-4 depict the number of miles and percentage 

of total route miles with CTC. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 9-4. Train Control 

Route Number of Miles of 

Track with CTC 

% of Total Route 

Miles with CTC 

1 – Amtrak Route 334.80 99.8% 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 291.11 75.3% 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 287.73 85.4% 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 234.99 66.5% 

5 – Madison-Rochester 244.12 60.3% 

6 – Madison-BNSF River 218.28 61.5% 

7 – Madison-Prairie 185.63 49.5% 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 142.03 33.3% 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 85.97 22.8% 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 150.9 45.6% 

11 – Madison-Eau ClaireTC 103.91 29.8% 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 6.21 1.8% 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Eau Claire 13.00 3.5% 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond du 

Lac-Chip-TC 14.24 3.8% 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 2, and 3 have the greatest percentage of miles of 

track with CTC. Routes 1, 2, and 3 are better than the remaining routes. Routes 13 and 

14 have the least percentage of miles of track with CTC. These routes are the least 

desirable. 

9.5 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the Quantity of 

Freight Conflicts, Freight Density, Quantity of Handoffs from Class I Railroad to Class I 

Railroad, Quantity of Handoffs from Class I to Regional or Regional to Regional railroad, 

and Train Control based on the qualitative assessment completed for these measures. 

Using the color rating for the measures, an overall reliability rating was assigned to each 

route based on the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures received. 

Table 9-5 depicts the color rating for each route for the measures and the overall 

reliability criteria. 

Chart 9-4. Train Control
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 9-5. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route 

Number of 

Freight 

Conflicts 

Freight 

Density 

Handoffs 

from Class 

1 – Class 1 

Handoffs 

from Class 1 

– Regional 

Train 

Control (% 

with CTC) 

Overall 

Reliability 

Rating 

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – AmtrakRochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRIMadison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – MadisonBNSF River 

7 – MadisonPrairie 

8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 

9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF 

River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – WyevilleEau Claire 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du LacChip-TC 

At the March 11, 2011 workshop, the teams were presented with the reliability data and 

engaged in discussions regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of each 

route. The teams came to the consensus that train control is not a discriminator at this 

phase because CTC will be required for all railroads that are installing PTC. Additionally, 

the cost is low in comparison to the overall cost of the project. Therefore, train control 

was not assessed. The following captures the overall qualitative assessment for each 

route: 

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route - At the workshop, the teams assessed the reliability 

measures for Route 1. The route has good reliability in that there are few 

handoffs, a lower amount of freight conflicts, and almost 100% CTC. However, 

the route’s reliability is significantly impacted by Grand Crossing in La Crosse, 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

WI. At Grand Crossing, the Canadian Pacific (CP) line crosses the BNSF line. 

Reliability is reduced for CP because the La Crosse Amtrak Station and four 

single-track bridges occur in sequence west of Grand Crossing. Passenger 

operations on CP are affected in several ways: 

o Westbound (from Milwaukee) trains may wait for eastbound freight and/or 

passenger trains to cross the four single-track bridges and clear Grand 

Crossing 

o Eastbound trains (from Twin Cities) may wait for eastbound freight and/or 

passenger trains to cross the four single-track bridges and clear Grand 

Crossing 

o Additional delays may be incurred for eastbound trains if freight trains are 

stacked on the west side of the Mississippi River waiting to cross 

o Furthermore, flooding along the Mississippi River can affect train 

operations. 

Route 1 is rated green for reliability because the number of handoffs was low, 

and the workshop participants had confidence that the number of freight conflicts 

and freight density could be mitigated.” In the final Alternatives Selection Report, 

reasons for the rating will be amplified for the remaining routes. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 2. Route 2 has few handoffs and a medium 

amount of freight conflicts. Additionally, Route 2 has the same reliability issues 

as Route 1 at Grand Crossing. Furthermore, snow drifting on the CP (former 

DM&E) between Winona and Rochester reduces the reliability as well. Because 

the CP is not built up high on an embankment with deep ditches, the snow tends 

to settle on the track and can affect train operations. Overall, the route is rated 

yellow for reliability because the number of freight conflicts, the freight density 

and the number of Class I-Class I handoffs are average. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 3. Route 3 has good reliability because there are 

few handoffs and a lower amount of freight conflicts. However, the handoff 

between westbound Canadian Pacific and northbound BNSF in La Crosse 

reduces the reliability because the BNSF has very high freight density. 

Additionally, flooding occurs along the Mississippi River, which can affect train 

operations for the BNSF River route. Overall, this route is rated yellow for 

reliability because even though the number of freight conflicts and Class IRegional handoffs were good, the freight density was poor. Overall, the Route is 

average. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – At the workshop, the teams assessed the reliability 

measures for Route 4. Route 4 has good reliability because there are few freight 

conflicts and a lower number of freight conflicts. However, the reliability is 

reduced because Route 4 has the same reliability issues as Route 1 at Grand 

Crossing. Additionally, snow drifting between Madison and Portage and flooding 

along the Mississippi river can affect train operations as described above. This 

route is rated yellow for reliability because the number of freight conflicts, freight 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

density and number of handoffs between Class I and regional railroads are 

average. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 5. Route 5 has a higher number of freight conflicts 

and a greater number of handoffs. Additionally, Route 5 has the same reliability 

issues as Route 1 at Grand Crossing. Furthermore, snow drifting between 

Madison and Portage and Winona and Rochester can affect train operations as 

described above. The route is rated yellow for reliability because all criteria were 

average. 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 6. Route 6 has good reliability because it has an 

average number of handoffs and a lower amount of freight conflicts. However, 

as discussed under Route 3, the high freight density on BNSF reduces the 

reliability. Additionally, snow drifting between Madison and Rochester and 

Mississippi River flooding can affect train operations as described above. This 

route is rated yellow for reliability because the number of freight conflicts, 

handoffs between Class I and Class I and Class I and regional are average. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – At the workshop, the teams assessed the reliability 

measures for Route 7. Route 7 has average reliability because it has a lower 

number of freight conflicts and an average number of handoffs. However, the 

handoff between northbound BNSF and westbound CP in La Crosse reduces the 

reliability significantly for the same reasons described for Route 1. Additionally, 

BNSF freight traffic is very high between Prairie du Chien and La Crosse, 

causing operational difficulties. Furthermore, snow drifting between Madison and 

Prairie du Chien and Mississippi River flooding can affect train operations as 

described above. This route is rated yellow for reliability because the number of 

freight conflicts, handoffs between Class I and Class I and Class I and regional 

are average. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 8. Route 8 has average reliability because it has a 

lower number of freight conflicts and a higher number of handoffs. Additionally, 

the handoff between northbound BNSF and westbound CP in La Crosse reduces 

the reliability significantly for the same reasons described for Route 1. 

Furthermore, BNSF freight traffic is very high between Prairie du Chien and La 

Crosse, causing operational difficulties. Finally, snow drifting between Madison 

and Prairie du Chien and Mississippi River flooding can affect train operations as 

described above. The route is rated yellow for reliability because the number of 

freight conflicts and handoffs from Class I to regional railroads are average. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

the reliability measures for Route 9. Route 9 has average reliability because it 

has a lower number of freight conflicts and a lower number of handoffs. 

However, as discussed under Route 3, the high freight density on BNSF reduces 

the reliability. Furthermore, snow drifting between Madison and Prairie du Chien 

and Mississippi River flooding can affect train operations as described above. 

Overall, this route is rated yellow for reliability because while the number of 

freight conflicts and handoffs from Class I- Class I are good, the freight density is 
Alternatives Selection Report 

9.0 – Reliability 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 9-17 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

poor. Overall, the route is average. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 10. Route 10 has good reliability because it has a 

lower number of freight conflicts and handoffs. There are no flooding and 

weather-related issues with this route. The route is rated green for reliability 

because the freight density and handoffs from Class I-Class I are good. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 11. Route 11 has an average number of freight 

conflicts and a lower number of handoffs. However, snow drifting between 

Madison and Portage can affect train reliability as described above. This route is 

rated yellow for reliability because even though the freight density and handoffs 

between Class I and Class I railroad are good, the handoffs from Class I-regional 

are poor. Overall, the route is average. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire - At the workshop, the teams assessed the 

reliability measures for Route 12A. Route 12A has low freight density and 

handoffs. Overall, this route is rated green for reliability because the freight 

density and handoffs from Class I-Class I are good. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the reliability measures for Route 13. Route 13 has a high number of 

freight conflicts and handoffs. Additionally, snow drifting from Neenah, WI west 

along the route affects train operations as described above. Furthermore, The 

UPRR handles unit coal trains from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin to St. Paul, 

and then to Hudson using the St. Croix River swing bridge in Hudson. Once the 

train clears the junction switch at Lakeland Junction, the train makes a reverse 

move from the main track at Hudson north up the former CMStP&P branch to the 

electrical generating station at Stillwater, MN. The movements are made at a 

speed of approximately 5 MPH and occupy the UPRR’s single main track in the 

vicinity of the river bridge for a period of about one hour. While these loaded and 

empty coal train movements are occurring, no other trains may move through this 

bottleneck location. This is a severe reliability issue. Overall, this route is rated 

red for reliability because it does not meet the project purpose of providing safe 

and reliable service and the project need for new travel modes to be reliable to 

attract riders from existing travel modes. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed the reliability measures for Route 14. Route 14 has a high number of 

freight conflicts and handoffs. Additionally, snow drifting from Neenah, WI west 

along the route affects train operations as described above. Overall, this route is 

rated yellow for reliability.
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.0 SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 

The Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Passenger Rail Corridor Program is envisioned 

as a significant element within a system of transportation options, connecting major 

population centers and existing or future intermodal facilities within the states of 

Minnesota and Wisconsin as well as with adjoining states17. 

System connectivity is provided through intermodal facilities with natural connections 

between rail travel and auto, bus, or air travel. These locations exist where a rail line 

intersects a city with an existing intercity passenger rail or bus service, intersects a city 

with existing public transit systems and/or intersects a city with a commercial airport. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The system connectivity criterion is tied to the project purpose of improving overall 

system connectivity in the interstate transportation network in conformance with 

statewide and regional transportation plans, and the project need that intermodal 

connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. If a potential passenger 

rail alternative does not meet the project purpose or project need, the route will be 

eliminated from further analysis. 

The following sections describe the existing and planned modal connections at the 

termini in Milwaukee and Minneapolis/St. Paul, and along each route. The modal 

connections discussed in this section include: 

 Commuter Rail; 

 Inter-city passenger rail; 

 Light Rail; 

 Bus; 

 Highway; 

 Airport; and 

 Bike paths/trails 

Information was gathered from the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Rail Plan Final 

Report, published in February 2010, the Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030 draft report, issued in 

October 2010, and Connections 2030, Wisconsin’s statewide long-range multi-modal 

plan adopted in 2009. Other documents used in this report are referenced by footnote. 

 

17 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Normative Statement: Routes with a greater number of intermodal connections are better 

than routes with a fewer number of intermodal connections. 

10.1 Intermodal Connections at the Termini 

This information applies to all routes and summarizes the intermodal connections at the 

termini, Milwaukee, WI and Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. 

10.1.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

Northstar Commuter Rail Line 

The Northstar Commuter Rail Line is a commuter rail service linking Big Lake in the 

northwest Metro Twin Cities area to downtown Minneapolis (44 miles) with weekday 

peak, reverse commute, and limited midday service. Northstar operates in the State 

Trunk Highway 10/I-94 corridor on the BNSF mainline, continuing to St. Cloud, Fargo, 

and Seattle18. 

Planned

Twin Cities Connection 

A rail link has been planned to connect Minneapolis and St. Paul. A connection between 

the Twin Cities will provide for expanded Amtrak service on the Empire Builder, intercity 

rail stations, and future high-speed rail service19. Mn/DOT applied for a TIGER II grant in 

the fall of 2010 to fund the detailed planning level analysis of routes between St. Paul 

Union Depot and MTI, environmental analysis, and preliminary engineering. 

Northstar Commuter Rail Extension 

An initial feasibility study has been commissioned by Anoka County, a member of the 

Northstar Corridor joint powers board, to study an extension of Northstar Commuter Rail 

from Cambridge, MN to Minneapolis, MN on the BNSF route that would potentially also 

host the NLX high-speed rail service to Duluth20. 

Red Rock Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis has been completed for the Red Rock Corridor, a commuter rail 

line that will connect Hastings, MN, in the southeast Metro region of the Twin Cities, to 

St. Paul and Minneapolis downtowns. This project is currently in the station planning 

phase21. 

Gateway Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis was initiated in late 2010 to consider commuter service from 

Eau Claire and Hudson, WI, to the Twin Cities. One of the four modal alternatives being 

studied utilizes the Union Pacific mainline from St. Paul through Eau Claire, WI. This 

 

18 http://northstartrain.org

19 Minnesota State Rail Plan, February 2010

20 Minnesota State Rail Plan, February 2010

21 www.redrockrail.org
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

corridor is an inter-city passenger rail corridor recommended in the Minnesota State Rail 

Plan and a potential route for high-speed service between Milwaukee and the Twin 

Cities. 

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee 

A commuter link has been planned to connect Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee to one 

another and to northeast Illinois and Chicago. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) was prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 

(SEWRPC) to assess a full range of commuter rail and bus alternatives, the affected 

environment, and the environmental impacts of each alternative in the corridor. The 

Southeastern Regional Transit Authority submitted an application to the FTA to allow the 

project to enter into Preliminary Engineering under the FTA’s “New Starts” funding 

program in June 201022. 

10.1.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 1 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Columbus, WI, Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, La Crosse, WI, Winona, 

MN, and Red Wing, MN. Currently, Amtrak provides one eastbound and one westbound 

train daily. 

Amtrak Hiawatha Service 

Amtrak provides frequent corridor rail service through the Amtrak Hiawatha Service

which provides service between Chicago and Milwaukee. Amtrak provides seven round 

trips per day Monday-Saturday and six round trips on Sunday. The trains make the trip 

between Chicago Union Station and Milwaukee Intermodal Station in 89 minutes. The 

train makes intermediate stops at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport, 

Sturtevant (Racine), and Glenview. 

Planned

Twin Cities Central Business Districts Connection 

Planning calls for all high speed, intercity, and commuter services to have access to and 

serve both the St. Paul Central Business District, through St. Paul Union Depot (SPUD), 

and Minneapolis Central Business District, through the Minneapolis Transportation 

Interchange (MTI). This will be accomplished through the upgrade of approximately 14 

miles of freight mainline on one of two available routes connecting the two hubs to Class 

4 track with appropriate capacity, interlockings, and signaling to allow up to 79 MPH top 

speeds and 20 minute or less platform to platform travel times23. Mn/DOT applied for a 

TIGER II grant in the fall of 2010 to fund the detailed planning level analysis of routes 

between St. Paul Union Depot and MTI. 

 

22 http://maps.sewrpc.org/KRMonline/

23 Minnesota State Rail Plan, February 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Northern Lights Express 

The Northern Lights Express is a planned high-speed passenger rail corridor with top 

speeds of 110 mph between the Twin Cities and Duluth, MN. This project has been 

funded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to complete the planning 

phase24. 

Rochester High-Speed Rail Connection 

Preliminary feasibility studies and the Minnesota State Rail Plan recommend this corridor 

linking the state’s third largest city and major, high growth regional trade center with the 

Twin Cities, at an approximate distance of 90 miles. The conceptual development work 

calls for a partial Greenfield route designed for initial speeds of 110 MPH with the 

capacity and eventual upgrade for 150-200 MPH top speeds. This line also in concept 

would provide a link with the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) to 

Rochester and the rest of the high-speed and regional rail network, including Milwaukee 

to the Twin Cities corridor. The intentional high-speed design characteristics of the 

Greenfield route would in concept also lay the possible foundation for a phase two high 

speed link to the Chicago area. 

River Cities Corridor 

Independent of the high speed link between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities, the 

Minnesota State Rail Plan discussed and evaluated corridor service on the west bank of 

the Mississippi River linking the population centers on this route from La Crosse, WI/La 

Crescent, MN, to Minneapolis St. Paul with frequent service and speeds up to 90 MPH. 

This conceptually would include the cities of Winona, Wabasha, Red Wing, and 

Hastings, and be fully coordinated with Red Rock Commuter Rail, Amtrak Empire Builder 

service, and appropriately feed to any high speed service between the major termini. 

Eau Claire Corridor 

Intercity rail service at speeds of 90-110 MPH with four to eight trips daily to and from 

Eau Claire and the Twin Cities is recommended as part of the regional network in the 

Minnesota State Rail Plan, connecting this northwestern Wisconsin regional trade center 

to the rest of the regional rail network, the high speed core route, and multi-modal 

connections. This recognizes the regional connectedness of this population center to the 

Twin Cities for economic and transportation effectiveness, and the strong travel demand 

in the I-94 corridor. 

St. Cloud Corridor 

St. Cloud Intercity Service is planned to offer frequent all-day service with 90 MPH top 

speeds in the State Trunk Highway 10/I-94 corridor between St. Cloud and the Twin 

Cities, fully coordinated with Northstar Commuter Rail service on the inner portion of the 

route, and Fargo/Moorhead intercity service operating beyond St. Cloud on this route at 

lower frequencies. 

Fargo/Moorhead Corridor 

 

24 Minnesota State Rail Plan, February 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Fargo, ND/Moorhead, MN, Intercity Service is planned to offer four daily trips to and from 

this bi-state regional trade center in the I-94 corridor through St. Cloud to the Twin Cities 

with top speeds up to 90 MPH. This service, envisioned in the Minnesota State Rail Plan, 

would be fully integrated with St. Cloud Intercity and Northstar Commuter rail services. 

Mankato Corridor 

Intercity service is proposed in the Minnesota State Rail Plan to link this southwestern 

regional trade center with the Twin Cities with 90 MPH top speeds and up to eight trips 

daily along the corridor. 

Little Crow Route 

An inter-city rail link has been planned to connect the Twin Cities, MN, Willmar, MN, and 

Sioux Falls, SD to one another via the Little Crow route. This project is in the early 

planning phase25. 

Dan Patch Rail Corridor 

An inter-city rail link has been planned to connect the Twin Cities, MN, Northfield, MN, 

Albert Lea, MN and Kansas City, MO to one another via the Dan Patch rail corridor 

alignment. This project is in the early planning phase26. 

10.1.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

Hiawatha Line Light Rail

In 2004, Minnesota opened its first LRT line traveling along the Hiawatha Avenue 

Corridor. The 12-mile LRT line connects the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange in 

downtown Minneapolis with the Minnesota Veterans Administration, the Minneapolis/St. 

Paul International Airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington with a travel time of 40 

minutes. The line, which currently operates 27 light-rail vehicles, has exceeded year 

2020 ridership projections. 

Planned

Central Corridor LRT 

Central Corridor is a planned LRT facility connecting downtown St. Paul, the University of 

Minnesota and downtown Minneapolis. The western terminus of this line is planned for 

the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange to facilitate connectivity with Northstar 

Commuter Rail, Hiawatha LRT and other planned LRT corridors and future passenger 

and high-speed rail. The eastern terminus of the corridor lies at the front door of Union 

Depot, a planned multi-modal facility for the eastern portion of the metro area. 

Construction on the Central Corridor project is scheduled to begin during 2010. 

Southwest Corridor LRT 

The Southwest Corridor LRT route is currently under environmental review. This corridor 

extends from the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange to the southwest suburbs. An 

 

25 Minnesota State Rail Plan, February 2010

26 Minnesota State Rail Plan, February 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Environmental Impact Statement has been produced for the project and will be released 

for public comment in 2010. 

Bottineau Transitway 

An Alternatives Analysis is underway to study LRT alternatives for the Bottineau 

Transitway (extending northwest from the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange). A 

Universe of Alternatives has been identified and analyses have begun to further develop 

alternatives27. Additionally, an Alternatives Analysis is underway to study LRT 

alternatives for the Rush Line Corridor (extending north from the St. Paul Union Depot)28. 

Milwaukee Streetcar 

The Milwaukee Streetcar route is fully funded for final design and construction and will 

complete Preliminary Engineering in early 2011. Final design is expected to be complete 

in late 2011 with construction complete in the summer of 2013. The streetcar will have a 

stop at the Milwaukee Intermodal Station and will connect with other areas of downtown 

Milwaukee29. 

10.1.4 Bus Rapid Transit 

Existing

There are no existing bus rapid transit lines within the terminal areas. 

Planned

Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit 

The Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit runs from the southern suburbs of Lakeville, Apple 

Valley and Eagan to the Mall of America and downtown Minneapolis. The project is in 

final design and construction is anticipated to begin as early as 201130. 

10.1.5 Urban Bus Transit 

Existing

Metro Transit 

Metro Transit, serving the Twin Cities, is one of the country's largest transit systems, 

providing roughly 95 percent of the 73 million bus trips taken annually in the Twin Cities. 

The remaining 5 percent of the trips are supplied by suburban opt-out providers. Each 

weekday customers board Metro Transit buses and trains an average of 240,000 times. 

Metro Transit operates the Hiawatha light-rail line, 118 bus routes — 63 are local-service 

routes and 46 are express routes and 9 contract service routes, using a fleet of 821 

buses. The majority of the company's fleet (681) is made up of standard 40-foot buses 

while 140 are articulated ("accordion") buses. All Metro Transit buses are equipped with 

 

27 www.bottineautransitway.org

28 www.rushline.org

29 http://www.milwaukeeconnector.com/home.html

30 http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/EnvironmentRoads/Transit/Cedar/default.htm
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

wheelchair lifts or ramps and racks for bicycles. All trains feature step-free boarding, 

bicycle racks and luggage storage areas31. 

Maple Grove Transit 

The Maple Grove Transit (MGT) offers commuter service between the City of Maple 

Grove, a suburb of Minneapolis, and downtown Minneapolis. MGT operates 42 round 

trips on 6 routes32. 

Plymouth Metrolink 

Plymouth Metrolink offers commuter service between the City of Plymouth, a suburb of 

Minneapolis, and downtown Minneapolis. Metrolink operates 14 routes within the 

Plymouth area. Key destinations within the system include various office parks, 

University of Minnesota, the Reserve Transit Station, and downtown Minneapolis33. 

Southwest Transit 

Southwest Transit provides commuter service between the cities of Chaska, 

Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie, all of which are southwestern suburbs of Minneapolis, 

and downtown Minneapolis. SWT operates 8 routes to downtown Minneapolis with key 

destinations that include various shopping malls, residential areas, and the SouthWest 

Station34. 

Anoka County Traveler 

The Anoka County Traveler operates commuter service throughout portions of Anoka, 

Blaine, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, and Fridley. Anoka County Traveler operates 4 

routes between Anoka County communities and downtown Minneapolis. Key 

destinations within the system include various shopping centers, the Anoka County 

Government Center, various schools, the Northstar Coon Rapids Station, and downtown 

Minneapolis35. 

Milwaukee County Transit System 

The Milwaukee County Transit System operates 50 routes serving downtown Milwaukee 

and Milwaukee County. Key destinations within the system include downtown 

Milwaukee, Marquette University, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, various museums, 

and other tourist attractions36. The system also operates commuter services to Ozaukee 

County. 

Planned

There are no planned urban bus transit lines within the terminal areas. 

10.1.6 Inter-city/Regional Bus 

 

31 http://www.metrotransit.org/

32 http://www.ci.maple-grove.mn.us/content/3485/default.aspx

33 http://plymouthmn.gov/index.aspx?page=235

34 http://www.swtransit.org/

35 http://ww2.anokacounty.us/v3_transit/traveler.aspx

36 http://www.ridemcts.com/
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Existing

Minneapolis/St. Paul 

Inter-city buses provide service from the Hawthorne Transportation center in downtown 

Minneapolis, the Greyhound station in St. Paul, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

International Airport. Inter-city bus services that now use the Greyhound station in St. 

Paul are planned to move to the St. Paul Union Depot in 2012, which will be a stop on 

the high-speed rail corridor. 

The following lists inter-city bus services to/from Minneapolis/St. Paul. Only major 

cities/stops are listed, as most routes have many more stops. 

 Jefferson Lines: 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul-Duluth 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul-St. Cloud-Fargo 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul-Rochester-Winona-La Crosse-Madison-Milwaukee 

o Minneapolis/St, Paul-Eau Claire-Wausau-Green Bay-Milwaukee 

o Minneapolis/St, Paul-Mason City-Des Moines-Kansas City 

o Minneapolis/St, Paul-Mankato-Sioux Falls 

 Greyhound: 

o Minneapolis-Eau Claire-Tomah-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago 

o Minneapolis-St. Paul-Duluth 

 Megabus: 

o Minneapolis-St. Paul-Milwaukee-Chicago 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul-Madison 

Milwaukee 

Inter-city and regional buses provide service to/from the Milwaukee Intermodal Station 

(also served by Amtrak) and the Badger Bus Depot in downtown Milwaukee. The 

following lists inter-city bus services to/from the Milwaukee area. Only major cities/stops 

are listed, most routes have many more stops. 

 Badger Coach: 

o Milwaukee to Madison 

o Milwaukee, Madison, La Crosse, Minneapolis 

 Greyhound: 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o Minneapolis, St. Paul, Eau Claire, Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago 

o Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago 

o Green Bay, Appleton, Oshkosh, Milwaukee, Chicago 

o Milwaukee, Kenosha, Chicago 

 Indian Trails: 

o Milwaukee, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Green Bay, Escanaba (MI), 

Marquette (MI), Houghton (MI)* 

 Jefferson Lines: 

o Milwaukee, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Green Bay, Shawano, Wausau, Eau 

Claire, Menominee, Hudson, St. Paul (MN), Minneapolis (MN)* 

o Milwaukee, Madison, Sparta, La Crosse, Winona (MN), Rochester (MN), 

St. Paul (MN), Minneapolis, MN 

 Lamers Bus Lines: 

o Milwaukee, Fond du Lac, Oshkosh, Appleton, Stevens Point, Wausau* 

 Megabus: 

o Minneapolis (MN), Milwaukee, Chicago (IL) 

 Wisconsin Coach Lines: 

o Airport Express - Waukesha, Milwaukee (downtown & Mitchell Airport), 

Racine, Kenosha, Chicago, IL (O'Hare airport) 

o Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha 

o Whitewater, Milwaukee (limited weekend service only) 

*Amtrak Thruway service 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city/regional bus lines within the terminal areas. 

10.1.7 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203037. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways within the terminal areas: 

 

37 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Milwaukee (I-94, I-794, I-43, US 41, US 45) 

 St. Paul (I-94, I-35E, US 52, US 10) 

 Minneapolis (I-94, I-394, I-35W, US 12) 

Planned 

There are no planned highways within the terminal areas. 

10.1.8 Airports 

Existing

General Mitchell International Airport 

The General Mitchell International Airport (MKE) is located 5 miles south of downtown 

Milwaukee. Public transportation options to and from MKE include Badger Coaches bus 

service, Coach USA bus service, and the Milwaukee County Transit System bus 

service38. Additionally, Amtrak’s Hiawatha Line connects the airport to Sturtevant, 

Glenview, IL, Chicago Union Station, and the Milwaukee Intermodal Station via Canadian 

Pacific Railroad track with 7 daily round trips (6 on Sunday) in each direction. 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is located approximately 12 miles 

southwest of downtown St. Paul. Light rail transit via the Hiawatha line provides service 

from MSP to downtown Minneapolis and MTI. Additionally, Metro Transit provides bus 

service to and from MSP39. No existing freight track or track right-of-way connects the 

airport to downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. 

Planned 

There are no planned airports within the terminal areas. 

10.1.9 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails within the terminal areas: 

 Milwaukee – Hank Aaron State Trail and Oak Leaf Trail 

 St. Paul - Gateway State Trail and Bruce Vento Trail 

 Minneapolis – Minnesota Valley State Trail, Cedar Lake Trail, and Bassett’s 

Creek Trail40

Planned 

 

38 http://www.mitchellairport.com/ground_transport.html

39 http://www.mspairport.com/GroundTransportation.aspx

40 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

There are no planned bike paths or trails within the terminal areas. 

10.1.10 Summary of System Connectivity for the Terminal Areas 

Table 10-1 summarizes the number of intermodal connections within the terminal areas. 

The number of intermodal connections is quantified differently for each mode type: 

 Commuter Rail – the number of different commuter rail lines within the terminal 

areas 

 Inter-City Passenger Rail – the number of different inter-city passenger rail lines 

within the terminal areas 

 Light Rail – the number of different light rail lines within the terminal areas 

 Urban/Local Bus – the number of different urban bus lines within the terminal 

areas 

 Inter-City/Regional Bus – the number of different inter-city/regional bus routes 

within the terminal areas 

 Highways – the total number of major highway connections within the terminal 

areas 

 Airports – the number of different airports within the terminal areas 

 Bike Paths/Trails – the number of different communities within the terminal areas 

Table 10-1. System Connectivity - Terminal Areas 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail 1 5 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 2 10 

Light Rail 1 4 

Urban/Local Bus 6 N/A 

Inter-city/Regional Bus 24 N/A 

Highways 13 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 3 N/A 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2 Intermodal Connections along Routes between the Termini 

The information in this section is presented by route. 

10.2.1 Route 1 – Existing Amtrak 

10.2.1.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

The Red Rock Corridor is a commuter rail line planned to connect the Minneapolis 

Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and Hastings, MN. Hastings is a community 

along Route 1. See section 10.1.1 for a description of the Red Rock Corridor. 

10.2.1.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 1 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Columbus, WI, Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, La Crosse, WI, Winona, 

MN, and Red Wing, MN See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire 

Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines outside of the terminal areas. 

10.2.1.3 Light Rail Transit 

There are no existing or planned light rail transit lines outside of the terminal areas. 

10.2.1.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit operates 17 routes throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield and provides connections to Milwaukee via transfers with the 

Milwaukee County Transit System. Key destinations within the system include 

downtown Waukesha and Brookfield, residential areas, schools, and downtown 

Milwaukee41. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility operates 8 fixed-routes and 2 flex-routes to La 

 

41 www.waukeshametro.org
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Crosse, French Island, and La Crescent, MN. Key destinations within the system include 

the La Crosse Amtrak Station, the La Crosse transit center, the La Crosse Municipal 

Airport, and several shopping centers and Universities42. 

Winona Transit Service 

The Winona Transit Service operates four routes to Winona and Goodview, MN. Key 

destinations within the system include several Universities, shopping centers, a hospital, 

and the Winona Amtrak Station43. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) operates 25 bus routes in the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. Minnesota Valley includes the cities of Apple Valley, 

Burnsville, Eagan, Rosemount, and Savage. The MVTA connects these communities to 

each other, to the Mall of America, to downtown St. Paul, and to the Hiawatha Light Rail 

Line which connects to downtown Minneapolis44. 

Additional Local Transit Services 

The cities of Watertown, Portage, and Tomah along Route 1 have shared-ride taxi 

service. Hiawathaland Transit provides local bus service in the Red Wing area45. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus routes within the communities along Route 1. 

10.2.1.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 1 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 1 are listed 

below. 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire 

-Minneapolis/St, Paul 

 Tomah: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire -

Minneapolis/St, Paul (Greyhound). 

 Sparta; Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Winona: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

 

42 http://www.cityoflacrosse.org/index.aspx?NID=19

43 http://www.dwebsite.com/dwcenterprise/se3bin/clientgenie.cgi?websitename=school1000178&statusFlag=go 

Genie &geniesite=16&myButton=g5plugin&db=g16_b157

44 http://www.mvta.com/

45 http://www.threeriverscap.org/programs_transp.html
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

(Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 1 include: 

 Portage (Madison-Wausau line) 

 Columbus (Madison-Green Bay line) 

 Wisconsin Dells (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Tomah (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Sparta (Madison-La Crosse line)46 

Amtrak Thruway Bus Service

Amtrak provides thruway bus service to connect Amtrak rail stations with other 

communities that are not directly served by passenger trains47. Columbus is planned to 

be an Amtrak Thruway stop on one of the planned inter-city bus routes in Wisconsin. 

10.2.1.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203048. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 1 outside of the terminal 

areas: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Columbus (US 151, WI 60, WI 89) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Tomah (I-90, I-94, WI 131, US 12) 

 

46 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

47 www.amtrak.com

48 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Sparta (I-90, WI 27/71) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Winona (US 61, US 14) 

 Newport (US 61, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 1. 

10.2.1.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

The La Crosse Municipal Airport (LSE) is located approximately 6 miles north of 

downtown La Crosse. The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility provides public 

transportation options to and from LSE49. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 1. 

10.2.1.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 1: 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail 

 Sparta – La Crosse River Trail, Great River Road North Tour, and Elroy-Sparta 

State Trail 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail50

 Winona – Mississippi River Trail 

 Red Wing – Mississippi River Trail, Goodhue Pioneer Trail, and Cannon Valley 

Trail 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail51

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 1. 

 

49 http://www.cityoflacrosse.org/index.aspx?NID=7

50 www.wisconsinbiking.com

51 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.1.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 1 

Table 10-2 and Figure 10-1 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 1. The number of intermodal connections for each route is 

quantified differently for each mode type: 

 Commuter Rail – the number of different commuter rail lines within communities 

along a route 

 Inter-City Passenger Rail – the number of communities along a route that have 

inter-city passenger rail lines 

 Light Rail – the number of different light rail lines within communities along a 

route 

 Urban/Local Bus – the number of different communities with urban/local bus 

transit lines 

 Inter-City/Regional Bus – the number of different communities with inter-city bus 

lines along a route 

 Highways – the total number of major highway connections within communities 

along a route 

 Airports – the number of different airports within communities along a route 

 Bike Paths/Trails – the number of different communities with bike paths/trails 

along a route 

Table 10-2. System Connectivity – Route 1 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 8 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 4 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 5 2 

Highways 25 N/A 

Airports 1 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 6 N/A 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-17 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Figure 9-1. System Connectivity – Route 1 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-18 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.2 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester 

10.2.2.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

There are no planned commuter rail lines outside of the terminal areas. 

10.2.2.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 2 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Columbus, WI, Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, and La Crosse, WI52. See 

section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

Dan Patch Rail Corridor 

An inter-city rail link has been planned to connect the Twin Cities, MN, Northfield, MN, 

Albert Lea, MN and Kansas City, MO to one another via the Dan Patch rail corridor 

alignment. See section 10.1.2 for a description of the project. 

10.2.2.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines outside of the terminal areas. 

10.2.2.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.5 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

 

52 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-19 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU 

Winona Transit Service 

The Winona Transit Service (WTS) provides local bus service to Winona and Goodview, 

MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of WTS. 

Rochester City Lines 

Rochester City Lines operates 37 total routes within the Rochester area. Key 

destinations within the system include various shopping centers, several hospitals and 

medical centers, a University, and the Mayo Clinic53. Richfield Bus Company also 

operates several commuter bus routes from surrounding communities to Rochester. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 2 

The cities of Watertown, Portage, and Tomah along Route 2 have shared-ride taxi transit 

service. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus routes within the communities along Route 2. 

10.2.2.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 2 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 2 are listed 

below. 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire 

-Minneapolis/St, Paul 

 Tomah: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire -

Minneapolis/St, Paul (Greyhound). 

 Sparta; Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Winona: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 

53 www.rochesterbus.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-20 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Rochester: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester -Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Owatonna: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Northfield – Owatonna - Mason City - Des 

Moines - Kansas City (Jefferson Lines) 

 Northfield: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Northfield – Owatonna - Mason City - Des 

Moines - Kansas City (Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 2 include: 

 Portage (Madison-Wausau line) 

 Columbus (Madison-Green Bay line) 

 Wisconsin Dells (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Tomah (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Sparta (Madison-La Crosse line)54 

Amtrak Thruway Bus Service 

Amtrak provides thruway bus service to connect Amtrak rail stations with other 

communities that are not directly served by passenger trains55. Columbus is planned to 

be an Amtrak Thruway stop on one of the planned inter-city bus routes in Wisconsin. 

10.2.2.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203056. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 2: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Columbus (US 151, WI 60, WI 89) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 

54 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

55 www.amtrak.com

56 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-21 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Tomah (I-90 I-94, WI 131, US 12) 

 Sparta (I-90, WI 27/71) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Winona (US 61, US 14) 

 Rochester (I-90, US 52, US 14, US 63) 

 Owatonna (I-35, US 14, US 218) 

 Inver Grove Heights (US 52, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 2. 

10.2.2.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Rochester International Airport 

The Rochester International Airport (RST) is located approximately 8 miles south of 

downtown Rochester. Transportation options to and from RST include taxi service and 

rental car service57. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 2.

10.2.2.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 2: 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail 

 Sparta – La Crosse River Trail, Great River Road North Tour, and Elroy-Sparta 

State Trail 

 

57 http://www.rochesterintlairport.com/
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-22 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail58

 Winona – Mississippi River Trail 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail59

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 2. 

10.2.2.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 2 

Table 10-3 and Figure 10-2 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 2. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-3. System Connectivity – Route 2 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A N/A 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 5 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 5 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 8 2 

Highways 32 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 5 N/A 

 

58 www.wisconsinbiking.com

59 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-23 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Figure 10-2. System Connectivity – Route 2 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-24 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.3 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 

10.2.3.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 3 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

The Red Rock Corridor is a commuter rail line planned to connect the Minneapolis 

Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and Hastings, MN. Hastings is a community 

along Route 3. See section 10.1.1 for a description of the Red Rock Corridor. 

10.2.3.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 3 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Columbus, WI, Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, and La Crosse, WI60. See 

section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 3. 

10.2.3.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines outside of the terminal areas. 

10.2.3.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

 

60 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-25 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 3 

The cities of Watertown, Portage, and Tomah along Route 3 have shared-ride taxi 

service. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus routes within the communities along Route 3. 

10.2.3.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 3 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 3 are listed 

below. 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire 

-Minneapolis/St, Paul 

 Tomah: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire -

Minneapolis/St, Paul (Greyhound). 

 Sparta; Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 3 include: 

 Portage (Madison-Wausau line) 

 Columbus (Madison-Green Bay line) 

 Wisconsin Dells (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Tomah (Madison-La Crosse line) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-26 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Sparta (Madison-La Crosse line)61

Amtrak Thruway Bus Service 

Amtrak provides thruway bus service to connect Amtrak rail stations with other 

communities that are not directly served by passenger trains. Columbus is planned to be 

an Amtrak Thruway stop on one of the planned inter-city bus routes in Wisconsin. 

10.2.3.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203062. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 3: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Columbus (US 151, WI 60, WI 89) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Tomah (I-90, I-94, WI 131, US 12) 

 Sparta (I-90, WI 27/71) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Prescott (US 10, WI 35, WI 29) 

 Newport (US 61, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 3. 

10.2.3.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

 

61 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, Division 

of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

62 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-27 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 3. 

10.2.3.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 3: 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail 

 Sparta – La Crosse River Trail, Great River Road North Tour, and Elroy-Sparta 

State Trail 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail63

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail64

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 3. 

10.2.3.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 3 

Table 10-4 and Figure 10-3 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 3. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-4. System Connectivity – Route 3 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 5 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 3 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 4 2 

Highways 26 N/A 

Airports 1 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 4 N/A 

 

63 www.wisconsinbiking.com

64 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-28 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

 

Figure 10-3. System Connectivity – Route 3 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-29 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.4 Route 4 – MWRRI-Madison 

10.2.4.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 4 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis has been completed for the Red Rock Corridor, a commuter rail 

line that will connect the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and 

Hastings, MN. Hastings is a community along Route 4. See section 10.1.1 for a 

complete description of the project. 

Dane County 

Transport 2020 completed an alternatives analysis and selected a locally preferred 

alternative for commuter rail service between Middleton, WI and Sun Prairie, WI through 

downtown Madison. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared and an 

application in the FTA New Starts program to begin preliminary engineering is planned65. 

10.2.4.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 4 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, and La Crosse, WI66. See section 10.1.2 

for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 4. 

10.2.4.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 4. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 4. 

10.2.4.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing 

 

65 www.transport2020.net

66 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-30 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit, which operates within the Madison area, is the 20th ranked 

transit service based on ridership per capita, as measured by the National Transit 

Database Report. Metro operates 65 routes within the Madison area. Key destinations 

within the system include the University of Wisconsin, the Capital Square, the Dane 

County Regional Airport, and many hospitals, parks, and shopping centers67. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Winona Transit Service 

The Winona Transit Service provides local bus service to Winona and Goodview, MN. 

See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of the Winona Transit Service. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 4 

The cities of Watertown, Portage, and Tomah along Route 4 have shared-ride taxi 

service. Hiawathaland Transit provides local bus service in the Red Wing area68. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus routes within the communities along Route 4. 

10.2.4.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 4 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 4 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

 

67 http://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/

68 http://www.threeriverscap.org/programs_transp.html
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-31 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 

(Jefferson Lines) 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire 

-Minneapolis/St, Paul 

 Tomah: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire -

Minneapolis/St, Paul (Greyhound). 

 Sparta; Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Winona: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 4 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines) 

 Portage (Madison-Wausau line) 

 Wisconsin Dells (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Tomah (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Sparta (Madison-La Crosse line)69

10.2.4.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

 

69 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-32 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203070. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 4: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Madison (I-90/94/39, US 12, US 18, US 151, US 14) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Tomah (I-90/94, WI 131, US 12) 

 Sparta (I-90, WI 27/71) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Winona (US 61, US 14) 

 Newport (US 61, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 4. 

10.2.4.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

The Dane County Regional Airport (MSN) is located 5 miles northeast of Madison. 

Public transportation options to and from MSN include the Madison Metro Transit System 

(bus service)71. Canadian Pacific-owned track runs from adjacent to the airport to 

downtown Madison, but there are no stations or at either location. 

10.2.4.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 4: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

 

70 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010

71 http://www.msnairport.com/guide/transportation.aspx
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-33 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail 

 Sparta – La Crosse River Trail, Great River Road North Tour, and Elroy-Sparta 

State Trail 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail72

 Winona – Mississippi River Trail 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail73

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 4. 

10.2.4.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 4 

Table 10-5 and Figure 10-4 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 4. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-5. System Connectivity – Route 4 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 2 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 4 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 5 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 6 1 

Highways 26 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 6 N/A 

 

72 www.wisconsinbiking.com

73 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-34 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

 

Figure 10-4. System Connectivity – Route 4 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-35 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.5 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester 

10.2.5.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing 

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 5 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Dane County 

Transport 2020 completed an alternatives analysis and selected a locally preferred 

alternative for commuter rail service between Middleton, WI and Sun Prairie, WI through 

downtown Madison. See section 10.2.4.1 for a description of the Dane County 

Commuter project. 

10.2.5.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 5 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, La Crosse, WI, and Winona, MN74. See 

section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Proposed

Dan Patch Rail Corridor 

An inter-city rail link has been planned to connect the Twin Cities, MN, Northfield, MN, 

Albert Lea, MN and Kansas City, MO to one another via the Dan Patch rail corridor 

alignment. See section 10.1.2 for a description of the project. 

10.2.5.3 Light Rail Transit 

There are no existing or planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 5. 

10.2.5.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit provides local bus service within the Madison area. See 

section 10.2.4.4 for a complete description of Madison Metro Transit. 

 

74 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-36 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Winona Transit Service 

The Winona Transit Service provides local bus service to Winona and Goodview, MN. 

See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of the Winona Transit Service. 

Rochester City Lines 

Rochester City Lines provides local bus service within the Rochester area. See section 

10.2.2.4 for a complete description of Rochester City Lines. Richfield Bus Company also 

operates several commuter bus routes from surrounding communities to Rochester. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 5 

The cities of Watertown, Portage, and Tomah along Route 5 have shared-ride taxi 

service. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus lines within communities along Route 5. 

10.2.5.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 5 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 5 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 

(Jefferson Lines) 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-37 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire 

-Minneapolis/St, Paul 

 Tomah: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire -

Minneapolis/St, Paul (Greyhound). 

 Sparta; Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Winona: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Rochester: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester -Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Owatonna: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Northfield – Owatonna - Mason City - Des 

Moines - Kansas City (Jefferson Lines) 

 Northfield: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Northfield – Owatonna - Mason City - Des 

Moines - Kansas City (Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 5 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines) 

 Portage (Madison-Wausau line) 

 Wisconsin Dells (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Tomah (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Sparta (Madison-La Crosse line)75

10.2.5.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

 

75 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, Division 

of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-38 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203076. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 5: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Madison (I-90/94/39, US 12, US 18, US 151, US 14) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Tomah (I-90, I-94, WI 131, US 12) 

 Sparta (I-90, WI 27/71) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Winona (US 61, US 14) 

 Rochester (I-90, US 52, US 14, US 63) 

 Owatonna (I-35, US 14, US 218) 

 Inver Grove Heights (US 52, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 5. 

10.2.5.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Rochester International Airport 

See section 10.2.2.7 for a description of the Rochester International Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.4.7 for a description of the Dane County Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 5. 

 

76 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-39 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.5.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 5: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail 

 Sparta – La Crosse River Trail, Great River Road North Tour, and Elroy-Sparta 

State Trail 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail77

 Winona – Mississippi River Trail 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail78

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 5. 

10.2.5.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 5 

Table 10-6 and Figure 10-5 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 5. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9.

Table 10-6. System Connectivity – Route 5 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 5 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 6 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 9 1 

Highways 34 N/A 

Airports 3 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 6 N/A 

 

77 www.wisconsinbiking.com

78 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-40 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

 

Figure 10-5. System Connectivity – Route 5 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-41 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.6 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River 

10.2.6.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 6 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis has been completed for the Red Rock Corridor, a commuter rail 

line that will connect the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and 

Hastings, MN79. Hastings is a community along Route 6. See section 10.1.1 for a 

complete description of the project. 

Dane County 

Transport 2020 completed an alternatives analysis and selected a locally preferred 

alternative for commuter rail service between Middleton, WI and Sun Prairie, WI through 

downtown Madison. See section 10.2.4.1 for a description of the Dane County 

Commuter project. 

10.2.6.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 6 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Portage, WI, Wisconsin Dells, WI, Tomah, WI, and La Crosse, WI80. See section 10.1.2 

for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 6. 

10.2.6.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 6. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 6. 

 

79 www.redrockrail.org

80 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-42 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.6.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit provides local bus service within the Madison area. See 

section 10.2.4.4 for a complete description of Madison Metro Transit. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 6 

The cities of Watertown, Portage, and Tomah along Route 6 have shared-ride taxi 

service. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus lines within communities along Route 6. 

10.2.6.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 6 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 6 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-43 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

(Jefferson Lines) 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire 

-Minneapolis/St, Paul 

 Tomah: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison - Wisconsin Dells - Eau Claire -

Minneapolis/St, Paul (Greyhound). 

 Sparta; Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 6 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines) 

 Portage (Madison-Wausau line) 

 Wisconsin Dells (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Tomah (Madison-La Crosse line) 

 Sparta (Madison-La Crosse line)81

10.2.6.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203082. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 6: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 

81 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

82 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-44 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Tomah (I-90, I-94, WI 131, US 12) 

 Sparta (I-90, WI 27/71) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Prescott (US 10, WI 35, WI 29) 

 Newport (US 61, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 6. 

10.2.6.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.4.7 for a description of the Dane County Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 6. 

10.2.6.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 6: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail 

 Sparta – La Crosse River Trail, Great River Road North Tour, and Elroy-Sparta 

State Trail 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail83 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail84

Planned

 

83 www.wisconsinbiking.com

84 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-45 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 6. 

10.2.6.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 6 

Table 10-7 and Figure 10-6 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 6. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9.

Table 10-7. System Connectivity – Route 6 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 2 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 4 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 4 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 5 1 

Highways 23 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 5 N/A 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-46 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Figure 10-6. System Connectivity – Route 6 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-47 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.7 Route 7– MWRRI-Madison-Prairie 

10.2.7.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 7 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis has been completed for the Red Rock Corridor, a commuter rail 

line that will connect the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and 

Hastings, MN. Hastings is a community along Route 7. See section 10.1.1 for a 

complete description of the project. 

Dane County 

Transport 2020 completed an alternatives analysis and selected a locally preferred 

alternative for commuter rail service between Middleton, WI and Sun Prairie, WI through 

downtown Madison. See section 10.2.4.1 for a description of the Dane County 

Commuter project. 

10.2.7.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 7 include Milwaukee, WI, 

La Crosse, WI, Winona, MN, and Red Wing, MN85. See section 10.1.2 for a complete 

description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 7. 

10.2.7.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 7. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 7. 

10.2.7.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

 

85 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-48 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit provides local bus service within the Madison area. See 

section 10.2.4.4 for a complete description of Madison Metro Transit. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Winona Transit Service 

The Winona Transit Service provides local bus service to Winona and Goodview, MN. 

See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of the Winona Transit Service. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 7 

Prairie du Chien is served by shared-ride taxi transit. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit lines within communities along Route 7. 

10.2.7.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 7 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 7 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 

(Jefferson Lines) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-49 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Winona: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

 The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed 

and operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to 

be online the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 7 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines)86

10.2.7.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203087. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 7: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Madison (I-90/94/39, US 12, US 18, US 151, US 14) 

 Prairie du Chien (US 18, WI 27, WI 35) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Winona (US 61, US 14) 

 Newport (US 61, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 7. 

10.2.7.7 Airports 

Existing

 

86 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

87 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-50 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.4.7 for a description of the Dane County Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 7. 

10.2.7.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 7: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail88

 Winona – Mississippi River Trail 

 Red Wing – Mississippi River Trail, Goodhue Pioneer Trail, and Cannon Valley 

Trail 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail89

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 7. 

10.2.7.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 7 

Table 10-8 and Figure 10-7 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 7. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

 

88 www.wisconsinbiking.com

89 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-51 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 10-8. System Connectivity – Route 7 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 2 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 3 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 5 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 3 N/A 

Highways 18 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 5 N/A 

 

 

Figure 10-7. System Connectivity – Route 7 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-52 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.8 Route 8– Madison-Prairie-Rochester 

10.2.8.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 8 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis has been completed for the Red Rock Corridor, a commuter rail 

line that will connect the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and 

Hastings, MN. Hastings is a community along Route 8. See section 10.1.1 for a 

complete description of the project. 

Dane County 

Transport 2020 completed an alternatives analysis and selected a locally preferred 

alternative for commuter rail service between Middleton, WI and Sun Prairie, WI through 

downtown Madison. See section 10.2.4.1 for a description of the Dane County 

Commuter project. 

10.2.8.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 8 include Milwaukee, WI, 

La Crosse, WI, and Winona, MN90. See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the 

Empire Builder service. 

Planned

Dan Patch Rail Corridor 

An inter-city rail link has been planned to connect the Twin Cities, MN, Northfield, MN, 

Albert Lea, MN and Kansas City, MO to one another via the Dan Patch rail corridor 

alignment. See section 10.1.2 for a description of the project. 

10.2.8.3 Light Rail Transit 

There are no existing or planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 8. 

10.2.8.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

 

90 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-53 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit provides local bus service within the Madison area. See 

section 10.2.4.4 for a complete description of Madison Metro Transit. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Winona Transit Service 

The Winona Transit Service provides local bus service to Winona and Goodview, MN. 

See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of the Winona Transit Service. 

Rochester City Lines 

Rochester City Lines provides local bus service within the Rochester area. See section 

10.2.2.4 for a complete description of Rochester City Lines. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 8 

The Prairie du Chien is served by shared-ride taxi transit. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit lines within communities along Route 8. 

10.2.8.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 8 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 8 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-54 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

(Jefferson Lines) 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Winona: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester - Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Rochester: Madison – Sparta - La Crosse – Winona – Rochester -Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

 Owatonna: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Northfield – Owatonna - Mason City - Des 

Moines - Kansas City (Jefferson Lines) 

 Northfield: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Northfield – Owatonna - Mason City - Des 

Moines - Kansas City (Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 8 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines)91

10.2.8.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203092. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 8: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Madison (I-90/94/39, US 12, US 18, US 151, US 14) 

 Prairie du Chien (US 18, WI 27, WI 35) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 

91 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

92 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-55 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Winona (US 61, US 14) 

 Rochester (I-90, US 52, US 14, US 63) 

 Owatonna (I-35, US 14, US 218) 

 Inver Grove Heights (US 52, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 8. 

10.2.8.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Rochester International Airport 

See section 10.2.2.7 for a description of the Rochester International Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.4.7 for a description of the Dane County Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 8. 

10.2.8.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 8: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail93

 Winona – Mississippi River Trail94

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 8. 

 

93 www.wisconsinbiking.com

94 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-56 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.8.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 8 

Table 10-9 and Figure 10-8 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 8. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-9. System Connectivity – Route 8 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 2 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 2 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 6 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 6 N/A 

Highways 15 N/A 

Airports 3 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 3 N/A 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-57 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

 

Figure 10-8. System Connectivity – Route 8 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-58 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.9 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River 

10.2.9.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 9 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Red Rock Corridor 

An Alternatives Analysis has been completed for the Red Rock Corridor, a commuter rail 

line that will connect the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, St. Paul, MN and 

Hastings, MN. Hastings is a community along Route 9. See section 10.1.1 for a 

complete description of the project. 

Dane County 

Transport 2020 completed an alternatives analysis and selected a locally preferred 

alternative for commuter rail service between Middleton, WI and Sun Prairie, WI through 

downtown Madison. See section 10.2.4.1 for a description of the Dane County 

Commuter project. 

10.2.9.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 9 include Milwaukee, WI 

and La Crosse, WI95. See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire 

Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 9. 

10.2.9.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 9. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 9. 

10.2.9.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

 

 

95 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-59 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit provides local bus service within the Madison area. See 

section 10.2.4.4 for a complete description of Madison Metro Transit. 

La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility 

The La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility (MTU) provides local bus service to La Crosse, 

French Island, and La Crescent, MN. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of 

the La Crosse MTU. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 9 

The Prairie du Chien is served by shared-ride taxi transit. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit routes within communities along Route 9. 

10.2.9.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 9 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 8 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 

(Jefferson Lines) 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-60 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 La Crosse: Madison-Sparta-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis 

(Jefferson Lines) 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 9 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines)96

10.2.9.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 203097. Therefore, intermodal 

connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly important. 

The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 9: 

 Watertown (I-94, US 26) 

 Madison (I-90/94/39, US 12, US 18, US 151, US 14) 

 Prairie du Chien (US 18, WI 27, WI 35) 

 La Crosse (I-90, US 53, US 14, WI 35) 

 Prescott (US 10, WI 35, WI 29) 

 Newport (US 61, I-494) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 9. 

10.2.9.7 Airports 

Existing

La Crosse Municipal Airport 

See section 10.2.1.7 for a description of the La Crosse Municipal Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.4.7 for a description of the Dane County Regional Airport. 

 

96 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

97 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-61 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 9. 

10.2.9.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 9: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 La Crosse - Great River Trail and La Crosse River Trail98 

 Hastings – Mississippi River Trail99

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 9. 

10.2.9.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 9 

Table 10-10 and Figure 10-9 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 9. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-10. System Connectivity – Route 9 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 2 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 1 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 4 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 2 N/A 

Highways 19 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 3 N/A 

 

98 www.wisconsinbiking.com

99 www.traillink.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-62 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

 

Figure 10-9. System Connectivity – Route 9 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-63 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.10 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 

10.2.10.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 10 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Gateway Corridor 

A commuter rail link has been planned to connect Eau Claire, WI to the Twin Cities, MN. 

See section 10.1.1 for a complete description of the project. 

10.2.10.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 10 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Columbus, Portage, WI, and Wisconsin Dells, WI100. See section 10.1.2 for a complete 

description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 10. 

10.2.10.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 10. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 10. 

10.2.10.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Eau Claire Transit 

Eau Claire Transit operates 11 fixed-routes within the Eau Claire area. Eau Claire 

Transit utilizes a fleet of 22 low-floored, ramp-equipped buses. The 11 routes converge 

at a central hub – the downtown Transfer Center. The majority of the neighborhood 

 

100 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-64 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

routes operate on an hourly frequency; while the more heavily traveled routes provide 30 

minute service. Key destinations within the system include the downtown Transit Center, 

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, the Court House, several malls/shopping centers, 

several hospitals, and University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire101. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 10 

The cities of Watertown and Portage along Route 10 have shared-ride taxi transit 

service. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit routes within communities along Route 10. 

10.2.10.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 10 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 10 are listed 

below. 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison – Wisconsin Dells – Eau Claire 

– Minneapolis/St. Paul (Greyhound) 

 Eau Claire: 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – Milwaukee* 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul - Eau Claire – Madison – Milwaukee - Chicago 

 Menomonie: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Menomonie – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green 

Bay – Milwaukee* 

 Hudson: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Hudson – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – 

Milwaukee* 

*Amtrak Thruway Service 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 10 include: 

 

101 www.eauclairewi.gov/bus
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-65 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Columbus (Madison-Columbus – Fond du Lac – Oshkosh – Appleton – Green 

Bay line) 

 Portage (Madison-Portage-Stevens Point-Wausau line) 

 Eau Claire (Eau Claire – Duluth/Superior line)102

Amtrak Thruway Bus Service 

Amtrak provides thruway bus service to connect Amtrak rail stations with other 

communities that are not directly served by passenger trains103. Columbus is planned to 

be an Amtrak Thruway stop on one of the planned inter-city bus routes in Wisconsin. 

10.2.10.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 2030104. Therefore, 

intermodal connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly 

important. The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 10: 

 Watertown (I94, US 26) 

 Columbus (US 151, WI 60, WI 89) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Black River Falls (I-94, US 12, WI 54, WI 27) 

 Eau Claire (I-94, US 53, US 12, WI 29, WI 93, WI 37, WI 312) 

 Menomonie (I-94, US 12, WI 29, WI 25) 

 Hudson (I-94, US 12, WI 35) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 10. 

10.2.10.7 Airports 

Existing

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport 

 

102 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

103 www.amtrak.com

104 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-66 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

The Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (EAU) is located approximately 4 miles from 

downtown Eau Claire and 7 miles from downtown Chippewa Falls. Transportation 

options to and from (EAU) include Eau Claire City Transit, taxi service, and car rental 

service105. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 10. 

10.2.10.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing 

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 10: 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail 

 Eau Claire – Chippewa River State Trail106

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 10. 

10.2.10.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 10 

Table 10-11 and Figure 10-10 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 10. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-11. System Connectivity – Route 10 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 3 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 3 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 4 2 

Highways 29 N/A 

Airports 1 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 2 N/A 

 

105 http://chippewavalleyairport.com/

106 www.wisconsinbiking.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-67 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 

Figure 10-10. System Connectivity – Route 10 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-68 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.11 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire 

10.2.11.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 11 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Gateway Corridor 

A commuter rail link has been planned to connect Eau Claire, WI to the Twin Cities, MN. 

See section 10.1.1 for a complete description of the project. 

10.2.11.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 11 include Milwaukee, WI, 

Portage, WI and Wisconsin Dells, WI107. See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of 

the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 11. 

10.2.11.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 11. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 11. 

10.2.11.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Waukesha Metro Transit 

Waukesha Metro Transit provides local bus service throughout the western suburbs of 

Waukesha and Brookfield. See section 10.2.1.4 for a complete description of Waukesha 

Metro Transit. 

Madison Metro Transit 

The Madison Metro Transit provides local bus service within the Madison area. See 

section 10.2.4.4 for a complete description of Madison Metro Transit. 

 

 

107 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-69 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Eau Claire Transit 

Eau Claire Transit provides local bus service within the Eau Claire area. See section 

10.2.10.4 for a description of Eau Claire Transit. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Additional Local Transit Services along Route 11 

The cities of Watertown and Portage along Route 11 have shared-ride taxi transit 

service. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit routes within communities along Route 11. 

10.2.11.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 11 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 11 are listed 

below. 

 Madison: 

o Madison-Milwaukee (Badger) 

o Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago (Greyhound) 

o Madison-Chicago express (Megabus) 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Wisconsin Dells-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. 

Paul (Greyhound) 

o Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse-Winona-Rochester-Minneapolis/St. Paul 

(Jefferson Lines) 

o Madison-Janesville-Chicago (Van Galder/Coach USA) 

o Madison-Minneapolis express (Megabus) 

 Wisconsin Dells: Chicago – Milwaukee – Madison – Wisconsin Dells – Eau Claire 

– Minneapolis/St. Paul (Greyhound) 

 Eau Claire: 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – Milwaukee* 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul 0 Eau Claire – Madison – Milwaukee - Chicago 

 Menomonie: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Menomonie – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-70 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Bay – Milwaukee* 

 Hudson: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Hudson – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – 

Milwaukee* 

*Amtrak Thruway Service 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 11 include: 

 Madison (Madison-Wausau, Madison-Dubuque, Madison-La Crosse, and 

Madison-Green Bay lines) 

 Portage (Madison-Portage-Stevens Point-Wausau line) 

 Eau Claire (Eau Claire – Duluth/Superior line)108

10.2.11.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 2030109. Therefore, 

intermodal connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly 

important. The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 11: 

 Madison (I-90/94/39, US 12, US 18, US 151, US 14) 

 Portage (I-39, I-90/94, WI 33) 

 Wisconsin Dells (I-90/94, US 12) 

 Camp Douglas (I-90/94) 

 Black River Falls (I-94, US 12, WI 54, WI 27) 

 Eau Claire (I-94, US 53, US 12, WI 29, WI 93, WI 37, WI 312) 

 Menomonie (I-94, US 12, WI 29, WI 25) 

 Hudson (I-94, US 12, WI 35) 

Planned

 

108 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

109 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-71 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 11. 

10.2.11.7 Airports 

Existing

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.10.7 for a description of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. 

Dane County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.4.7 for a description of the Dane County Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 11. 

10.2.11.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 11: 

 Madison - Badger State Trail, Southwest Trail, Capital City Trail, Military Ridge 

State Trail, and Glacial Drumlin State Trail 

 Camp Douglas – Omaha Trail 

 Eau Claire – Chippewa River State Trail110

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 11. 

10.2.11.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 11 

Table 10-12 and Figure 10-11 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 11. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

 

110 www.wisconsinbiking.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-72 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 10-12. System Connectivity – Route 11 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail 2 N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 4 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 5 1 

Highways 29 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 3 N/A 

 

Figure 10-11. System Connectivity – Route 11 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-73 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.12 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire 

10.2.12.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 12A outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Gateway Corridor 

A commuter rail link has been planned to connect Eau Claire, WI to the Twin Cities, MN. 

See section 10.1.1 for a complete description of the project. 

10.2.12.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 12A include Milwaukee, 

WI111. See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 12A. 

10.2.12.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 12A. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 12A. 

10.2.12.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Eau Claire Transit 

Eau Claire Transit provides local bus service within the Eau Claire area. See section 

10.2.10.4 for a description of Eau Claire Transit. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Planned

 

111 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-74 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

There are no planned local bus transit routes within communities along Route 12A. 

10.2.12.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 12A crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 12A are listed 

below. 

 Eau Claire: 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – Milwaukee* 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul - Eau Claire – Madison – Milwaukee - Chicago 

 Menomonie: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Menomonie – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green 

Bay – Milwaukee* 

 Hudson: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Hudson – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – 

Milwaukee* 

*Amtrak Thruway Service 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 12A include: 

 Eau Claire (Eau Claire – Duluth/Superior line)112

10.2.12.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 2030113. Therefore, 

intermodal connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly 

important. The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 12A: 

 Beaver Dam (US 151, WI 33) 

 Endeavor (I-39/US 51) 

 Necedeh (WI 21, WI 80) 

 

112 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

113 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-75 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Black River Falls (I-94, US 12, WI 54, WI 27) 

 Eau Claire (I-94, US 53, US 12, WI 29, WI 93, WI 37, WI 312) 

 Menomonie (I-94, US 12, WI 29, WI 25) 

 Hudson (I-94, US 12, WI 35) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 12A. 

10.2.12.7 Airports 

Existing

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport 

The Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (EAU) is located approximately 4 miles from 

downtown Eau Claire and 7 miles from downtown Chippewa Falls. Transportation 

options to and from (EAU) include Eau Claire City Transit, taxi service, and car rental 

service114. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 12A. 

10.2.12.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing 

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 12A: 

 Eau Claire – Chippewa River State Trail115

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 12A. 

10.2.12.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 12A 

Table 10-13 and Figure 10-12 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 12A. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

 

114 http://chippewavalleyairport.com/

115 www.wisconsinbiking.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-76 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 10-13. System Connectivity – Route 12A 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail N/A N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 2 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 3 N/A 

Highways 23 N/A 

Airports 1 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 1 N/A 

 

Figure 10-12. System Connectivity – Route 12A 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-77 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.13 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire 

10.2.13.1 Commuter Rail 

Existing

There are no existing commuter rail lines along Route 13 outside of the terminal areas. 

Planned

Gateway Corridor 

A commuter rail link has been planned to connect Eau Claire, WI to the Twin Cities, MN. 

See section 10.1.1 for a complete description of the project. 

10.2.13.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 13 include Milwaukee, 

WI116. See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 13. 

10.2.13.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 13. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 13. 

10.2.13.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Fond du Lac Area Transit 

The Fond du Lac Area Transit operates 9 fixed bus routes within the Fond du Lac area. 

Key destinations within the system include various area elementary, middle, and high 

schools, the Greyhound Bus station, residential areas, the Fond du Lac Industrial Park, 

and University of Wisconsin-Fond du Lac117. 

Oshkosh Transit System 

The Oshkosh Transit System operates 9 routes throughout the Oshkosh area. The 

downtown transit center is located at Pearl and Market Streets in downtown Oshkosh. 

 

116 www.amtrak.com

117 http://www.ci.fond-du-lac.wi.us/transit/
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-78 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Key destinations within the system include various parks, downtown Oshkosh, Wittman 

Airport, the Greyhound Bus station, and the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh118. 

Valley Transit 

Valley Transit operates 16 routes throughout the Fox Valley area of Wisconsin. Key 

destinations within the system include each of the communities within the Fox Valley 

area, several colleges, Outagamie County, and Neenah, which is a community along 

Route 13119. 

Stevens Point Transit 

Stevens Point Transit operates 8 routes throughout the Stevens Point area. Service is 

provided to Whiting, Park Ridge, and Plover communities. The downtown transit plaza is 

located at the CenterPoint Marketplace. Other destinations include the Stevens Point 

business park and the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point120. 

Eau Claire Transit 

Eau Claire Transit provides local bus service within the Eau Claire area. See section 

10.2.10.4 for a description of Eau Claire Transit. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit routes within communities along Route 13. 

10.2.13.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 13 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 13 are listed 

below. 

 Fond du Lac: 

o Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Stevens Point-Wausau* 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Green Bay 

 Oshkosh: 

o Milwaukee-Fond du Lac- Oshkosh-Appleton-Stevens Point-Wausau* 

 

118 http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/Transit/index.htm

119 http://www.appleton.org/departments/?department=fb4dcfb8d520

120 http://stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?NID=257
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-79 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay 

 Stevens Point: Milwaukee-Appleton-Stevens Point-Wausau* 

 Eau Claire: 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – Milwaukee* 

o Minneapolis/St. Paul - Eau Claire – Madison – Milwaukee - Chicago 

 Menomonie: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Menomonie – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green 

Bay – Milwaukee* 

 Hudson: Minneapolis/St. Paul – Hudson – Eau Claire – Wausau – Green Bay – 

Milwaukee* 

*Amtrak Thruway Service 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 13 include: 

 Fond du Lac (Madison-Columbus-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay 

line) 

 Oshkosh (Madison-Columbus-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay line) 

 Stevens Point (Eau Claire- Duluth/Superior line) 

 Eau Claire (Eau Claire – Duluth/Superior line)121

10.2.13.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 2030122. Therefore, 

intermodal connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly 

important. The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 13: 

 West Bend (US 45, WI 33, WI 144) 

 Fond du Lac (US 41, US 45, US 151, WI 23) 

 Oshkosh (US 41, US 45, WI 21, WI 76) 

 

121 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, 

Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

122 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-80 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Neenah (US41, US 10, WI 114, WI 47) 

 Stevens Point (I-39, US 10, US 51, WI 66) 

 Chippewa Falls (US 53, WI 29, WI 124) 

 Eau Claire (I-94, US 53, US 12, WI 29, WI 93, WI 37, WI 312) 

 Menomonie (I-94, US 12, WI 29, WI 25) 

 Hudson (I-94, US 12, WI 35) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 13. 

10.2.13.7 Airports 

Existing

Outagamie County Regional Airport 

The Outagamie County Regional Airport (ATW) is located approximately 6 miles 

northwest of Neenah, WI. Transportation options to and from ATW include taxi services 

and car rental services123. 

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport 

See section 10.10.7.1 for a description of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 13. 

10.2.13.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 13: 

 Eau Claire – Chippewa River State Trail 

 Fond du Lac - Wild Goose State Trail 

 Stevens Point – Green Circle State Trail 

 Chippewa Falls – Old Abe State Trail124

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 13. 

 

123 http://www.atwairport.com/

124 www.wisconsinbiking.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-81 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.13.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 13 

Table 10-14 and Figure 10-13 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 13. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-14. System Connectivity – Route 13 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A 1 

Inter-City Passenger Rail N/A N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 6 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 6 N/A 

Highways 36 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 4 N/A 

Figure 10-13. System Connectivity – Route 13 

 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-82 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

10.2.14 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC 

10.2.14.1 Commuter Rail 

There are no existing or planned commuter rail lines along Route 14 outside of the 

terminal areas. 

10.2.14.2 Inter-City Passenger Rail 

Existing 

Amtrak Empire Builder 

Amtrak provides rail transportation through the Empire Builder, a long-distance service 

between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. Stations along Route 14 include Milwaukee, 

WI125. See section 10.1.2 for a complete description of the Empire Builder service. 

Planned

There are no planned inter-city passenger rail lines within communities along Route 14. 

10.2.14.3 Light Rail Transit 

Existing

There are no existing light rail transit lines within communities along Route 14. 

Planned

There are no planned light rail transit lines within communities along Route 14. 

10.2.14.4 Local Bus Transit 

Existing

Fond du Lac Area Transit 

The Fond du Lac Area Transit provides bus service to the Fond du Lac area. See 

section 10.2.13.4 for a description of Fond du Lac Area Transit. 

Oshkosh Transit System 

The Oshkosh Transit System provides bus service to the Oshkosh area. See section 

10.2.13.4 for a description of Oshkosh Transit System. 

Valley Transit 

Valley Transit provides bus service to the Fox Valley area, including Neenah, a 

community along Route 14. See section 10.2.13.4 for a description of Valley Transit.

Stevens Point Transit 

Stevens Point Transit provides bus service to the Stevens Point area. See section 

10.2.13.4 for a description of Stevens Point Transit. 

Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 

 

125 www.amtrak.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-83 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides bus service to the Minnesota 

Valley Area of Minnesota. See section 10.2.1.4 for a description of MVTA. 

Planned

There are no planned local bus transit routes within communities along Route 14. 

10.2.14.5 Inter-City Bus 

Existing

Route 14 crosses existing inter-city bus routes providing potential intermodal facility 

opportunities. The existing bus routes serving communities along Route 14 are listed 

below. 

 Fond du Lac: 

o Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Stevens Point-Wausau* 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Green Bay 

 Oshkosh: 

o Milwaukee-Fond du Lac- Oshkosh-Appleton-Stevens Point-Wausau* 

o Chicago-Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay 

 Stevens Point: Milwaukee-Appleton-Stevens Point-Wausau* 

 Chippewa Falls: Minneapolis/St. Paul-Eau Claire-Wausau-Green BayMilwaukee* 

*Amtrak Thruway Service 

Planned

The Wisconsin DOT Inter-city bus program has planned for six new bus routes 

throughout the state. The Request for Proposals process has been completed and 

operators have been selected and notified. The new routes are expected to be online 

the second half of 2011. Proposed stops along Route 14 include: 

 Fond du Lac (Madison-Columbus-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay 

line) 

 Oshkosh (Madison-Columbus-Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay line) 

 Stevens Point (Eau Claire- Duluth/Superior line) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-84 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Chippewa Falls (Eau Claire- Duluth/Superior line)126

10.2.14.6 Highways 

Existing

As discussed in the Draft Purpose and Need statement, population and traffic on 

roadways is expected to increase significantly by the year 2030127. Therefore, 

intermodal connectivity between highways and high-speed rail will become increasingly 

important. The following is a list of cities and major highways along Route 14: 

 West Bend (US 45, WI 33, WI 144) 

 Fond du Lac (US 41, US 45, US 151, WI 23) 

 Oshkosh (US 41, US 45, WI 21, WI 76) 

 Neenah (US 41, US 10, WI 114, WI 47) 

 Stevens Point (I-39, US 10, US 51, WI 66) 

 Chippewa Falls (US 53, WI 29, WI 124) 

 New Richmond (WI 65, WI 64) 

Planned

There are no planned highways within communities along Route 14. 

10.2.14.7 Airports 

Existing

Outagamie County Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.13.7 for a description of the Outagamie County Regional airport. 

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport 

See section 10.2.10.7 for a description of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. 

Planned

There are no planned airports within communities along Route 14. 

10.2.14.8 Bike Paths/Trails 

Existing

The following is a list of cities and bike paths/trails that intersect Route 14: 

 

126 Request for Proposal for Wisconsin Intercity Busy Assistance Program (85.26)/Federal Transit Administration 

Intercity Bus Program (5311(f)), RFP# 267880, Issued by State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, Division 

of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads, and Harbors

127 Draft Purpose and Need Statement, January 2010
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-85 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Fond du Lac - Wild Goose State Trail 

 Stevens Point – Green Circle State Trail 

 Chippewa Falls – Old Abe State Trail128

Planned

There are no planned bike paths/trails within communities along Route 14. 

10.2.14.9 Summary of System Connectivity for Route 14 

Table 10-15 and Figure 10-14 summarize the number of intermodal connections for each 

type of mode along Route 14. The method for quantifying the number of intermodal 

connections is described in section 10.2.1.9. 

Table 10-15. System Connectivity – Route 14 

Number of Intermodal Connections 

Mode Existing Planned 

Commuter Rail N/A N/A 

Inter-City Passenger Rail N/A N/A 

Light Rail N/A N/A 

Urban/Local Bus 5 N/A 

Inter-city Bus 4 N/A 

Highways 24 N/A 

Airports 2 N/A 

Bike Paths/Trails 3 N/A 

 

128 www.wisconsinbiking.com
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-86 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 10-16 depicts the overall number of intermodal connections for each route in the 

Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor. Figure 10-15 depicts an overall system connectivity map 

for the entire Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor. 

Figure 10-14. System Connectivity – Route 14 
October 26, 2011 Page 10-87 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 10-16. Overall Number of Intermodal Connections 

Commuter Rail Inter-City Passenger Rail Light Rail Urban/Local Bus Inter-City Bus 

Existing Planned Existing Planned Existing Planned Existing Planned Existing Planned 

Terminal Areas 1 5 2 10 1 4 6 N/A 24 N/A 

1 –Amtrak Route N/A 1 8 N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A 5 2 

2 – AmtrakRochester N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A 8 2 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River N/A 1 5 N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A 4 2 

4 – MWRRI-Madison N/A 2 4 N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A 6 1 

5 – MadisonRochester N/A 1 5 N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A 9 1 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River N/A 2 4 N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A 5 1 

7 – Madison-Prairie N/A 2 3 N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A 3 N/A 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester N/A 2 2 N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A 6 N/A 9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River N/A 2 1 N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A 2 N/A 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire N/A 1 3 N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A 4 2 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC N/A 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A 5 1 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 3 N/A 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A 6 N/A 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A 4 N/A 
Alter

10.0 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-88 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 10-15. System Connectivity – Overall Map 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-89 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Qualitative Assessment: Route 5 has the greatest number of intermodal connections. 

Route 5 is better than the remaining routes. 

10.3 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for system 

connectivity based on the qualitative assessment completed for this criterion. Using the 

color rating for the measures, an overall system connectivity rating was assigned to each 

route based on the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures received. 

Table 10-17 depicts the color rating for each route for the overall system connectivity 

criterion. 

Table 10-17. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route Commuter 

Rail 

Inter-City 

Passenger 

Rail 

Light 

Rail 

Local 

Bus 

Inter-City 

Bus Highways Airports 

Bike 

Paths/

Trails 

Overall 

System 

Connectivity 

Rating 

1 –Amtrak 

Route 

2 – AmtrakRochester 

3 – AmtrakBNSF River 

4 – 

MWRRIMadison 

5 – 

MadisonRochester 

6 – 

MadisonBNSF River 

7 – 

MadisonPrairie 

8 – 

MadisonPrairieRochester 

9 – 

MadisonPrairieBNSF River 

10 – 

Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – 

MadisonEau ClaireTC 

12A – 

WyevilleEau Claire 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-90 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

13 – 

MilwaukeeFond du 

Lac-Eau 

Claire 

14 – 

MilwaukeeFond du 

Lac-ChipTC 

At the March 11 workshop, the teams were presented with commuter rail, inter-city 

passenger rail, light rail, local bus, inter-city bus, highways, airports, and bike path/trail 

data and engaged in discussions regarding the qualitative assessment and color rating of 

each route. The teams came to the consensus that light rail is not a discriminator 

because none of the routes provide connectivity to existing or planned light rail lines. 

Therefore, light rail was not assessed in the workshop. The following captures the overall 

qualitative assessment and rating for each route;

 Route 1 – Amtrak Route – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 1. The teams concluded that Route 1 has average 

connectivity to commuter rail, local bus, inter-city bus, and highways. Route 1 

has good connectivity to inter-city passenger rail and bike paths/trails and low 

connectivity to airports. Overall, Route 1 was assessed as yellow for system 

connectivity. 

 Route 2 – Amtrak-Rochester –– At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 2. The teams came to the consensus that Route 2 

has good connectivity to inter-city bus, highways, and bike paths/trails, average 

connectivity to inter-city passenger rail, local bus, and airports, and low 

connectivity to commuter rail. Overall, Route 2 was assessed as yellow for 

system connectivity. 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 3. The teams came to the consensus that Route 3 

has average connectivity to commuter rail, inter-city passenger rail, inter-city bus, 

highways, and bike paths/trails and low connectivity to local bus and airports. 

Overall, Route 3 was assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 4 – MWRRI Madison – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 4. The teams came to the consensus that Route 4 

has good connectivity to commuter rail, inter-city passenger rail, and bike 

paths/trails and average connectivity to local bus, inter-city bus, highways, and 

airports. Overall, Route 4 was assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 5. The teams came to the consensus that Route 5 

has good connectivity to local bus, inter-city bus, highways, airports, and bike 

paths/trails and average connectivity to commuter rail and inter-city passenger 

rail. Overall, Route 5 was assessed as green for system connectivity. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-91 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River –At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 6. The teams came to the consensus that Route 6 

has good connectivity to commuter rail and bike paths/trails and average 

connectivity to inter-city passenger rail, local bus, inter-city bus, highways, and 

airports. Overall, Route 6 was assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 7. The teams concluded that Route 7 has good 

connectivity to commuter rail and bike paths/trails, average connectivity to intercity passenger rail, local bus, and airports, and low connectivity to inter-city bus 

and highways. Overall, Route 7 was assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

system connectivity data for Route 8. The teams concluded that Route 8 has 

good connectivity to commuter rail, local bus, and airports, average connectivity 

to inter-city bus and bike paths/trails, and low connectivity to inter-city passenger 

rail and highways. Overall, Route 8 was assessed as yellow for system 

connectivity. 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

system connectivity data for Route 9. The teams concluded that Route 9 has 

good connectivity to commuter rail, average connectivity to local bus and bike 

paths/trails, and low connectivity to inter-city passenger rail, inter-city bus, and 

highways. Overall, Route 9 was assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 10. The teams came to the consensus that Route 10 

has average connectivity to commuter rail, inter-city passenger rail, inter-city bus, 

and highways and low connectivity to local bus, airports, and bike paths/trails. 

Overall, Route 10 was assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 11 – Madison-Eau Claire-TC – At the workshop, the teams assessed 

system connectivity data for Route 11. The teams came to the consensus that 

Route 11 has average connectivity to commuter rail, inter-city passenger rail, 

local bus, inter-city bus, highways, airports, and bike paths/trails. Route 11 was 

assessed as yellow for system connectivity. 

 Route 12A – Wyeville-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams assessed system 

connectivity data for Route 12A. The teams came to the consensus that Route 

12A has average connectivity to commuter rail and highways and low 

connectivity to inter-city passenger rail, local bus, inter-city bus, airports, and bike 

paths/trails. Overall, Route 12A was assessed as red for system connectivity 

because the route does not meet the project purpose and need of improving 

overall system connectivity. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed system connectivity data for Route 13. The teams concluded that 

Route 13 has good connectivity to local bus and highways, average connectivity 

to commuter rail, inter-city bus, airports, and bike paths/trails, and low 

connectivity to inter-city passenger rail. Overall, Route 13 was assessed as 

yellow for system connectivity. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

10.0 – System Connectivity 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 10-92 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC – At the workshop, the teams 

assessed system connectivity data for Route 14. The teams came to the 

consensus that Route 14 has average connectivity to local bus, inter-city bus, 

highways, airports, and bike paths/trails and low connectivity to commuter rail 

and inter-city passenger rail. Route 14 was assessed as yellow for system 

connectivity. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail route complements the project purpose and project need for the proposed 

action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. Section 1.4.2 

and 1.4.3 describe the project purpose and project need, respectively. 

The environmental features criterion is tied to the project purpose of minimizing 

environmental impacts. If a potential passenger rail alternative does not meet the project 

purpose, the route will be eliminated from further analysis. 

The impacts that a high-speed passenger rail alternative has on the environment is one 

of the factors when determining the reasonable and feasible routes. The seven (7) 

environmental impacts that are evaluated include the following: 

 Floodplains 

 Wetlands 

 Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Historical/Cultural Resources 

 Section 4(f)/6(f) Protected Property 

 Environmental Justice 

 Hazardous Materials Sites 

While an assumption can be made that one route is preferable based on the total 

number of features that are impacted, it is not prudent to solely choose a route based on 

this information. The specific attribute information about a feature must also be taken 

into account. For instance, a specific wetland or a specific historical/archeological site 

could have a fatal flaw that would deem a route to not be reasonable and feasible. 

Right-of-way takes and the environmental features that would be impacted were also 

documented in areas that are known to require land acquisition for improvements related 

to high-speed rail operations. While documenting specific impacts near potential highspeed rail routes is in general beyond the detail of work that has been done, it was 

deemed necessary to include this data at this point the in study so that a better 

understanding of the specific environmental impacts are documented for these known 

right-of-way takes. The following four locations that require land acquisition are 

documented in section 11.8: 

 La Crosse – Grand Crossing 

 Prairie Du Chien – Crawford 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Owatonna 

 St. Paul Union Depot 

Appendix O documents all environmental features graphically by route. Environmental 

Systems Research Institute’s (Esri) ArcGIS software was used to collect and analyze all 

of the seven (7) environmental impact features and output them in graphic strip map 

format using U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) digital raster graphics (DRG) as 

background and base map information. 

11.1 Floodplains 

A floodplain is any area susceptible to inundation by water from any source129. 

Floodplains are valuable areas of land because they provide natural flood and erosion 

control, water quality maintenance, ground water recharge, biological resources, and a 

habitat for fish and wildlife130. Impacting a floodplain will impact these important 

resources. 

In addition to impacting important natural resources, the number of floodplains that a 

route crosses can impact railroad operations such as maintaining service, track 

obstruction caused by local flooding, or mitigation cost during construction to prevent 

service delays during bad weather. During periods of high-discharge water events, 

floodplain areas may experience flooding. 

The floodplain data in this corridor is analyzed using Esri’s ArcGIS software and data 

gathered from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). The analysis counted the number of times a potential high speed rail 

route crossed the 100-year (1% annual chance of a flood of this magnitude) and 500-

year (0.2% annual chance of a flood of this magnitude) floodplain. 

Normative Statement: A potential high-speed rail route would be more desirable if it 

impacts a fewer number of floodplains. 

Table 11-1 depicts the number of floodplains within 100’ of the track centerline for each 

potential high speed rail route. This data is also represented graphically in Chart 11-1. 

 

129 www.fema.gov/pdf/floodplain/nfip_sg_appendix_d.pdf - 2006-06-02

130 http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/flood/purpose.htm
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-3 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 11-1. Floodplains within 100’ of the Track Centerline 

Route 

Quantity of Floodplains 

within 100’ of the Track 

Centerline 

1 –Amtrak Route 488 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 470 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 576 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 639 

5 – MadisonRochester 621 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 727 

7 – Madison-Prairie 605 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 587 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 693 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 411 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 562 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 286 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 388 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 454 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-1. Floodplains within 100’ of the Track Centerline 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 10, 12A, 13, and 14 have the lowest number of 

floodplains within 100’ of the track centerline. These routes are better than the remaining 

routes.

11.2 Wetlands 

Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas131. 

 

131 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/definitions.cfm
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-5 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Wetlands are valuable because they provide critical habitat for plants, fish and wildlife, 

clean water, protection from floods, recreation, and natural scenic beauty132. 

Wetlands are federally protected by the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), requiring that: 

 Steps have been taken to avoid wetland impacts where practicable 

 Potential impacts to wetlands have been minimized 

 Compensation is provided for wetland impacts that could not be avoided through 

activities to restore or create wetlands 

A potential high speed rail route that impacts wetlands may require additional cost to 

mitigate and present substantial construction and feasibility issues. 

Wetland data gathered from the Wisconsin DNR, Minnesota DNR and the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was used to 

analyze the number of wetlands, the length a potential route passes through a wetland, 

and the acres of wetland impact for each route. 

Normative Statement: A route would be more desirable if the route impacts a fewer 

number of wetlands by quantity and acres. 

The number of wetlands within 50’ and 100’, including the acres impacted and the length 

in miles that a routes passes through a wetland, is shown for each route in Table 11-2 

and represented graphically in Charts 11-2, 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6. 

 

132 http://dnr.wi.gov/wetlands/
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 101-2. Quantity of Wetlands 

Route 

Length Route 

Passes 

through 

Wetlands

(miles)

Quantity of 

Wetlands within 

50' of the Track 

Centerline 

Acres of 

Wetlands 

within 50' of the 

Track 

Centerline 

Quantity of 

Wetlands 

within 100' of 

the Track 

Centerline 

Acres of 

Wetlands 

within 100' 

of the 

centerline 

1 –Amtrak Route 31 609 428 898 1,081 

2 – AmtrakRochester 23 510 310 712 755 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 38 477 442 642 990 

4 – MWRRIMadison 39 734 530 1,066 1,290 

5 – MadisonRochester 31 635 413 965 964 

6 – MadisonBNSF River 43 602 545 902 1,198 

7 – MadisonPrairie 41 612 553 815 1,314 

8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 34 513 435 714 988 

9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF 

River 

45 480 567 651 1,222 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 25 440 321 611 710 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 34 585 424 856 919 

12A – WyevilleEau Claire 9 211* 266* 301* 621* 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

40 677 501 1,025 1,042 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 

45 834 557 1,242 1,154 

*Wetland data is not available for some counties in Wisconsin 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Chart 11-2. Length Route Passes through Wetlands (miles) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-3. Quantity of Wetlands within 50' of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-4. Acres of Wetlands within 50' of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-5. Quantity of Wetlands within 100' of the Track Centerline
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-6. Acres of Wetlands within 100' of the Track Centerline 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 2, 10, and 12A have low miles passing through wetlands 

and low quantities of wetlands within 50’ and 100’ of the track centerline. Overall, these 

routes are better than the remaining routes. 

11.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Threatened and endangered species of wildlife and plants are protected under the 

Endangered Species Act. These species include birds, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, 

crustaceans, flowers, grasses and trees133. “Endangered” species are those that are in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” 

species are those that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. 

When the Endangered Species Act was passed, it recognized that our native plants and 

 

133 http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

animals are of “esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our 

Nation and its people”134. 

The number of times that a route passes through an area considered to be ‘critical 

habitat’ – or an area that has potential to contain threatened and endangered species - 

can be indicative of a potential high speed rail route that will need to be realigned or 

eliminated from further consideration. 

The data for threatened and endangered species was gathered from the Wisconsin 

DNR, Minnesota DNR and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis 

Program (GAP). The analysis consisted of determining the number of critical habitats 

within 750’ and 50’ of the track centerline. Also, the length in miles that a potential high 

speed rail route passes through a critical habitat was documented. 

Normative Statement: A route would be more desirable if it passes through fewer critical 

habitats. 

The number of times that a critical habitat is found within 750’ and 50’ of the track 

centerline, as well as the length in miles that the potential high speed rail route passes 

through a critical habitat for each route is shown in Table 11-3. This data is graphically 

represented in Chart 11-7, 11-8 and 11-9. 

 

134 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/index.html
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 11-3. Quantity of Critical Habitat 

Route 

Quantity of critical 

Habitat within 750' of 

the Track Centerline 

Quantity of Critical 

Habitat Within 100' of 

the Track Centerline 

Length Route Passes 

Through Critical Habitat

(miles)

1 –Amtrak Route 77 52 8 

2 – Amtrak-Rochester 66 47 5 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 134 74 3 

4 – MWRRI-Madison 71 47 8 

5 – Madison-Rochester 60 42 4 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 128 69 11 

7 – Madison-Prairie 80 51 6 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 69 46 2 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 137 73 9 

10 – Amtrak-Eau Claire 34 21 12 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 28 16 3 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 30 11 3 

13 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Eau Claire 23 12 25 

14 – Milwaukee-Fond 

du Lac-Chip-TC 28 15 26 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-7. Critical Habitat within 750’ of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-8. Length (miles) Route Passes Through Critical Habitat 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-9. Quantity of Critical Habitat within 50’ of the Track Centerline 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 10, 11, and 12A have low numbers of miles passing 

through critical habitat and low quantities of critical habitat within 50’ and 750’ of the track 

centerline. Overall, these routes are better than the remaining routes. 

11.4 Historical/Cultural Resources 

Historical/Cultural resources include any building, site or district protected by the National 

Historic Preservation Act. These protected sites include anything listed on or eligible for 

the National and State Register of Historic Places, as defined by the National Park 

Service (NPS) and State Historical Preservation Offices (SHPO). These areas are listed 

and monitored by the NPS and SHPO and covered by 4(f) protected land legislation. 

Impacts to cultural resources, particularly historic properties and districts include not only 

direct impacts to the historic property itself, but also indirect affects due to changes to the 

character, setting, and audible and visual landscape surrounding the property. 

The number of historical and cultural resources that exist within a defined distance of a 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-17 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

potential high-speed rail route can indicate potential issues related to historic structures 

(vibration) and also archeological sites that may not be able to be mitigated without 

incurring cost. The data collected to analyze the historical and cultural resources was 

obtained from the Wisconsin Historical Society, Minnesota Historical Society and the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

The data was separated into historical sites and archeological sites. The historical sites 

were point locations (such as a building) while the archeological sites were polygons 

(such as a burial ground). Both historical and archeological sites were analyzed to see 

how many sites existed within 750’ and within 50’ of the track centerline for each route. 

Normative Statement: A route with fewer occurrences of historical or archeological 

resource conflicts is more desirable. 

The number of times a historical or archeological site fell within the defined distances of 

the track centerline is presented in the following table, Table 11-4 and shown graphically 

in Chart 11-10, 11-11, 11-12 and 11-13. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-18 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 11-4. Quantity of Historical/Cultural Sites 

Route 

Quantity of 

archaeological sites 

within 750' of the 

Track Centerline

Quantity of eligible or 

NRHP listed historic 

sites within 750' of 

the Track Centerline

Quantity of 

archeological sites 

located within 50' of 

the Track Centerline

Quantity of 

historical sites 

located within 50' 

of the Track 

Centerline

1 –Amtrak 

Route 312 4,050 63 129 

2 – AmtrakRochester 305 4,350 66 141 

3 – AmtrakBNSF River 491 3,170 112 138 

4 – MWRRIMadison 356 4,887 73 150 

5 – MadisonRochester 339 5,188 73 163 

6 – MadisonBNSF River 535 4,004 19 259 

7 – MadisonPrairie 594 6,153 73 246 

8 – MadisonPrairieRochester 

577 6,453 88 246 

9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF 

River 

774 5,273 19 358 

10 – AmtrakEau Claire 215 3,431 63 77 

11 – MadisonEau Claire-TC 259 4,269 23 147 

12A – WyevilleEau Claire 144 2,587 32 57 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du LacEau Claire 

227 5,247 23 152 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du LacChip-TC 

224 4,886 20 153 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-19 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-10. Quantity of Archeological Sites within 750’ of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-20 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-11. Quantity of Historic Sites within 750’ of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-21 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-12. Quantity of Archeological Sites within 50’ of the Track Centerline
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-22 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-13. Quantity of Historical Sites within 50’ of the Track Centerline 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12A have low quantities of 

archaeological and historic sites within 50’ and 750’ of the track centerline. Overall, 

these routes are better than the remaining routes. 

11.5 Section 4(f)/6(f) Protected Property 

Section 4(f) protected properties are any publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation 

area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance or any land of 

an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, 

State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) within the 

meaning of section 4(f) of the DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) as amended by the 2008 

FHWA Final Rule located at 23 CFR 774 § 774.11. The Final Rule defines 4(f) lands 

further as: 

 Federal lands or public land holdings (e.g. State forests) 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-23 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Historic Sites (see Historic and Cultural Resources) 

 Archeological Sites (see Historic and Cultural Resources) 

 Federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Section 4(f) applies to those portions of federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers that 

are otherwise eligible as historic sites, or that are publicly owned and function as, or are 

designated in a management plan as, a significant park, recreation area, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge. 

Section 6(f) protected properties are defined as any recreational area or facility which 

was acquired or developed using Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) 

assistance through the NPS. The NPS will be relied upon for geospatial identification of 

any 6(f) lands that may be impacted by the proposed rail corridor. 

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) policy recognized by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) states that use of a Section 4(f) property needs 

to be avoided unless there is no ‘feasible and prudent alternative’. 

The data used to determine potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) protected property 

was gathered from the Wisconsin GAP Analysis Program, Minnesota Gap Analysis 

Program and the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US). From these 

various datasets the following data was analyzed: 

 Number of times a route passed through a Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property 

 Length in miles that a route passed through a Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property 

 Number of times a Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property was within 50’ of the track 

centerline 

 Number of times a Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) property was within 100’ of the 

track centerline 

Normative Statement: A route that passes through or a route that impacts a fewer 

number of Section 4(f) and/or Section 6(f) properties would be more desirable. 

The number of times and length in miles that a route passed through or passed near a 

Section 4(f) and/or Section 6(f) property is detailed by route in Table 11-5 and shown 

graphically in Charts 11-14, 11-15, 11-16, 11-17, 11-18, 11-19, 11-20 and 11-21. 
Alter

11.0 – E

October 26, 2011 Page 11-24 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 11-5. Section 4(f)/6(f) Protected Property

Route 

Number of 

Times 

Route 

Passes 

Through 

4(f) Sites

Number of 

Times Route 

Passes 

Through 6(f) 

Sites

Length Route 

Passes 

Through 4(f) 

Site (miles)

Length Route 

Passes 

Through 6(f) 

Site (miles)

Quantity of 

Section 4(f) 

Sites Within 

50' of the 

Track 

Centerline

Quantity of 

Section 4(f) 

Sites Within 

100' of the 

Track 

Centerline

Quantity 

Section 

Sites Wi

50' of t

Track 

Centerl

1 –Amtrak Route 125 10 45 23 731 975 17 

2 – AmtrakRochester 47 20 29 14 223 384 24 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 28 9 28 19 107 182 15 

4 – MWRRIMadison 127 10 45 23 728 974 17 

5 – MadisonRochester 49 20 25 14 222 383 24 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 30 9 22 19 106 181 15 

7 – Madison-Prairie 134 10 39 23 756 1,040 17 

8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 56 20 19 14 248 449 24 9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF River 37 9 16 19 132 247 15 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 17 7 8 4 32 40 9 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 19 7 8 4 31 39 9 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 15 7 8 4 27 33 10 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

6 7 25 4 13 21 9 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 8 8 26 4 16 21 11 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-25 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-14. Number of Times Route Passes Through a Section 4(f) Site 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-26 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-15. Number of Times Routes Passes Through Section 6(f) Sites 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-27 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-16. Length (miles) Route Passes Through Section 4(f) Sites
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-28 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-17. Length (miles) Route Passes Through Section 6(f) Sites
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-29 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-18. Quantity of Section 4(f) Sites Within 50’ of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-30 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-19. Quantity of Section 4(f) Sites Within 100’ of the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-31 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-20. Quantity of Section 6(f) Sites Within 50’ of the Track Centerline
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-32 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-21. Quantity of Section 6(f) Sites Within 100’ of the Track Centerline

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 10, 11, 12A, 13, and 14 pass through the fewest number 

of 4(f) and 6(f) sites, have the fewest number of miles passing through 4(f) and 6(f) sites, 

and have the fewest 4(f) and 6(f) sites within 50’ and 100’ of the track centerline. 

Overall, these routes are better than the remaining routes. 

11.6 Environmental Justice 

The goal of Environmental Justice, as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 

determined, seeks to ensure that minority populations or low-income populations are not 

disproportionately affected by a potential transportation project. The federal guidance for 

evaluating environmental justice issues is found in Guidance for Federal Agencies on 

Key Terms in Executive Order 12898, which was developed by the Interagency Working 

Group on Environmental Justice, August 1995. Based on this guidance, a tract in this 

study is categorized as having a large concentration of either minority or low income 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-33 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

population if: 

 At least 50 percent of the population in the census tract is minority or low income; 

or 

 The minority or low income population in the tract is at least 10 percent greater 

than the average of the minority or low income population in the county. 

Low income populations will be indentified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and 

Poverty. Minority population is defined as “any readily identifiable groups of minority 

persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically 

dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be 

similarly affected by a proposed program, policy, or activity”. Minorities include: Black, 

Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian and Alaskan Native. 

Environmental justice areas also include all Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs). 

EDAs are defined in the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 

amended in 1994. These areas are defined as areas that have a per capita income of 80 

percent or less of the national average or if it has an unemployment rate that is, for the 

most recent 24-month period, at least 1 percent greater than the national average 

unemployment rate based on unemployment rates available from the U.S Bureau of 

Labor and Statistics. 

Analyzing the location of the routes compared to the entire block group that has either a 

majority of minority populations, or that is considered to be low income can determine 

whether or not a particular route is adversely impacting groups that fall into these socioeconomic categories. 

Normative Statement: A route that impacts a fewer number of Environmental Justice 

block groups would be a more desirable route. 

The number of majority-minority block groups and the low-income block groups are 

detailed in Table 11-6 and represented graphically in Chart 11-22 and Chart 11-23. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-34 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 11-6. Environmental Justice Data 

 

Route 

Quantity of Block Groups That 

Contain a Majority of Low Income 

Populations Within 1⁄2-mile of the 

Track Centerline

Quantity of Block Groups That 

Contain a Majority of Minority 

Populations Within 1⁄2-mile of the 

Track Centerline

1 –Amtrak Route 191 354 

2 – AmtrakRochester 207 470 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 183 304 

4 – MWRRIMadison 206 354 

5 – MadisonRochester 222 450 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 198 304 

7 – Madison-Prairie 220 356 

8 – Madison-PrairieRochester 236 472 

9 – Madison-PrairieBNSF River 213 306 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 211 326 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 226 326 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 360 479 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

396 476 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 

372 479 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-35 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-22. Number of Block Groups That Contain a Majority of Low Income Populations Within 1⁄2-Mile of 

the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-36 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-23. Number of Block Groups That Contain a Majority of Minority Populations Within 1⁄2-

Mile of the Track Centerline

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11 have low quantities of block 

groups containing a majority of low income populations and a majority of minority 

populations within 1⁄2 mile of the track centerline. Overall, these routes are better than 

the remaining routes. 

11.7 Hazardous Materials 

Hazardous materials are materials that are dangerous or potentially harmful to our health 

or the environment. Hazardous materials can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludge. They 

can be discarded commercial products, like cleaning fluids or pesticides, or the byproducts of manufacturing processes. For the purposes of this analysis, only superfund 

sites adjacent to each route alternative are considered hazardous materials/waste. 

The number of hazardous materials sites that are present within a distance of a potential 

high speed rail route can significantly impact the feasibility of a particular route. A 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-37 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

hazardous materials site that is too close to a potential route may require mitigation and 

could result in significant delay to required improvements for a route. The data that was 

analyzed for hazardous materials sites came from the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Normative Statement: A route with fewer hazardous materials site impacts would be 

more desirable. 

The number of hazardous materials sites within 1⁄4-mile of the track centerline and within 

50’ of the track centerline are detailed in Table 11-7 and represented graphically in Chart 

11-24 and Chart 11-25. 

Table 11-7. Quantity of Hazardous Materials Sites 

Route 

Quantity of Hazardous 

Materials sites 1/4-mile 

from the Track 

Centerline

Quantity of Hazardous 

Materials Sites Located 50' 

from the Track Centerline

1 –Amtrak Route 2 0 

2 – AmtrakRochester 3 0 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 3 0 

4 – MWRRIMadison 2 0 

5 – MadisonRochester 3 0 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 3 0 

7 – Madison-Prairie 1 0 

8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 2 0 

9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF River 2 0 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 0 0 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 0 0 

12A – WyevilleEau Claire 1 0 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

3 0 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 

2 0 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-38 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-24. Hazardous Materials 1⁄4 mile from the Track Centerline 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-39 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Chart 11-25. Hazardous Materials 50’ from the Track Centerline 

Qualitative Assessment: Routes 7, 10, 11, and 12A have the fewest number of 

hazardous materials sites located 50’ and 1⁄4 mile from the track centerline. Overall, 

these routes are better than the remaining routes. 

11.8 Right-of-Way Takes 

For certain routes there are known areas that will require the acquisition of right-of-way in 

order to construct additional rail or rail features. Four (4) areas have been determined to 

require right-of-way takes of significant size and are detailed below. Specific 

environmental features that will be impacted by the right-of-way take are also included. 

11.8.1 La Crosse, WI – Grand Crossing, WI 

Improvements are required on the north or the south side of Grand Crossing in La 

Crosse, depending on the route chosen. The details for the property required for 

either side of the crossing are as follows: 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-40 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

North side - Property in the northwest quadrant will be needed if the decision were made 

to utilize either Route 3 (Amtrak-BNSF River) or Route 6 (Madison-BNSF River). The 

proposed connection between westbound Canadian Pacific and northbound BNSF at 

Grand Crossing requires that a new flyover between the CP & BNSF be constructed to 

avoid major property takes and business/residential relocations at Grand Crossing. The 

new track will cross both 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The track will also cross 

through a low income (Environmental Justice) block group. Additionally, the right-of-way 

take may impact an existing railroad building. 

In addition to the connection itself, property will also be required to allow relocation of the 

present-day Amtrak Station along the CP west of Grand Crossing, to a new location 

along the BNSF, north of Grand Crossing. In addition to Routes 3 (Amtrak-BNSF River) 

and 6 (Madison-BNSF River), if Route 9 (Madison-Prairie-BNSF River) were selected, a 

relocated station and the associated property take will be required. 

South side – Property in the southwest quadrant will be needed if the decision were 

made to utilize either Route 7 (MWRRI-Madison-Prairie) or Route 8 (Madison-PrairieRochester). The connection between northbound BNSF and westbound Canadian 

Pacific at Grand Crossing requires the construction of a separate track providing a 

connection to the depot (old Amtrak station). The connecting track must be long enough 

to allow a high-speed rail train to clear one railroad before obstructing the other so as to 

avoid successive delays on both railroads. This is especially true since the CP route may 

be obstructed with open river bridges that delay rail traffic (water traffic has the right of 

way at movable span rail bridges). This new track will impact 100-year and 500-year 

floodplain, a low income (Environmental Justice) block group and a 4(f) Statewide 

Habitat Area. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-41 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 11-1. La Crosse, WI-Grand Crossing, WI 

11.8.2 Prairie Du Chien, WI – Crawford, WI 

If Route 7 (MWRRI-Madison-Prairie), 8 (Madison-Prairie-Rochester) or 9 (MadisonPrairie-BNSF River) were selected, a connection between westbound WSOR and 

northbound BNSF must be constructed in the northeast quadrant of this rail crossing as 

shown below in Figure 2. The property take required at Crawford increases as the 

maximum operating speed desired at the connection increases. The lower the speed at 

the connection, the less property required. 

Right-of-way impacts include houses and archeological sites along the existing railroad 

and in the area that the new curve would be constructed. If the connecting track is 

designed for speeds of 10-15 MPH, the property required would be substantially reduced 

to a small corner of farm field and could likely avoid disturbances to archeological sites 

and the highway-rail grade crossing. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-42 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 11-2. Prairie du Chien, WI-Crawford Junction, WI 

11.8.3 Owatonna, MN 

If Routes 2 (Amtrak-Rochester), 5 (Madison-Rochester), or 8 (Madison-PrairieRochester) are selected, an existing connecting track between the CP (former C&NW 

and later DM&E) and the CP (former Milwaukee Road and later IC&E) will be utilized in 

Owatonna. This connection was selected to be used because the alternative connection, 

the CP (former C&NW and later DM&E) and the UPRR Albert Lea Subdivision, will 

require the construction of a very expensive structure and property takes to connect the 

at-grade CP to the 30-40 foot lower UPRR. The UPRR is located in a valley along the 

lower river route through Owatonna. Through Owatonna, the CP will be utilized. North 

of Owatonna, a new low-level bridge will be constructed to facilitate a connection 

between the CP and the UPRR. The impacts north of Owatonna include multiple low 

income and minority block groups (Environmental Justice) as well as potential wetland 

impacts. 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-43 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 11-3. Owatonna, MN 

11.8.4 St. Paul, MN – St. Paul Union Depot, MN 

If Routes 2 (Amtrak-Rochester), 5 (Madison-Rochester), or 8 (Madison-PrairieRochester) are selected, 50’ to 100’ of additional right-of-way will be required from Grand 

Avenue in South St. Paul to the Robert St Bridge over the Mississippi River just south of 

St Paul Union Depot. The proposed high-speed rail passenger track will be constructed 

on the geographic west side of the existing UPRR right of way along the bluff line. By 

using a combination of track rationalization and track realignment for the existing tracks 

in the area, and constructing retaining walls in limited areas of the new track, the need 

for property takes can be minimized. 

The selection of the west side alternative along the bluff is essential because the east 

side of the UPRR is the “working side” of the yard where the yard switching leads, 

roadway and maintenance access, industry track switches and the mainline via the 

Hoffman Avenue Bridge to Hoffman Avenue Yard are located. These represent frequent 

and slow freight train movement conflicts and would significantly threaten high-speed rail 

service reliability. 

This additional right-of-way will impact 6(f) protected land (Mississippi National River and 

Recreation Area), low income, and minority block groups (environmental justice). 

 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-44 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 11-4. St. Paul, MN-St. Paul Union Depot, MN 
Alternatives Selection Report 

11.0 – Environmental Features 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 11-45 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

11.9 Results of Qualitative Assessment 

The routes were assigned a color rating, as described in section 2.2, for the number of 

floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, historical/archaeological 

sites, section 4(f)/6(f) sites, environmental justice, and hazmat sites along each route 

based on the qualitative assessment completed for these measures. Using the color 

rating for the measures, an overall travel time rating was assigned to each route based 

on the number of “green”, “yellow”, and “red” ratings the measures received. 

Prior to the March 11 workshop, Quandel Consultants prepared a qualitative assessment 

and rating of each route based on the data provided in the Environmental Features 

section of the Alternatives Selection Report. At the workshop, the teams reviewed the 

environmental data and were asked to review the assessment and ratings provided. The 

teams came to the consensus that the provided assessment and ratings were consistent 

with the teams’ assessment of the environmental data, and accepted the ratings. 

The teams determined that environmental features were not a discriminator in this level 

of the project. The environmental specialists stated that the data was not specific 

enough to eliminate routes based on environmental features. The teams agreed that 

environmental features would not be used to identify the reasonable and feasible 

passenger rail alternatives, but would be used after the reasonable and feasible routes 

were identified to justify moving the routes into a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. 

Additionally, the states asked that a sensitivity analysis be prepared to determine how 

the results of the overall qualitative assessment of the routes would change if the 

environmental features data were considered. The sensitivity analysis is shown in the 

conclusions section. 

Table 11-8 depicts the color rating for each route for the measures and the overall 

environmental features criteria. 

 
Alter

11.0 – E

October 26, 2011 Page 11-46 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 11-8. Results of Qualitative Assessment 

Route Floodplains Wetlands 

Threatened/ 

Endangered 

Species 

Historical/ 

Archaeological 

Sites 

4(f)/6(f) 

Sites 

Environmental 

Justice 

Haz

Si

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – AmtrakRochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRIMadison 

5 – MadisonRochester 6 – MadisonBNSF River 7 – MadisonPrairie 8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF 

River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – WyevilleEau Claire 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du LacChip-TC 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-1 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

12.0 RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF 

POTENTIAL PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVES 

12.1 Introduction 

The purpose of the March 11, 2011 workshop was to identify a set of reasonable and 

feasible passenger rail alternatives for further analysis in a Tier 1 EIS. In order to do so, 

the workshop participants used the data presented on Route Characteristics, Travel 

Time, Market Size, Capital Cost, Operating Cost, Safety, Reliability, System 

Connectivity, and Environmental Features to give an overall qualitative assessment to 

each of the routes. Sections 3.0-11.0 of this report present all of the data that was used 

by the participants to reach a consensus-based assessment on the nine evaluation 

criteria for each route. Table 12-1 depicts the consensus-based qualitative assessments 

for the potential passenger rail alternatives. 

The measures for each evaluation criterion are assessed to ensure that a potential 

passenger rail alternative complements the project purpose and project need for the 

proposed action to qualify as a reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative. The 

potential passenger rail alternative that does not meet the project purpose and the 

project need of the proposed action will be eliminated. 

As stated in sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3, the purpose of the proposed action is to meet 

future regional travel demand and provide intermodal connectivity to existing and 

planned transportation systems in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The proposed action offers 

an opportunity to provide reliable and competitive passenger rail service as an attractive 

alternative transportation choice between Milwaukee and Twin Cities by: 

 Decreasing travel times, 

 Increasing frequency of service, and 

 Providing safe and reliable service. 

In addition, the project will: 

 Improve overall system connectivity in the interstate transportation network in 

conformance with statewide and regional transportation plans 

 Provide accessibility to major population centers, 

 Improve freight rail mobility, and 

 Minimize environmental impacts. 

The need for the proposed action is based on the limitations and vulnerabilities of 

available travel modes between Milwaukee and Twin Cities. Existing transportation 

modes, including highway, bus, and air travel, have inherent problems including 

congested highways near the Milwaukee, Madison, and Twin Cities metro areas and 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

airport capacity issues at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Milwaukee’s 

General Mitchell International Airport. Improved and expanded passenger rail service 

can provide an alternative mode and/or relief to these congested roadways and airports. 

The need for the proposed action exists because: 

1. Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a significant 

burden on existing transportation infrastructure 

2. Competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel do not exist in the 

corridor 

3. As travel demand increases a new travel mode must be reliable to attract riders 

from existing travel modes ; 

4. Intermodal connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. 
Alter

October 26, 2011 Page 12-3 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Table 12-1. Consensus-Based Qualitative Assessment 

Routes Route Characteristics Travel Time Market Size Capital Cost Operating Cost Safety Reliability System Connect

1 –Amtrak Route 

2 – AmtrakRochester 

3 – Amtrak-BNSF 

River 

4 – MWRRIMadison 

5 – MadisonRochester 

6 – Madison-BNSF 

River 

7 – Madison-Prairie 

8 – MadisonPrairie-Rochester 9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF River 

10 – Amtrak-Eau 

Claire 

11 – Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

12A – Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

13 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-Eau 

Claire 

14 – MilwaukeeFond du Lac-ChipTC 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-4 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

12.2 Routes of Concern 

The participants determined that the most efficient way to identify the reasonable and 

feasible passenger rail alternatives is to identify the routes that do not satisfy the project 

purpose and the project need and, therefore, are NOT reasonable and feasible. The 

initial task is to identify “routes of concern.” Routes of concern are those routes that, 

when assessed to the normative statements, were assigned a “red” rating for multiple 

evaluation criterion. Table 12-2 shows the evaluation criterion that received a “red” 

rating for each route. 
October 26, 2011 Page 12-5 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Table 12-2. Routes of Concern

Routes Route Characteristics Travel Time Automobile Travel Time Overall Travel Time Market Size Capital Cost Operating Cost Safety Number of At-Grade Crossings Reliability Syste

Connect

1 –Amtrak 

Route 

2 – AmtrakRochester X X X 3 – AmtrakBNSF River 

4 – MWRRIMadison 

5 – MadisonRochester X X X X X X 6 – MadisonBNSF River 7 – MadisonPrairie X 8 – MadisonPrairieRochester X X X X X X 9 – MadisonPrairie-BNSF 

River 

 X 

10 – AmtrakEau Claire 

11 – 

Madison-Eau 

Claire-TC 

 X X 

12A – 

Wyeville-Eau 

Claire 

 X 

13 – 

MilwaukeeFond du LacEau Claire X X X 

14 – 

MilwaukeeFond du LacChip-TC X X X 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-6 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Routes 2, 5, 8, 13, and 14 are considered Routes of Concern because, based on the 

agreed normative statement, each has multiple “red” qualitative assessments. 

Specifically: 

 Route 2 - Amtrak-Rochester 

o Route Characteristics - Route 2 has 164 miles (42% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. However, Route 2 

encounters significant grades between Winona and Rochester. The track 

has a 600 foot elevation change from the river basin area to the plateau 

to Rochester over a short distance. 

o Automobile Travel Time – Since the travel time for Route 2 is close to the 

automobile travel time, the route received a “red” assessment 

o Safety – Route 2 has a high number of rail-rail crossings and at-grade 

crossings compared to the other routes. 

 Route 5 – Madison-Rochester 

o Route Characteristics - Route 5 has 163 miles (40% of the total route 

miles) of single track on a double track roadbed. However, Route 5 

encounters significant grades between Winona and Rochester. Similarly 

to Route 2, the track has a 600 foot elevation change from the river basin 

area to the plateau to Rochester over a short distance. . 

o Travel Time - Route 5 was assessed as having one of the worst travel 

times because of the increased distance traveled through Madison and 

Rochester, and at least one reverse move is required. Additionally, 

Route 5 has a travel time greater than the automobile travel time. 

Overall, the route received a “red” assessment. 

o Operating Costs - Route 5 had one of the highest track maintenance 

costs and therefore received a “red” assessment. 

o Safety - Route 5 has a high number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes and therefore received a “red” assessment. 

 Route 8 – Madison-Prairie-Rochester 

o Travel Time - Route 8 was assessed as having one of the worst travel 

times because of the increased distance traveled through Madison and 

Rochester, and at least one reverse move is required. Additionally, 

Route 8 has a travel time greater than the automobile travel time. The 

route received a “red” assessment. 

o Capital Costs - The cost to upgrade to high-speed rail was high and the 

cyclic capital costs were high for Route 8. Overall, the route received a 

“red” assessment. 

o Operating Costs - Route 8 had the highest track maintenance cost of all 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-7 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

the routes and therefore received a “red” assessment. 

o Safety - Route 8 has a high number of rail-rail and at-grade crossings 

compared to the other routes and therefore received a “red” assessment. 

 Route 13 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Eau Claire 

o Route Characteristics – 65% of the total track miles is single track without 

a second roadbed – this is an indication that the route does not have the 

capacity to accommodate faster trains; only 6% of the total track miles is 

double track; and the route has almost 21 miles of grades that are 

greater than 1% - this indicates that trains will not be able to travel quickly 

over this route. Overall, this route received a “red” assessment. 

o Number of At-Grade Crossings – Route 13 has a very high number of atgrade crossings. The higher the number of crossings, the less safe the 

system. The route received a “red” assessment. 

o Reliability - Route 13 has a high number of freight conflicts and handoffs 

between railroads. Furthermore, The UPRR handles unit coal trains from 

Wyoming’s Powder River Basin to St. Paul, and then to Hudson using the 

St. Croix River swing bridge in Hudson. Once the train clears the junction 

switch at Lakeland Junction, the train makes a reverse move from the 

main track at Hudson north up the former CMStP&P branch to the 

electrical generating station at Stillwater, MN. The movements are made 

at a speed of approximately 5 MPH and occupy the UPRR’s single main 

track in the vicinity of the river bridge for a period of about one hour. 

While these loaded and empty coal train movements are occurring, no 

other trains may move through this bottleneck location. This is a severe 

reliability issue. Overall, this route received a “red” assessment. 

 Route 14 – Milwaukee-Fond du Lac-Chip-TC 

o Route Characteristics – 91% of Route 14’s total track miles is single track 

without a second roadbed – an indication that the route does not have 

the capacity to accommodate faster trains; only 4% of the total track 

miles is double track; the route has almost 38 miles of track with a degree 

of curvature greater than 45 minutes – an indication that trains will not be 

able to travel quickly over this track. Overall, this route received a “red” 

assessment. 

o Automobile Travel Time – Route 14 has a travel time of 5 hours and 18 

minutes and is 12 minutes shorter than the automobile travel time, as 

shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. As stated above, this route does not meet 

the project purpose of decreasing travel time and the project need for 

providing competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel. Overall, 

this route received a “red” assessment. 

o Number of At-Grade Crossings – Route 14 has a very high number of atgrade crossings. The higher the number of crossings, the less safe the 

system. The route received a “red” assessment. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-8 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Because Route 2 does not meet the project purpose of decreasing travel times and 

providing safe and reliable service, and the project need for competitive and attractive 

alternative modes of travel, Route 2 is eliminated from further analysis. 

Because Route 5 does not meet the project purpose of decreasing travel times and 

providing safe and reliable service, and the project need for competitive and attractive 

alternative modes of travel, Route 5 is eliminated from further analysis. 

Because Route 8 does not meet the project purpose of decreasing travel times and 

providing safe and reliable service, and the project need for competitive and attractive 

alternative modes of travel, Route 8 is eliminated from further analysis. 

Route 13 does not meet the project purpose of providing safe and reliable service, and 

the project need that a new travel mode must be reliable. Furthermore, a second main 

track is required to be built to accommodate high-speed passenger rail service on new 

roadbed and embankment. The construction of the second main track has the potential 

for severe environmental concerns on wetlands along the route. Figure 12-1 depicts a 

map of Route 13 and Route 14 between Milwaukee and Chippewa Falls showing the 

locations of wetlands along the route. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-9 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 12-1. Map of Route 13 and Route 14 Wetland Locations 

Figure 12-1 denotes the location of wetlands with a red hatch mark. Throughout this 

entire area, a second main track is required to be built on new roadbed and 

embankment. At these locations, the new main track will be built within the wetland. 

Overall, Route 13 passes through 40 miles (11% of the total track miles) of wetlands. 

Additionally, Route 13 passes through 25 miles (7% of the total track miles) of critical 

habitat. Figure 12-2 depicts a map of Route 13 between Milwaukee and Neenah 

showing the locations of critical habitat along the route. 

Furthermore, Route 13 has very high values of the number of block groups that contain a 

majority of low income populations and the number of block groups that contain a 

majority of minority populations. Any impacts in that area would have to be analyzed to 

determine if impacts would be “disproportionately high and adverse”. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-10 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 12-2. Map of Route 13 and Route 14 Critical Habitat Locations

Because Route 13 does not meet the project purpose of providing safe and reliable 

service, and the project need that a new travel mode must be reliable, and has the 

potential for severe environmental concerns, Route 13 is eliminated from further 

analysis. 

Route 14 does not meet the project purpose of reducing travel time and providing safe 

and reliable service, and the project need for competitive and attractive alternative 

modes of travel and that a new travel mode must be reliable. Furthermore, a second 

main track is required to be built to accommodate high-speed passenger rail service on 

new roadbed and embankment. The construction of the second main track has the 

potential for severe environmental concerns on wetlands along the route. Figure 12-1 

depicts a map of Route 14 between Milwaukee and Chippewa Falls showing the 

locations of wetlands along the route. Throughout this entire area, a second main track 

is required to be built on new roadbed and embankment. At these locations, the new 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-11 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

main track will be built within the wetland. Overall, Route 14 passes through 45 miles 

(12% of the total track miles) of wetlands. 

Additionally, Route 14 passes through 26 miles (7% of the total track miles) of critical 

habitat. Figure 12-2 depicts a map of Route 14 between Milwaukee and Neenah 

showing the locations of critical habitat along the route. 

Furthermore, Route 14 has very high values of the number of block groups that contain a 

majority of low income populations and the number of block groups that contain a 

majority of minority populations. Any impacts in that area would have to be analyzed to 

determine if impacts would be “disproportionately high and adverse”. 

Because Route 14 does not meet the project purpose of reducing travel time and 

providing safe and reliable service, and the project need for competitive and attractive 

alternative modes of travel and that a new travel mode must be reliable, and has the 

potential for severe environmental concerns, Route 14 is eliminated from further 

analysis. 

12.3 Environmental Sensitivity Analysis 

In section 11.0 of this report, data was presented on the seven environmental “impacts”: 

floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, historical/cultural resources, 

section 4(f)/6(f) sites, environmental justice, and hazardous materials sites. 

Environmental Features is an important evaluation criterion because a project purpose is 

to minimize environmental impacts. The Environmental Features Strip Maps prepared 

for each route, included as Appendix O, are used to identify areas with the potential for 

severe environmental concerns. Routes with the potential for severe environmental 

concerns are eliminated from further analysis. 

Sections 12.3.1 and 12.3.2 discuss the potential severe environmental concerns with 

right-of-way takes in the corridor and environmental impacts along the Mississippi River. 

12.3.1 Environmental Concerns due to Right-of-Way Takes 

As stated in section 11.8: 

 La Crosse, WI – Grand Crossing, WI: 

Improvements are required on the north or the south side of Grand Crossing in 

La Crosse, depending on the route chosen. The details for the property required 

for either side of the crossing are as follows: 

o North side - Property in the northwest quadrant will be needed if the 

decision were made to utilize either Route 3 (Amtrak-BNSF River) or 

Route 6 (Madison-BNSF River). The proposed connection between 

westbound Canadian Pacific and northbound BNSF at Grand Crossing 

requires that a new flyover between the CP & BNSF be constructed to 

avoid major property takes and business/residential relocations at Grand 

Crossing. The new track will cross both 100-year and 500-year 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-12 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

floodplains. The track will also cross through a low income 

(Environmental Justice) block group. Additionally, the right-of-way take 

may impact an existing railroad building. 

o In addition to the connection itself, property will also be required to allow 

relocation of the present-day Amtrak Station along the CP west of Grand 

Crossing, to a new location along the BNSF, north of Grand Crossing. In 

addition to Routes 3 (Amtrak-BNSF River) and 6 (Madison-BNSF River), 

if Route 9 (Madison-Prairie-BNSF River) were selected, a relocated 

station and the associated property take will be required. 

o South side – Property in the southwest quadrant will be needed if the 

decision were made to utilize either Route 7 (MWRRI-Madison-Prairie) or 

Route 8 (Madison-Prairie-Rochester). The connection between 

northbound BNSF and westbound Canadian Pacific at Grand Crossing 

requires the construction of a separate track providing a connection to 

the depot (old Amtrak station). The connecting track must be long 

enough to allow a high-speed rail train to clear one railroad before 

obstructing the other so as to avoid “tumble-down” delays on both 

railroads. This is especially true since the CP route may be obstructed 

with open river bridges that delay rail traffic (water traffic has the right of 

way at movable span rail bridges). This new track will impact 100-year 

and 500-year floodplain, a low income (Environmental Justice) block 

group and a 4(f) Statewide Habitat Area. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-13 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 12-3. La Crosse, WI-Grand Crossing, WI 

 Prairie Du Chien, WI – Crawford, WI: 

o If Route 7 (MWRRI-Madison-Prairie), 8 (Madison-Prairie-Rochester) or 9 

(Madison-Prairie-BNSF River) were selected, a connection between 

westbound WSOR and northbound BNSF must be constructed in the 

northeast quadrant of this rail crossing as shown below in Figure 2. The 

property take required at Crawford increases as the maximum operating 

speed desired at the connection increases. The lower the speed at the 

connection, the less property required. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-14 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o Right-of-way impacts include houses and archeological sites along the 

existing railroad and in the area that the new curve would be constructed. 

If the connecting track is designed for speeds of 10-15 MPH, the property 

required would be substantially reduced to a small corner of farm field 

and could likely avoid disturbances to archeological sites and the 

highway-rail grade crossing. 

Figure 12-4. Prairie du Chien, WI-Crawford Junction, WI 

 Owatonna, MN 

o If Routes 2 (Amtrak-Rochester), 5 (Madison-Rochester), or 8 (MadisonPrairie-Rochester) are selected, an existing connecting track between the 

CP (former C&NW and later DM&E) and the CP (former Milwaukee Road 

and later IC&E) will be utilized in Owatonna. This connection was 

selected to be used because the alternative connection, the CP (former 

C&NW and later DM&E) and the UPRR Albert Lea Subdivision, will 

require the construction of a very expensive structure and property takes 

to connect the at-grade CP to the 30-40 foot lower UPRR. The UPRR is 

located in a valley along the lower river route through Owatonna. 

Through Owatonna, the CP will be utilized. North of Owatonna, a new 

low-level bridge will be constructed to facilitate a connection between the 

CP and the UPRR. The impacts north of Owatonna include multiple low 

income and minority block groups (Environmental Justice) as well as 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-15 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

potential wetland impacts. 

Figure 12-5. Owatonna, MN 

 St. Paul, MN – St. Paul Union Depot, MN: 

o If Routes 2 (Amtrak-Rochester), 5 (Madison-Rochester), or 8 (MadisonPrairie-Rochester) are selected, 50’ to 100’ of additional right-of-way will 

be required from Grand Avenue in South St. Paul to the Robert St Bridge 

over the Mississippi River just south of St Paul Union Depot. The 

proposed high-speed rail passenger track will be constructed on the 

geographic west side of the existing UPRR right of way along the bluff 

line. By using a combination of track rationalization and track realignment 

for the existing tracks in the area, and constructing retaining walls in 

limited areas of the new track, the need for property takes can be 

minimized. 

o The selection of the west side alternative along the bluff is essential 

because the east side of the UPRR is the “working side” of the yard 

where the yard switching leads, roadway and maintenance access, 

industry track switches and the mainline via the Hoffman Avenue Bridge 

to Hoffman Avenue Yard are located. These represent frequent and slow 

freight train movement conflicts and would significantly threaten highspeed rail service reliability. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-16 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

o This additional right-of-way will impact 6(f) protected land (Mississippi 

National River and Recreation Area), low income, and minority block 

groups (environmental justice). 

Figure 12-6. St. Paul, MN-St. Paul Union Depot, MN 

12.3.2 Environmental Impacts along the Mississippi River 

Segment J – Prairie du Chien, WI – La Crosse, WI - This segment is presently a BNSF 

double track main line. In order to provide HSR service within the segment, a new third 

main track is required. A CTC signal system for the new third main and PTC overlay for 

all tracks will be added to the segment forming a new 3 main track system. A new control 

point with universal crossovers will be provided within the segment to provide operational 

flexibility; existing control points will be maintained “as is” or expanded to include the new 

third track. The railroad right of way in this segment does not have sufficient width to 

support the construction of a third main without the need for right-of-way acquisition. 

Figure 12-7 depicts Lynxville, WI. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-17 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 12-7. Lynxville, WI

Segment Q – La Crosse, WI-Hastings, MN - This segment is presently a BNSF double 

track main line. In order to provide HSR service within the segment, a new third main 

track is required. A CTC signal system for the new third main and PTC overlay for all 

tracks will be added to the segment forming a new 3 main track system. New control 

points with universal crossovers will be provided within the segment to provide 

operational flexibility; existing control points will be maintained “as is” or expanded to 

include the new third track. The railroad right of way in this segment does not have 

sufficient width to support the construction of a third main without the need for right-ofway acquisition. Figure 12-8 depicts East Winona, MN. 

To La Crosse

Mississippi

River

BNSF

To Prairie du Chien
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-18 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 12-8. East Winona, MN 

Due to the position of the track between the Mississippi River to the west and the slope 

of the bluff along the eastern side of the railroad, adding a third track in many places will 

require building out into the river or cutting away the slope of the bluff; both of these 

approaches are considered within the cost estimate. Because of its proximity to the 

Mississippi River and the associated flood plains, drainage areas and wetlands along the 

eastern shore, it should be anticipated that there will be environmental permitting and 

remediation required for any construction in this sub-segment. There may be areas 

where construction outside the existing railroad right of way is completely prohibitive. The 

extent of this potential project cost has not been estimated, primarily because of the 

large number of unknown factors at this level of planning, but also because as design 

advances, requirements and assumptions may be able to be adapted to the situation 

lessening the potential impacts to the environment and lowering the associated cost. 

12.3.3 Environmental Conclusions 

Routes 3, 6, 7, and 9 have environmental concerns that include the following: 

 Route 3 – Amtrak-BNSF River 

o Route 3 utilizes Segment Q between La Crosse and Hastings and will 

require a third track to be built into the river or into the slope of the bluff 

along the river; substantial environmental permitting and remediation will 

be required and in some areas, construction outside the railroad right-ofway will be prohibitive 

o Between La Crosse and Grand Crossing, a new connection will be 

required to connect the Canadian Pacific to the BNSF - a new flyover will 

be constructed to avoid major property takes and business/residential 

BNSF to

St. Croix Junction

Mississippi

River

BNSF on

Causeway

BNSF to La

Crosse
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-19 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

relocations at Grand Crossing. The new track will cross both 100-year 

and 500-year floodplains. The track will also cross through a low income 

(Environmental Justice) block group. Additionally, the right-of-way take 

may impact an existing railroad building 

o In addition to the connection itself, property will also be required to allow 

relocation of the present-day Amtrak Station along the CP west of Grand 

Crossing, to a new location along the BNSF, north of Grand Crossing 

 Route 6 – Madison-BNSF River 

o Route 6 utilizes Segment Q between La Crosse and Hastings and will 

require a third track to be built into the river or into the slope of the bluff 

along the river; substantial environmental permitting and remediation will 

be required and in some areas, construction outside the railroad right-ofway will be prohibitive 

o Between La Crosse and Grand Crossing, a new connection will be 

required to connect the Canadian Pacific to the BNSF - a new flyover will 

be constructed to avoid major property takes and business/residential 

relocations at Grand Crossing. The new track will cross both 100-year 

and 500-year floodplains. The track will also cross through a low income 

(Environmental Justice) block group. Additionally, the right-of-way take 

may impact an existing railroad building 

o In addition to the connection itself, property will also be required to allow 

relocation of the present-day Amtrak Station along the CP west of Grand 

Crossing, to a new location along the BNSF, north of Grand Crossing 

 Route 7 – Madison-Prairie 

o Route 7 utilizes Segment J between Prairie du Chien and La Crosse and 

will require a third track to be built into the river or into the slope of the 

bluff along the river; substantial environmental permitting and remediation 

will be required and in some areas, construction outside the railroad rightof-way will be prohibitive 

o Between La Crosse and Grand Crossing, a new connection will be 

required to connect the BNSF to Canadian Pacific – this requires the 

construction of a separate track providing a connection to the depot (old 

Amtrak station). The connecting track must be long enough to allow a 

high-speed rail train to clear one railroad before obstructing the other so 

as to avoid “tumble-down” delays on both railroads. This is especially true 

since the CP route may be obstructed with open river bridges that delay 

rail traffic (water traffic has the right of way at movable span rail bridges). 

This new track will impact 100-year and 500-year floodplain, a low 

income (Environmental Justice) block group and a 4(f) Statewide Habitat 

Area 

o A connection between westbound WSOR and northbound BNSF in 

Prairie du Chien must be constructed in the northeast quadrant. The 

property take required at Crawford increases as the maximum operating 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-20 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

speed desired at the connection increases 

 Route 9 – Madison-Prairie-BNSF River 

o Route 9 utilizes Segment J between Prairie du Chien and La Crosse and 

Segment Q between La Crosse and Hastings and will require a third 

track to be built into the river or into the slope of the bluff along the river; 

substantial environmental permitting and remediation will be required and 

in some areas, construction outside the railroad right-of-way will be 

prohibitive 

o A connection between westbound WSOR and northbound BNSF in 

Prairie du Chien must be constructed in the northeast quadrant. The 

property take required at Crawford increases as the maximum operating 

speed desired at the connection increases 

Because Route 3 does not meet the project purpose of minimizing environmental 

impacts, Route 3 is eliminated from further analysis. 

Because Route 6 does not meet the project purpose of minimizing environmental 

impacts, Route 6 is eliminated from further analysis. 

Because Route 7 does not meet the project purpose of minimizing environmental 

impacts, Route 7 is eliminated from further analysis. 

Because Route 9 does not meet the project purpose of minimizing environmental 

impacts, Route 9 is eliminated from further analysis. 

12.4 Purpose and Need Sensitivity Analysis 

12.4.1 Review of Project Purpose and Project Need

As stated in sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3, the purpose of the proposed action is to meet 

future regional travel demand and provide intermodal connectivity to existing and 

planned transportation systems in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The proposed action offers 

an opportunity to provide reliable and competitive passenger rail service as an attractive 

alternative transportation choice between Milwaukee and Twin Cities by: 

 Decreasing travel times, 

 Increasing frequency of service, and 

 Providing safe and reliable service. 

In addition, the project will: 

 Improve overall system connectivity in the interstate transportation network in 

conformance with statewide and regional transportation plans 

 Provide accessibility to major population centers, 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-21 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

 Improve freight rail mobility, and 

 Minimize environmental impacts. 

The need for the proposed action is based on the limitations and vulnerabilities of 

available travel modes between Milwaukee and Twin Cities. Existing transportation 

modes, including highway, bus, and air travel, have inherent problems including 

congested highways near the Milwaukee, Madison, and Twin Cities metro areas and 

airport capacity issues at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Milwaukee’s 

General Mitchell International Airport. Improved and expanded passenger rail service 

can provide an alternative mode and/or relief to these congested roadways and airports. 

The need for the proposed action exists because: 

1. Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a significant 

burden on existing transportation infrastructure 

2. Competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel do not exist in the 

corridor 

3. As travel demand increases a new travel mode must be reliable to attract riders 

from existing travel modes ; 

4. Intermodal connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. 

It is essential to the success of the project that each of the identified reasonable and 

feasible passenger rail alternatives meets the purpose of the project. The remaining 

potential passenger rail alternatives, Routes 1, 4, 10, 11, and 12A are compared to the 

project purpose and the project need to identify any routes that do not meet the purpose 

or need. These routes that do not meet the project purpose and project need will be 

eliminated from further analysis. 

12.4.2 Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives that do not Meet the Purpose and 

Need

Route 12A has a low number of connections to inter-city passenger rail lines, local bus 

lines, inter-city bus lines, airports, and bike paths/trails. Route 12A does not meet the 

project purpose of improving overall system connectivity in the interstate transportation 

network in conformance with statewide and regional transportation plans, and the project 

need that intermodal connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. 

Additionally, Route 12A has the lowest route population of all of the potential passenger 

rail alternatives. This indicates that Route 12A does not provide a good opportunity for a 

potential ridership base. Route 12A does not meet the project purpose of providing 

accessibility to major population centers. Therefore, Route 12A is eliminated from further 

analysis. 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-22 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

12.5 Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail 

Alternatives 

12.5.1 Final Evaluation of Routes 

A final evaluation is made to determine other distinct and significant variations between 

the remaining routes, Routes 1, 4, 10, and 11. Of these four routes, Routes 1 and 10 

best met the purpose of decreasing travel time in the corridor, with essentially 

comparable end-to-end travel times determined by the TPC modeling. Notably, these 

two routes also were the only two that were ranked “green” or “more likely reasonable 

and feasible” without any “red” or “poor” assessments given in any single major category 

in the final cumulative analyses determined in the Consensus-Based Qualitative 

Assessment. In comparing these routes to one another, Route 1 has the following 

advantages over the other routes: 

 Route 1 has 0.0 miles of significant grades while Route 4 has 4.87 miles, Route 

10 has 14.38 miles, and Route 11 has 19.25 miles of significant grades. 

 Travel time between MTI and Milwaukee is 33 minutes less than Route 4 (route 

that connects to Madison), 3 minutes less than Route 10 through Eau Claire, and 

42 minutes less than Route 11 through Madison and Eau Claire; 

 Capital cost of Route 1 is $141 million less than Route 4, $550 million less than 

Route 10, and $690 million less than Route 11; 

 Track maintenance cost of Route 1 is $979,000 less than Route 4, $630,000 less 

than Route 10, and $1.608 million less than Route 11; and 

 99.8% of Route 1 has CTC while only 85.4% of Route 4, 45.5% of Route 10, and 

29.8% of Route 11 have CTC 

Additionally, Route 1 most successfully meets each purpose and need for the proposed 

action to construct and operate a high-speed passenger rail corridor between Milwaukee 

and Minneapolis/St. Paul. 

The purpose of the proposed action is to meet future regional travel demand and provide 

intermodal connectivity to existing and planned transportation systems in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin. The proposed action offers an opportunity to provide reliable and competitive 

passenger rail service as an attractive alternative transportation choice between 

Milwaukee and Twin Cities by: 

 Decreasing travel times, 

 Increasing frequency of service, and 

 Providing safe and reliable service. 

Route 1 meets the project purpose since: 

 It has one of the lowest travel times of all the routes and is 55 minutes shorter 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-23 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

than the automobile travel time. 

 It will allow for increased train frequency; 

 It provides safe and reliable service as demonstrated in sections 8 and 9; 

 It provides opportunities for intermodal connectivity as shown in section 10; 

 It will provide opportunities for improved freight rail mobility through 

improvements to infrastructure; and 

 It will have the lowest environmental impacts on the surrounding area because 

the route is currently utilized for Amtrak’s Empire Builder route and minimal 

additional right-of-way takes are required. 

The need for the proposed action is based on the limitations and vulnerabilities of 

available travel modes between Milwaukee and Twin Cities. Existing transportation 

modes, including highway, bus, and air travel, have inherent problems including 

congested highways near the Milwaukee, Madison, and Twin Cities metro areas and 

airport capacity issues at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Milwaukee’s 

General Mitchell International Airport. Improved and expanded passenger rail service 

can provide an alternative mode and/or relief to these congested roadways and airports. 

The need for the proposed action exists because: 

1. Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a significant 

burden on existing transportation infrastructure; 

2. Competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel do not exist in the 

corridor; 

3. As travel demand increases a new travel mode must be reliable to attract riders 

from existing travel modes; and 

4. Intermodal connectivity among existing transportation systems is limited. 

The analysis demonstrates that Routes 1, 4, 10, and 11 meet the need of travel demand 

that is projected to increase within the corridor; provide reliable service with the proposed 

infrastructure improvements; and offer intermodal connectivity. 

However, Route 1 provides the greatest advantage of all routes by offering a competitive 

and attractive alternative mode of transportation. In order to attract rail users, the 

proposed action must provide conveniences that are competitive with or better than 

conveniences provided by other transportation modes. This need is addressed by 

decreasing travel time from the current 6 hours and 30 minutes which is the existing 

travel time for the Empire Builder between the Twin Cities and Milwaukee and also 

increasing the frequency of passenger rail service. Development of this route would not 

only establish high-speed, high-frequency passenger rail service, but also complement 

existing Amtrak service and improve its flexibility. Section 6 of this Report details the 

costs to upgrade the route alternatives. Additionally, corridor project team members 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-24 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

including FRA and Amtrak representatives are cognizant of the recent vacillation to 

completely fund the full high speed rail corridors in single funding cycle in favor of partial 

or incremental funding and building of a passenger rail route in phases allowing for 

incremental increases in frequency as well as “phased” reduction in travel time. 

The Vision of the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 

is to develop a robust intrastate and interstate intercity passenger rail system which 

results in improved travel options, costs and speeds for Minnesota and interstate 

travelers. One of the priority program elements identified in the Statewide Rail Plan is to 

advance corridors incrementally and simultaneously with Mn/DOT’s support; sequencing 

depending on financing, ROW acquisition and agreements with freight railroads135. 

Project representatives considered the Vision and priority program of the Minnesota 

Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan in the final evaluation. 

Section 4.2.2 of the draft Project Purpose and Need acknowledges that improvements to 

infrastructure and mitigation of freight capacity issues can allow for increased train 

frequency and reduced travel times for passenger rail service in the corridor. Route 1 

currently has passenger service in that Amtrak’s Empire Builder serves the corridor, and, 

therefore, provides the best opportunity to implement a phased approach for 

infrastructure improvements and freight mitigation. The proper phasing of the 

improvements will achieve incremental reduction in travel time for each improvement 

allowing for an incremental increase in frequency of passenger rail service. In fact, 

Mn/DOT and WisDOT are currently exploring with Amtrak the feasibility of increasing the 

frequency of the current service from one round-trip per day to two with the introduction 

of the second Empire Builder train between the Twin Cities and Chicago via Milwaukee. 

Routes 4, 10, and 11 do not offer this benefit since each route requires significant capital 

investment prior to the introduction of any passenger rail train service. Appendix L 

details the capital cost estimates for each route alternative. The Watertown- MadisonPortage segments need building prior to the introduction of passenger rail service on 

Route 4. The estimated capital improvements for these segments are in excess of $500 

million. Route 10 requires the complete build of the Camp Douglas-Eau Claire-St Paul 

segments from Camp Douglas. Route 11, which also serves Eau Claire, would require 

the complete build of the Route 4 and Route 10 segments. The estimated capital 

improvements for Route 10 and 11 needed prior to introducing any passenger rail 

service is in excess of $1.8 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively. While Route 10 in 

particular is indicated as a viable option for future expansion if and when a large and fullcoverage funding source can be obtained, waiting for this resource to materialize may 

unduly delay service implementation. 

Given all of the aforementioned considerations, project representatives determined that 

one reason to identify Route 1 as the reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative 

is because of the opportunities to incrementally implement a reduction in travel time and 

increase in frequency by phasing the build-out of the route. This phased approach 

 

135 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan, February 2010 
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-25 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

recognizes the constraints associated with funding requirements for major infrastructure 

improvements at the state and federal levels and is consistent with the Minnesota 

Statewide Rail Plan. 

In their oversight role, the Federal Railroad Administration has consistently sought to 

address concerns raised by interested parties from Wisconsin and Southeastern 

Minnesota, who advocate for a different routing, by explaining that the EIS is intended to 

look at “near-term” options for expanded passenger service in the corridor (e.g. “Phase 

1” of the MWRRI), and that a full build-out of the corridor in the longer term will examine 

other route alternatives. The project partners continue to operate in the context of the 

long-range vision that this is the first incremental step or a ‘near-term’ focus of a highspeed passenger rail alternative in a highly viable corridor, one that in future phases will 

provide significantly better service in terms of speeds, frequency, supplemental routes 

and connections, and service coverage area as part of a full, robust system, ultimately 

with much enhanced levels of effectiveness and economic benefits. The state DOT 

representatives and the FRA are in concurrence on this approach and vision. 

Additionally, on August 31, 2011, Wisconsin’s Secretary of Transportation sent a letter to 

Mn/DOT stating that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will no longer pursue 

the continuation of the Milwaukee-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Study at this time. The 

letter further stated that WisDOT will continue to support intercity passenger rail by 

focusing Wisconsin’s resources on the Hiawatha and Empire Builder routes that have 

successfully serviced Wisconsin residents over the last 20 years. The letter further 

states that improving and enhancing these routes is Wisconsin’s first priority. The letter 

is attached as Appendix P. 

Because Route 1 more clearly meets the purpose and need, specifically related to a 

phased approach for implementation of high-speed intercity passenger rail service, 

Mn/DOT has identified Route 1 as the Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail 

Alternative. Figure 12-9 depicts the Reasonable and Feasible passenger Rail 

Alternative. 
October 26, 2011 Page 12-26 Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

Figure 12-9. Milwaukee-Twin Cities Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passe
Alternatives Selection Report 

12.0 – Conclusions 

 

October 26, 2011 Page 12-27 

Quandel Consultants, LLC © 

12.5.2 Next Steps 

The next step in the project is to identify the preferred passenger rail alternative within a 

Tier 1 EIS document. Tiering is a staged approach to NEPA described in the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). Tiering addresses broad 

programs and issues in initial (Tier 1) analyses, and analyzes site-specific proposals and 

impacts in subsequent tier studies. The tiered process supports decision-making on 

issues that are ripe for decision and provides a means to preserve those decisions. 

Within the Tier 1 EIS, the reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative and a no 

build alternative will be evaluated to identify the preferred passenger rail alternative. The 

alternatives are evaluated based on: 

 Conceptual Engineering 

 Track Concepts 

 Capital Cost Estimate 

 Station Location Analysis 

 Environmental Analysis 

 Ridership 

 Operating Costs 

 Assessment of Benefits 

The tiered environmental process will include a Draft Tier 1 EIS, a Final Tier 1 EIS, and a 

Tier 1 Record of Decision (ROD) to conclude Tier 1. Upon the conclusion of the Tier 1 

study, a preferred alternative will be selected by FRA and projects to be studied in Tier 2 

will be identified.