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.