Features

FEATURE STORY » Get On Board: Local high-speed rail

Could the future hold a high-speed rail and transit station in downtown Eau Claire?

Emily Kuhn |

I just said goodbye to my husband. He travels for work every few weeks and left for a day-long meeting in St. Paul. His mood was less-than-great. It was 6am and he was leaving the house three hours before his meeting started to ensure there was time to pick up the rental car, drive to Spring Valley, pick up a coworker, then navigate traffic into St. Paul. And from the sounds of it, he could have used either another 30 minutes to prep for the meeting or at least another 30 minutes of sleep. Instead, he had to focus on driving. Until this point I, perhaps like you, hadn’t been following the rail debate as closely as I probably should have. But having just wished my husband a safe drive to St. Paul, I asked myself whether having a train as a transportation option would have made life this morning a little easier. So now I dive in, head first, to look for answers on the status of high-speed rail in the state, city, and nation; the feasibility of it actually happening over the next few decades; and what it’ll be like to use a high-speed train from Milwaukee to the Twin Cities, and beyond.

CONTENTS:
     » The National Rail Plan
     » Wisconsin's Rail Plans
     » Deciding Between Eau CLaire and La Crosse
     » What Rail Could Do for Eau Claire
     » Why Do Rail at All?
     » The Cost Issue & Political Divide


FULL STEAM AHEAD » The National Rail Plan

Three years after Gov. Tommy Thompson committed $50 million to build passenger rail between Milwaukee and Madison in 1993, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) joined the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). This multi-agency initiative involves nine Midwest states – Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin – as well as the Federal Railroad Administration, all of whom are working to connect the Midwest to the rest of the nation through high-speed rail service.
At speeds of up to 110 miles per hour, high-speed rail is being touted as a cost-effective and energy-efficient transportation alternative for residents, allowing them to avoid congestion on highways and uncertainty on airlines. As the MWRRI asserts, the Midwest Regional Rail Corridor would comprise a 3,000-mile system that links major economic centers like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis/St. Paul – and would therefore boost the region’s economy through increased service and tourism activities while reducing dependence on oil and protecting the environment. According to the MWRRI, total yearly ridership of the entire system is estimated to be 13.6 million passengers in 2025.

“I’ve been to the Northeast and California and I saw where passenger rail service was an important part of their transportation system,” stated Scott Rogers, a local businessman who co-chairs the West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition (WCWRC) with Owen Ayres.

WCWRC members have been advocating for passenger rail in the region since 1999. “When you look at the benefits they have and where our own transportation system is going, it is moving in that direction.” The bipartisan WCWRC is a committee of Momentum West, the regional economic development organization that serves Barron, Chippewa, Clark, Dunn, Eau Claire, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Rusk, and St. Croix counties.

The federal government has already recognized the potential of passenger rail service to link major cities across our sprawling nation, perhaps modeled after the only existing line that the Department of Transportation considers high speed. Amtrak’s Acela Express already connects Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., hovering near 68 mph but increasing to 150 mph for short spurts, rivaling the rate of bullet trains. (They’re not just for Europe and Asia, anymore).

To spread these travel benefits more widely across the country, 10 federally designated high-speed rail corridors (including our Midwestern contingent) were chosen based on their present usefulness and their potential for future development.

Although the first of these were named in 1991’s Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, passenger and freight rail programs have had no dedicated federal funding. With President Obama’s passage of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated $8 billion to high-speed rail, Wisconsin jumped at the possibility of securing funding for a vision that’s been years in the making.

“We’ve been a state that’s shown a lot of forward thinking,” Rogers stated of Wisconsin’s leading position within the MWRRI. “For us to abandon that now would put us in the back.”


ON THE RIGHT TRACK » Wisconsin's Rail Plans

In October 2009, WisDOT submitted an application to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for Recovery Act funds to construct a Milwaukee-to-Madison segment of the Midwest Regional Rail Corridor. In January 2010, Wisconsin was awarded $823 million: $810 million for the Milwaukee-to-Madison line, $12 million in track and station improvements for the existing Chicago-to-Milwaukee Amtrak Hiawatha line, and $1 million to study the feasibility of extending a high-speed rail line from Madison to the Twin Cities. According to Rogers, one reason Wisconsin received such a significant sum – the Milwaukee-to-Madison line’s start-up costs were now 100 percent funded – was because the state already had such a detailed plan for high-speed rail.

    “It truly was as close to a ‘shovel-ready’ project as you can have for a transportation project,” stated Rogers.

The plan Wisconsin initially developed after joining the MWRRI in 1996 included passenger rail routes from Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to La Crosse to the Twin Cities, with a bus connection from Tomah to Eau Claire. This left the West Central Wisconsin region – in which four counties alone are expected to grow 24 percent by 2030 – out of the network. So groups like the WCWRC worked with state and local legislators, business owners, and concerned citizens to promote consideration of the Chippewa Valley and surrounding areas while further developing the state’s rail plan.

This pressure led to a study conducted in 2002 by Maryland-based Transportation Economics & Management, Inc. (TEMS), which looked at, among other things, what would happen if the state added passenger rail service to Eau Claire. According to Rogers, this WisDOT-funded study concluded that there were actually two scenarios that would be economically feasible for the state: run half the trains through La Crosse and half the trains through Eau Claire, or continue the original Madison-to-La Crosse-to-Twin Cities route and add an Eau Claire-to-St. Paul route (called the “Eau Claire West” route) as well. As stated in the WisDOT’s 2004 Rail Issues and Opportunities Report, “Both the ‘Eau Claire Plus La Crosse’ and ‘Eau Claire West’ routes were considered likely to produce ridership and revenue figures that could improve the overall financial performance of the base Midwest Regional Rail System.” In other words, the study showed the first specific evidence that Eau Claire was a viable route option.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin continued to develop its state rail plan and in November 2008, the state debuted a draft of Connections 2030, Wisconsin’s long-range transportation plan. Although the plan addressed all forms of transportation over a 20-year period – highways, local roads, air, water, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit – it promised only to consider rail service from Madison to the Twin Cities via La Crosse. So once again, the WCWRC worked with legislators, citizens, and others to convince the state that Eau Claire should be listed as an official option – after all, the TEMS study had proven its viability. A well-attended public hearing in Eau Claire in February 2009 further demonstrated the public’s desire for passenger rail in West Central Wisconsin and when the state officially adopted Connections 2030 in October 2009, the final draft showed two potential routes to get from Madison to the Twin Cities passenger rail service: one route through Eau Claire and one route through La Crosse.

“It was a significant step,” Rogers stated about the revised route map, “demonstrating value in the work that had been started by the coalition, that WisDOT listened to the public input it received from West Central Wisconsin, and recognized the importance of this area and its population to the state’s transportation system.”


COVER YOUR TRACKS » Deciding Between Eau CLaire and La Crosse

Although Wisconsin officially adopted Connections 2030 in October 2009, the FRA is requiring all states, including Wisconsin, to adopt more formal state rail plans. The Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030 will build off the policies and issues described in Connections 2030 and include an assessment of the existing rail system, public financing details, and environmental evaluations. It will also pare down passenger rail route options from the 30 or so that the state is currently studying to three or four final choices by the end of this year – including the options for a Madison-to-Twin Cities route, which the FRA is also currently directing a study on.

The map included in Connections 2030’s final draft shows three potential routes connecting Madison to the Twin Cities. The “River Route” follows Amtrak’s current Empire Builder route – which Amtrak has already stated it will maintain – from Madison to Tomah to La Crosse, into Winona, through Red Wing, and into the Twin Cities. The Eau Claire Route goes straight from Madison to Eau Claire, then into the Twin Cities. While these two routes are considered by many to be the strongest options, a third route is also depicted: from Madison to Tomah to La Crosse, then over to Rochester and up to the Twin Cities.

To help make decisions on the potential routes as well as gather public input on passenger rail in West Central Wisconsin in general, WisDOT will hold a series of public hearings this fall. Exactly where and when those meetings will be has yet to be determined, but it’s likely they will be held in a similar fashion as the ones held when Connections 2030 was first announced. There will be an “open house” of sorts at a public venue and citizens will be encouraged to come in, look at any available data (perhaps in the form of charts, short presentations, etc.), then either write down their comments or verbalize their thoughts to an official recorder. Details, however, have yet to be announced. Look at the Make Yourself Heard box for more details, or visit VolumeOne.org regularly because we’ll do a blog post announcement the second the DOT announces the details.

Of course, the upcoming gubernatorial election will also impact the state’s rail plan. Milwaukee Mayor and leading Democratic candidate Tom Barrett backs passenger rail service, while Republican candidates Scott Walker, current Milwaukee County executive, and Mark Neumann, a former congressman, both oppose passenger rail service. At a more local level, Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls), Kristen Dexter (D-Eau Claire), and Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) have all declared support for a state rail plan. Both Eau Claire County and the City of Eau Claire have passed official resolutions in support of passenger rail service as well.

“We’re hoping that the facts will bear out and show Eau Claire is a potential route,” said City of Eau Claire Associate Planner and WCWRC Communications Chair Ned Noel, who believes a solid public turnout at the fall’s public information sessions could impact the state’s plan significantly. “If we can show WisDOT that there is a strong contingency of just normal folks that want to ride this thing, it will show that maybe Eau Claire is the way to go.”
Eau Claire City Manager Mike Huggins, also a member of the WCWRC, echoes Noel’s support for passenger rail in West Central Wisconsin.

“This is a critical transportation issue,” stated Huggins, pointing out that the Twin Cities 400, known for traveling from St. Paul to Chicago in 400 minutes, regularly stopped in Eau Claire between 1935 and 1963. “Getting it back is very important for economic growth not only for Eau Claire, but for all of Western Wisconsin.”


BONUS » A Totally Biased List of Reasons We Should Get It, and Not La Crosse

•  Minnesota describes Eau Claire as a “high demand corridor” – the MnDOT included a passenger rail route from Eau Claire in an approved rail plan for the state.

•  Our 4-county region is expected to grow 24% by 2030.

•  A stop on the Eau Claire route option, Hudson, Wisconsin (not to mention the entire St. Croix Region) is part of the fastest growing area of the state.

•  Minnesota’s State Rail Plan estimated Eau Claire’s annual demand at 5.7 million people, compared to La Crosse’s 2.9 million.

•  20 percent of the highway trips in the Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls metro areas are either going to, or coming from, the Twin Cities.

•  After one week of WISPIRG polling, Eau Claire already had more than 500 businesses and 1,200 residents “on board.”

•  The Eau Claire route would serve 11 universities and technical colleges. Modern students are driving less and less.

•  It’s reported that the Eau Claire route has more straight-aways than the meandering LaCrosse route, and would likely enable higher train speeds.

•  The stretch of I-94 from Madison to Eau Claire is widely considered the deadliest road in Wisconsin, backed up by accident statistics.

• There used to be service from Chicago to the Twin Cities through Eau Claire. If it was a priority back then, it’s even more important now.

• Eau Claire is the fifth fastest-growing city in Wisconsin.


PICKING UP STEAM » What Rail Could Do for Eau Claire

Charged with determining the most feasible location in Eau Claire for a Passenger Depot and Transportation Center that was, as stated in their station report, “truly all-modes,” the WCWRC task force focused on five possible locations: Downtown Eau Claire, Altoona, the Chippewa Valley Airport area, South Eau Claire, and West Eau Claire. Criteria used to study each location included short- and long-term accessibility; the potential for providing adequate parking; construction considerations like land and building costs; site availability; the potential for developing other transportation systems within the site; and the availability of infrastructure like roads, railways, and utilities.

After five months of evaluation, the final recommendation for locating the facility was the area immediately west of the former Omaha Passenger Depot in Downtown Eau Claire. Ideal for a number of reasons, that location would literally be a transportation center for the city, combining high-speed passenger rail, intercity and intracity bus service, taxi service, car rental service, and short- and long-term parking in one convenient place.

“This was an attempt to see what the logical place for it would be,” explained Rogers of the transportation center study, which was conducted in 2001 by a task force appointed by the coalition. “It’s not a formal proposal at this point ... but it helps you visualize what things could eventually look like.”
Once the report was completed in July 2001, the coalition simply kept it on file – after all, the funding that would make an Eau Claire route truly possible was still unclear. Once President Obama announced the stimulus bill in January, however, WC Anderson Architects owner Bill Anderson was inspired to create a rendering of what an Eau Claire station might look like. After teaming up with Ayres Associates owner and WCWRC co-chair Owen Ayres, as well as Market & Johnson, the concept was developed.

“Up until that point, the coalition was always preparing itself for the time where there would be funding and when things would get to the point where we actually could have rail in West Central Wisconsin,” explained Anderson, who also co-chairs the WCWRC communications committee with Noel. “When the money came, it really set things ablaze. Now other communities have jumped the gun, if you will, to decide where to put their depots … and if we can influence the DOT in any way with a good proposal, that is what we are trying to do.”

The rendering depicts a “historically traditional” structure that includes 14,500 square feet at the main level, 5,000 usable square feet for second floor offices, two 6,500-square foot covered platforms for high-speed train boarding, 8,000 square feet for a partially enclosed city bus shelter and platform, 2,000 square feet of covered platforms for bus boarding, and additional space for shops, storage rooms, conference rooms, and offices.

“Multimodal stations are multipliers of transportation and commerce,” Noel said, citing examples that included business travelers using high-speed rail who might need hotel and restaurant access, workers who commuted downtown using the bus who might need coffee shops and childcare, and tourists who would need close access to cultural attractions and lodging while visiting. “Locating many of these businesses around the station means more intense compact development and greater land value,” said Noel, pointing out that this would generate more tax revenue for the city.

A look at other Wisconsin cities gives an indication of the development potential. According to WisDOT data, a station in Oshkosh (population: 63,701) and a station in Appleton (population: 70,897) would lead to property value increases of $46-$69 million. A 2006 economic benefits study of the Midwest Regional Rail System estimates that intercity passenger rail will provide $1.80 in benefits to Wisconsin for every $1 invested in the system; will create 9,600 new, permanent jobs; and will provide $704 million in property value increases as a result of new development near stations.

“How this all would play out is still very hard to know. It’s very premature because we don’t know who is going to get the route,” stated Noel. “But you’re having so much interplay back and forth – travelers, business people, all spending money … it makes the area more robust, because now you have a new investment for the rail infrastructure, you have new development here, you have more options for travelers. It strengthens the economy.”

Addressing potential negatives of increased development surrounding a downtown station, Noel was quick to assert that large-scale retail stores are not part of station vision. “As a city planner, I wouldn’t want to see a big box come into this kind of development. You don’t want all of these parking lots downtown,” said Noel. “We want something more human-scale, more ‘walkable.’ ”

A more approachable station that reflects the character of Eau Claire was an important consideration in the design. “I think the most important part is that it be … a building that recalls the depot that we had here up until 1997, and that it has basically the same kind of character,” stated Anderson. “I think that’s for the good and pride of the community.”

Recognizing that cost is an important factor in a project like this, the team also tried to keep the rendering realistic. “We have to be a little on the bold side,” said Anderson. “But it’s important to keep the scale and services prioritized. … We’ve kept it spartan in the terms of the number of services it provides so that it’s affordable, so that it’s not something that’s just a ‘pie in the sky’ dream where it is so expensive we can never build it. I want people to feel excitement and passion for rail coming to Eau Claire.”


THE LOCAL DRAWINGS: Click to see larger verstions ...
These very preliminary drawings depict a vision for a multi-modal station in downtown Eau Claire, similar in architectural style to the old depot torn down near this site in 1997. The plan shows two platforms for boarding trains, as well as a hub for inter- and intra-city bus service, taxis, airport shuttles, and more. Plenty of short and long term parking is available. Also shown is a concept for possible private hotel and commercial development nearby. This site, on Wisconsin Street near Banbury Place, currently holds a few light industrial businesses, as well as a handful of homes and rentals. It’s immediate proximity to downtown could become a great asset.


The images were created as a collaborative effort between Bill Anderson (for WC Anderson Architects) and Ayres Associates. They are a conceptual representation of how a station might occur in downtown Eau Claire. This plan does not yet represent any government approval or involvement.


TRAIN OF THOUGHT » Why Do Rail at All?

The West Central Wisconsin Passenger Rail Corridor follows the Union Pacific’s existing line from Camp Douglas west to Hudson. This 150-mile route includes more than 580,000 people; it would connect one of Wisconsin’s fastest-growing regions with Minneapolis/St. Paul – where one out of every five daily trips on highways in the Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls metro areas are either going to or coming from, according to a 2004 WisDOT study. In comparison, the territory covered by Amtrak’s existing route from Camp Douglas to the Minnesota border only includes 270,000 residents.

Minnesota recognizes the potential for increased ridership from a route through Eau Claire versus La Crosse. According to data presented in Minnesota’s State Rail Plan, which was completed in February 2010, annual passenger rail demand to and from the Twin Cities for Eau Claire in 2005 was estimated at 5.7 million, assuming there were four daily Eau Claire trains running at 79 mph. In comparison, annual passenger rail demand to and from the Twin Cities for La Crosse in 2005 was estimated at only 2.9 million, even though that scenario assumed there were eight daily La Crosse trains running at 110 mph.


    In other words, Minnesota found that even with less frequent, slower trains, Eau Claire would have stronger passenger rail ridership numbers to and from the Twin Cities than La Crosse – and by 2030, according to that same study, those numbers are expected to grow to 6.5 million for Eau Claire and only 3.2 million for La Crosse. “That’s a powerful number,” Noel noted.

 Currently, people traveling to and from the Twin Cities are mainly using I-94, which is becoming more congested due to increasing amounts of drivers. According to the Minnesota DOT, more than 90,000 vehicles cross into Minnesota by the St. Croix River Bridge every day. That number increases to 150,000 by the time commuters reach downtown St. Paul.
“You might say, ‘Why would I ever need to take a train to St. Paul? I can be there in 90 minutes by car.’ Well, if the I-94/494/694 Interchange keeps getting more congested, it may well be worth it,” stated Rogers. “We’re giving people a choice so we can keep our highways clear.”
According to data presented by the WCWRC, 110 mph rail service could get travelers from Eau Claire to St. Paul in 1 hour 23 minutes, from Eau Claire to Madison in 1 hour and 33 minutes, and from Eau Claire to Milwaukee in 3 hours and 35 minutes – and during that travel time, riders could be reading, working from laptops, safely communicating on their cell phones, or even napping.

“Now, you’ve got the smart phones, the iPads – you can use your time wisely while in transit from one destination to the other,” stated Jackie Pavelski, member of Eau Claire City Council and West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition. “There’s a real convenience factor there.”
The Eau Claire route would also be a slightly faster option when traveling from Chicago to the Twin Cities. According to the 2002 TEMS study, a route through Eau Claire would take 6 hours and 22 minutes, compared to 6 hours and 42 minutes via La Crosse.

Having less traffic on highways will positively impact the environment as well. According to data presented in the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group’s (WISPIRG) 2008 transportation report, “A Better Way to Go,” personal cars and trucks account for 40 percent of the oil consumed in the nation, and high-speed rail releases fewer carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than cars and planes.

 WISPIRG volunteers surveyed Eau Claire for two weeks earlier this summer and gathered about 500 businesses and 1,200 individual signatures voicing support for high-speed rail in the state.

 “The environmental impact particularly stood out,” WISPIRG activist Matthew Tokarsky recalled after spending August 5 speaking with citizens in downtown Eau Claire. “There were a lot of cyclists and pedestrians who were concerned about traffic reduction, as well as the idea that we’d be able to reduce emissions.”


GETTING DE-RAILED » The Cost Issue & Political Divide

Cost is without question the most controversial, divisive, and quite possibly most important, part of this entire issue – especially in Wisconsin. 

With elections approaching, some politicians are using the high-speed rail issue as a primary pillar to their campaigns. One side (mostly Republican) is questioning the entire plan and, in some cases, promising to halt it entirely because the costs are large and our budget is in the red. The other side (mostly Democrats) is arguing that this isn’t new spending, but a progressive move away from car-scaled spending for the long-term betterment of transportation.

You’d think pinpointing the exact costs – from federal grants and ongoing state upkeep to local stations and individual tickets – would be the solution. However no amount of pressure has yielded those numbers.

One reason is because the implementation of an entire rail system in Wisconsin will take years, and we’re only just starting with Milwaukee to Madison. “It hasn’t all been flushed out yet,” stated Rogers, “because we’re planning years ahead of time.”

One of the biggest misconceptions in the political debate over passenger rail service costs is that we’re suddenly spending money on passenger rail when we could be putting money toward our highways. Well, Wisconsin was also awarded about $500 million in highway funding from the Recovery Act. The money spent on passenger rail would simply provide another transportation option – one that, according to Rogers, should be considered a priority.

“It’s going to be millions of dollars; there’s no question about that,” Rogers said. “I think a lot of the public is concerned about deficit spending and they say, ‘OK, well, this is something new we’re spending money on, and we’re already spending too much money, so let’s not do this.’ Our argument is that transportation isn’t a new thing to spend money on; we’re just talking about adjusting some priorities, and that this is a wise use of transportation dollars that we do have funding mechanisms for.” City council member Pavelski echoes Rogers’ sentiment. “Mobility and choice are worthy goals,” she said. “That’s what this is all about – we want to be a part of an overall balanced transportation system.”


COMPARING CO$T$ » Major highway projects vs. the rail proposal

Entire Interstate System (40,000 miles)
$114 billion in 1956
(adjusted to $500 billion in 2008)

Federal Highway in 2000
$89.8 billion

Chicago-to-St. Louis Rail
$12.6 billion

Midwest Regional Rail System (3,000 miles)
$12.7 to $68.5 billion

Milwaukee-to-Madison
$817 million

Milwaukee’s Marquette Interchange
$810 million

Eau Claire-to-Twin Cities Rail
$112 to $156 million

Average National Cost of Car Ownership
48-74 cents per mile

Stats by WhatItCosts, Federal Highway Administration, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Midwest Regional Rail Initiative & SNCF, WisDOT, AECOM, Minnesota State Rail Plan, AAA