Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1381 posts, RR: 8 Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
Press Release from the STATE OF WISCONSIN
JIM DOYLE, GOVERNOR
State Capitol Room 115 East, Madison, Wisconsin 53702 • (608) 266-1212 • FAX (608) 267-8983 • email@example.com
Monday, June 28, 2004
Governor Doyle, Senator Kohl Help Break Ground on New Passenger Rail Station at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport
Governor Also OK’s $4.8 million Project at GMIA to Reconstruct Taxiways
MILWAUKEE – Governor Jim Doyle, U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi, and other federal, state, and local officials broke ground today on a $6.5 million project to build a new passenger rail station at Milwaukee County’s General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA). The new station, platform, and parking facilities will be located on the western edge of the airport along existing Canadian Pacific Railway lines.
The station will serve rail passengers connecting to the airport, along with
rail-only passengers utilizing Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service that provides seven round trips daily between Chicago and Milwaukee. Senator Kohl secured the federal earmarks to fund the project.
“Along with providing air and rail passengers a convenient travel connection,
this new station represents another component of my Grow Wisconsin plan to support economic development and job growth,” Governor Doyle said. “I especially want to thank Senator Kohl for his leadership and hard work in securing the federal funds to make this project possible.”
General Mitchell International Airport and Milwaukee County have agreed to
provide a shuttle bus connection between the airport and the planned 1,800-square-foot rail station. Work on the station should be complete before the end of this year. Canadian Pacific Railway has already completed
much of the track work required for the project.
“This station will connect Amtrak’s Hiawatha service – which boasts the best
on-time performance of any Amtrak route – with the approximately six million passengers who pass through General Mitchell Airport each year,” Governor Doyle said.
I got the above emailed to me, so I don't have a corresponding link nor have I included the remainder of the text.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 22 Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3708 times:
I know that cost and feasibility is a big issue, but if airports are going to be expanding their rail connections, I would love for them to figure out how to integrate the rail stations into the terminal itself. This is the model in Europe (which, of course, relies much more heavily on rail travel), and it is much more convenient. I've taken the MARC train to BWI several times, and I hate having to lug my bags onto the cramped shuttle bus just to get to the terminal.
Of course, the logistics of such operations are difficult, and I don't want taxpayers to be stuck with an even larger bill.
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1381 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3705 times:
Scotty, yes, that's exactly what is happening. Starting today.
Jblack1, for the record, Concourse C is being overhauled and might actually already be started. Most of D is pretty nice. And I'm not sure what part of E really needs it. And the retail and concessions area has recently been completely renovated and there's new FIDS throughout the entire place. Sure, baggage claim and car rental still sucks, but for the most part, they're already well into some decent remodeling.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3693 times:
Dunno what you guys are complaining about Milwaukee for. If you wanna rip on an airport, I was just in Seattle and it looks like it just came from the 60's via the 70's. It needs a major overhaul. Milwaukee is a great airport, and its very simple to use.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
NWA Man From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1828 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3678 times:
I was just in Seattle and it looks like it just came from the 60's via the 70's. It needs a major overhaul. Milwaukee is a great airport, and its very simple to use.
MKE can't hold a candle to SEA.
However, Mitchell is very simple to use, security lines (at least for the E Concourse) aren't bad at all, you can get an Usinger's brat in the main terminal, like I did on Saturday, and provided you haven't checked any luggage, you can get from your gate to a taxi in about 5 minutes. Tough to beat.
I plan on using the MKE train station, although I do suspect that I won't have much company, at least on the downtown Milwaukee - Mitchell leg of the trip. There's not a ton of business being done downtown, and sprawl has taken over Milwaukee. If anything, ORD fare refugees will get on the train at Glenview and make Amtrak some money, because it's not going to be made from car-dependent Milwaukee residents.
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1381 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3667 times:
Simply put, I think this station will serve only IL residents, or perhaps a few folks that might board the train at Sturtevant (Racine, WI). It allows "Chicago's Third Airport" to be an advertised 70 minutes from the Loop. If HSR is ever implemented, that time gets cut down even a bit more. Basically, I think it's a facility that's LONG overdue.
To that end, it could be a good opportunity for Midwest Airlines to, say, codeshare with Amtrak on any of its Hiawatha runs between the Loop and the airport. Or perhaps schedules will be adjusted to meet certain banks of flights. It's tough to say.
Ssides, you make a good point though...a truly intermodal connection at the airport would be much more ideal as is done in many other locations.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3665 times:
Well, I'd rather see something done at MSN!
GOOD NEWS! We're already done with remodeling the "Commuter Gate" and Gate 2 @ MSN and now are currently working on Gates 3-5. Should be completed in 2005 sometime with an additional building added on the south end of the building for the commuter terminal, and more gates will be added at the "new" Commuter gate.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3640 times:
Would AMTRAK re-route from Columbus to Madison to add MSN into the route? Currently the Chicago-Minneapolis Route is 30 miles north of MSN. The proposed site is also currently employee/long-term parking.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3627 times:
Well....... then you saw the new stuff. Go down to around gate 8 and see what it used to look like. The new stuff looks good compared to what it used to be. BTW... Baggage Claim #3 and the Car Rental area used to be a loading dock (last known time was early 2003)
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
Tekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
Perhaps when the station is complete, they can fund another project to set up a tram to make runs from the airport to the terminal (it could also stop at the miniature international terminal if it's not already connected to the main terminal).
As another poster mentioned, GMIA (MKE) is hardly out of date. The airport recently remodeled the entire concessions area (food court) in the main terminal; also, they just built a new Starbucks in the food court. Also, they removed the old status monitors and replaced them with brand new LCD status monitors used for all airlines. They will soon start remodeling concourse C. The rest doesn't even need remodeling.
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1949 posts, RR: 16 Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3575 times:
I agree with Ssides... rail connections to airports are a good idea, but in many cases here in the US, we've botched our attempts at tying the two together. In Europe/Asia, the trains often go directly into the terminal, usually on the lower level. The direct connection between train station and terminal is what *makes* the whole setup convenient. Throw in a shuttle bus or a long outdoor walk and it immediately becomes a hassle.
Granted, rail transportation is nowhere near as popular here as it is in Europe, but the few attempts we've made don't really seem to go far enough. To really be successful, a passenger should be able to step onto a train in the city and step off at the airport terminal. SFO is an exception - the BART trains come right into the International Terminal.
But look at the T in Boston - it stops a good mile away from the terminal buildings. Look at the Chicago Midway el line, which drops you off behind the parking garage, a good fifteen-minute schlep from the ticket lobby. Look at the JFK AirTrain, which strikes me as a colossal waste of time and money. The fact that a city as large and rail-savvy as New York has no same-train rail connection to its airports is really an abomination. They deserve something as well-planned and popular as the Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted Express in London.
My hometown of Dallas is talking about extending the DART light rail to DFW airport - via some of the insanely routed track routings I've ever seen. They seem determined to make the trip (on one of the itty-bitty light rail cars) as long and inconvenient as possible. On the plus side, the plan does call for a Love Field station - right underneath the main lobby!
Sorry to veer from the topic, but I am frustrated by our half-assed attempts at air-rail connections here in the United States. All too often, we go for the cheapest and least convenient options. IMHO, the only American cities that have really done the air-rail linkage properly are San Francisco, Washington DC (the Metro to DCA, *not* the BWI train) and Cleveland. This MKE fiasco looks like another strikeout to me.
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1381 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3481 times:
Craig, just a modest correction...no airport stop was ever intended for the Metra extension, which has earned the backing of the governor anyway, although the UP tracks form the NE boundary of the airport property (see the PDF map).
Mt99, I don't believe that this will effectively compete with the market that's looking to take the Blue Line to O'Hare to catch a flight, but it is looking to cater to those that were considering flying MKE but with added costs of parking, time, etc. would otherwise stomach either ORD or MDW.
Jsnww81, do you suppose that the US's general lack of true intermodality has generated the demand that's there for, say, the regional airlines to exist as solidly and as widespread as they are?
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1949 posts, RR: 16 Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3469 times:
I'm sure the lack of intermodality plays a hand in the regional airlines being as comprehensive as they are, yes. A lot of that can also be chalked up to the US being as large as it is - certainly much larger than any one European nation.
My gripe isn't so much with regional mass transit links to airports - it's more with local/city train connections. The vast majority of residents here in Chicago don't have any choice but to take their cars to ORD or MDW, especially if they live in the suburbs.
Even the CTA links from the city are inconvenient. I have a great many friends who live in the city, but choose to drive to the airports rather than a.) sit on the platform waiting for the Orange Line to MDW, which only runs on the half hour; or b.) endure fifteen grinding, screeching stops along the Blue Line that goes to ORD. There's no truly convenient mass-transit option for getting to Chicago's airports. Even the MKE connection will only be convenient for those who live immediately downtown or in Racine/Kenosha.
My point, I guess, was that the air-rail links in the United States don't seem to discourage a lot of people from driving. In-terminal stations, direct service and convenience make all the difference - and a lot of our airport rail links just don't offer any of those. Of course, plenty of Americans also tend to look down on "taking the train" as something that's beneath them. Why ride the train when you can drive your Hummer H2 to the airport and take up two parking spaces?
Fsuwxman From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 439 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
I went to MKE for the first time in early June, and I was amazed. I was actually surprised by the size of the airport for the population of the city. I felt as though I was back in Tallahassee or something. The airport did not seem to be busy at all, and I arrived at rush hour on Friday afternoon. This also might have been because I came in on DL and it was the only flight at that time. The YX teminal might have been bustling, planes at almost all the gates. I actually showed up at the airport 45 minutes before the flight's scheduled departure time, and still made it to my plane 30 minutes early. I spent most of my time looking for a DL kiosk to check in than anything else...
... for some reason, I like to check myself in, someone put on my baggage tag, then I take my bag to get scanned...
On the topic, as a resident of the north shore, I will surely utilize this new train connection. I can be in Glenview in ~10 minutes instead of the hour it takes to get to MKE. (Let me concede that I once made it in 48- average speed must have been 80 or 85). As a college student, parking at the airport often isn't an option for me and I'm sure those that drop me off would rather pay Amtrak fares than drive. Something like $12.00 isn't markedly higher than the gas price to get to MKE, and many times much smaller than the fare difference between MKE and ORD/MDW.
I would argue that the United States is in a tough situation in terms of intermodal links. Much of our infulstructure was not built with this type of transportation in mind. Look at ORD, for example. A Metra stop exists there, but getting to a terminal requires a bus ride across Manheim followed by 15 minutes on the people mover. It's not exactly convenient, and it's no wonder that it isn't real popular. I see high speed rail replacing some short-haul air service (ex-ORD, for example- STL, CLE, MSP, MCI maybe). This will help air congestion, especially if, for example, UA codeshared on these routes, but I'm not sure if it would be attractive for connecting pax. It will be tough for us to get to where Europe is now.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 Tekelberry: Rail transportation to ORD isn't inconvenient with the L once you get to the airport. The L drops you off right in the tunnel connecting the terminals
26 Cubsrule: Tekel- I was deliberately ignoring the El in my analysis. The El, though, is a good option.
27 Mikey711MN: There's a pretty distinct difference between local rail connectivity and regional rail connectivity. Indeed there are many airports in the US with loc
28 Jsnww81: On topic: I suppose any rail construction in the United States is good news, but I still feel like this MKE station will be somewhat of a boondoggle.
29 Ord: "This is great news for Chicago's third airport!" Milwaukee is NOT Chicago's third airport. Milwaukee County has a federal application pending to regi
30 Saxman66: Well having this rail station probably will not cost much to run. I assume Amtrak will serve this station, and it will probably be unstaffed. Will the
31 Slider: I'm a fan of MKE and of mass transit when used properly. But in this case, I have to tell you: I don't know what kind of ridership this thing is going
32 CcrlR: I really thought METRA could have started this but they never really did it. The CTA has great service to ORD and MDW and sometimes it may seem dirty
33 Mikey711MN: Slider, again, as a single local-service station, you're right...this won't do jack. It's a total pipe dream to think that even a single person would
34 Ord: Mikey711MN, I don't care one way or the other about who uses the term "Chicago's Third Airport." That being said, I do know the legalities of the issu
35 Mikey711MN: Yeah, the Brewers actually aren't bad this year...that D-Backs trade was the deal of the decade for them! Well, if and when Peotone gets built--the li
36 Cubsrule: CcrlR- How would Metra service to MKE have been at all feasible? They only use the Canadian Pacific tracks to Rondout, some 50 miles south of MKE.
37 Scutfarcus: This is fantastic news, even if it is just a baby step. It's a comparably dirt cheap way to get things started. That rail corridor is on the A-list f
38 Mikey711MN: ...way in the future, you could bury these tracks and indeed run the amtrak straight into the terminal. Funny. I've thought of this too. It could eith
39 Boeing4ever: MKE can call themselves Chicago's third airport...but they'd be deluding themselves. Their Milwaukee's airport. They should just accept it. The distan