Study Reports

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Link
Study Report: February 2007

The draft reports for the KRM Commtuer Link Draft Environomental Impact Study and Alternatives Analysis are now available at www.krmonline.org.

Comments from the public are sought and encouraged by February 23, 2007. Comments can be submitted at www.krmonline.org.

See project information and links.

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail Study Report Released August, 2003

Full study reports (next phase of study is now underway-project web site)

The final report for the detailed planning study and alternatives analysis of Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail has been released by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). The study is officially known as the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Corridor Transit Study.

Public Input Results
An amazing 1300 people commented in favor of KRM Commuter Rail with just 20 in opposition during the public comment period. As a part of the study process, citizens had the opportunity to have their opinions about KRM Commuter Rail heard and entered into the official record at four public hearings in April and May of 2003. Comments were also accepted by e-mail, fax and mail until May 16, 2003. The public input illustrated the resounding support for KRM Commuter Rail. Those commenting represented a wide diversity of interests that is uncommonly rare in public projects.

Advisory Committee Recommendations
Upon receiving and approving the draft study report on December 11, 2002, the study advisory committee voted to recommend commuter rail at the medium level of service (7 round trips per week day) with management by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. They also agreed to proceed to public hearings which were held in April and May in each of the three counties that the train will serve.

The final study report was approved by the study advisory committee on August 7, 2003. The advisory committee then recommended unamimously (WisDOT obstained from the vote) that KRM Commuter Rail, at the medium level of service, should move into preliminary engineering with the state Department of Transportatation managing the project. They also recommended that the project be funded by federal and state dollars and that the principal cities and counties meet within the next month to develop a srategy for the next steps. Allan Kehl, Kenosha County Executive, then invited key mayors and county executives to a strategy meeting to reach agreement the specifics of moving KRM Commuter Rail into preliminary engineering.

Commuter rail would be operated over upgraded existing freight rail lines between Milwaukee?s Amtrak station and the existing Kenosha Metra rail station, after stopping in Somers, Racine, Caledonia, Oak Creek, South Milwaukee, and Cudahy-St. Francis. The service would connect with the Chicago Metra Union Pacific North commuter rail line in Kenosha. Service would be provided in peak periods, mid-day, and evening in both northbound and southbound directions. Commuters could travel either northbound or southbound at convenient peak travel times in the morning or in the afternoon and evening. It is projected to provide 1.1 ? 1.5 million trips per year.

KEY POINTS IN STUDY REPORT

• Commuter rail is a key component in developing Milwaukee-Chicago economic corridor.

• 147,500 jobs are projected within 1/2 mile of train stations in Wisconsin alone and 540,000 in population are projectd within 3 miles of the planned Wisconsin stations.

• Commuter rail is important as a marketing and workforce development tool. It increases mobility for all, draws business and new jobs and helps expand the labor force by improving access to a wider geographic area and attracting new talent.

• KRM commuter rail is comparable in costs and service levels to other new systems (operating costs).

• Serves minority, low income and mobility impaired populations very well .

• Commuter rail will assist in implementing the regions land use and transportation planning goals.

• Costs are affordable and funding is doable with 80% of the capital costs coming from various federal programs.

• No funding sources will divert funds from existing transit services.

• Adding passenger capacity is very efficient and cost effective. Unexpected or temporary swells in ridership are easily absorbed.

• Would reduce peak hour traffic on the area highways from 4.1% - 12.2%, depending on the specific highway being addressed.

• Commuter rail provides good ridership, is simple to navigate and has a high perceived value.

Synopsis of study report (7 pages) (pdf)