Despite the rail not being in development since its halt in 2010, there are a multitude of factors that could now be re-evaluated to benefit movement on the isthmus, future economic development, and location accessibility. Our spatial analysis and literature review led us to point to Yahara Station on First Street in Madison as the most beneficial stop among the four stations under previous analysis. Yahara station was concluded as this location offered the best outcome of economic growth for the city while maximizing accessibility to the site and expanding the city center from the downtown area. Other areas of improvement we would like to see are increases in HSR train/route speed and development of additional track suitable for HSR at these speeds.

As for the stations of Madison, we did not agree with the previous decision that deemed Monona Terrace to be the prime location for Madison’s HSR stop. Not only does Monona Terrace lack the space for intermodal access to the station, but it would also heavily disrupt movement through the isthmus unrelated to the rail station as a destination. Monona Terrace is built above and around Highway 151, the Capital City Bike Path, and several complicated one-way streets. The proximity of government related destinations would prove convenient, but passengers interested in activities and places other than State Street, the Capitol Square, and Monona Terrace, would mostly likely opt for a bus or other transport elsewhere.

While Monona Terrace as a location came across as inconvenient for both passengers and Madison citizens alike, we also want to point out that due to Madison’s physical geographic restraints, there is no easy or ideal answer when it comes to choosing a station. If the location was to say something about the city, Monona terrace would make an excellent choice, but would still be more than a slight inconvenience. However, as Anderson et al suggest, “stations that are located sufficiently far away from the urban core will tend to attract new residential development.” (Andersson et al, 2010). Perhaps looking at Yahara Station would provide an opportunity for more development.

Yahara Station would also satisfy another one of Anderson’s arguments- that a station should reflect other destinations in the city. Many passengers would be interested in connecting to a flight out of Madison and locations downtown. Yahara isn’t quite downtown, and an addition of an express bus service from Yahara to the MSN airport could help minimize the bus trip to as low as 10 minutes (the time it would take to drive in a car to the airport from the Yahara Station). Perhaps adding a light rail would help solve this problem, but we hypothesize that a light rail solution to serve one purpose of minimizing one transportation route would not be economically feasible.

While Yahara Station was the optimal choice among the four stations analyzed from the feasibility assessment, we conclude that a much more in depth approach to station placement within the city of Madison needs to be done.

Regarding HSR in general, a train with a high speed of 79 mph is simply outdated to be considered for High Speed Rail by definition- where general standards require a train’s top speed to be around 120 mph to 160 mph and above to qualify.

While we disagreed with a handful of decisions and statements in the assessment, there is no clear solution to developing a new, innovative project such as High Speed Rail in the Midwest. Assessments made by the government, organizations, individuals, and our research group all focused on different areas adding to Wisconsin high speed rail discussion.

Other Midwestern States are taking action to improve routes for passenger rails. Some have started to implement their branch of the High Speed Rail in the corridor. Wisconsin is likely to be reconsidered in the future. Additionally,Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030is a Wisconsin Department of Transportation plan of policy recommendations for rail programs (specifically rail, intercity, and commuter) that continues to prioritize future improvements to rail programs in Wisconsin. The Midwest vision of High Speed Rail still includes Wisconsin. The Federal Railroad Administration continues to evaluate the potential for Wisconsin locations to develop High Speed Rail, including an environmental assessment relased in late 2016 assessing an updated HRS track from Chicago to Milwaukee.

In addition to the on going research, we hope that the long term benefits be weighed heavier than convenience. Looking at upgrading rails that separate HSR passenger trains and freight trains would allow for both flexibility for expanding in the future and solving existing problems experienced by AMTRAK such as waiting long periods for freight trains to pass, as they have priority on freight owned track. Freight owned track makes up a majority of of the routes AMTRAK operates. This would also allow for trains to operate at a higher speed in the future without the need to update rails. Future research is needed in areas that would assess economic feasibility further than just a decade or two.

We would also hope that a new feasibility assessment for stations would arise with a new HSR plan. Perhaps more information on the backend of feasibility assessments would lead to a more comprehensive understanding on the implications each station would contribute to Madison, and in which areas would cause congestion. Either way, a new assessment would be needed if new HSR specialized rail would be added, as we suggest, and since some time has passed and Madison has developed more infrastructure on the East side. This would possibly reduce the need for a HSR to go as far into the Isthmus of Madison with a station at the Monona Terrace.

Finally, regarding analysis for optimum station placement in the city, an ideal solution for evaluating station sites and indeed finding the best suited locations for these station sites should be developed to prioritize certain criteria that impact station placement. A procedural approach to generate optimum station placement based on individual spatial layers and non-spatial layers would be ideal for both assessing current planned station sites and proposing new sites.