[supercat]

To do the math, first divide that 397,518 in half to 198,754 actual riders (roughly, there are probably a few that don't make the round trip). Then divide by 52 weeks to get 3,822 riders per week. Divide again by 48 round trips per week to get just under 80 riders per round trip.

How does the trip time via train compare with the probable time via bus? The level of ridership cited would certainly seem like enough to justify some sort of mass transit connection; I suspect busses, run somewhat more frequently, might be better than trains but that depends a lot on the relative transit speeds.

Amtrak does have a few routes that do very well, and a moderate number of routes that do reasonably. There are many routes for which new infrastructure construction would make little sense, but for which use of existing infrastructure is quite reasonable. This would seem like it might be one of those.

[steveegg]

The Hiawatha currently maxes out at about 62 mph, and makes a pair of stops between Milwaukee and Chicago (Sturtevant, just west of Racine, and Glenview). It's been historically considered one of the 3-4 most-successful Amtrak runs and is actually considered a commuter run by Amtrak. It does suffer the limitations that Amtrak puts on stops (no more than one per city).

The Metra commuter line that is being talked about uses a line that is much closer to the lake. It currently stops at Kenosha, and makes a lot more stops than the Amtrak train (same max speed limitations). There is no current station infrastructure north of Kenosha on the line that Metra would use. Morever, scaling the Metra price for Racine/Milwaukee would make it no cheaper than Amtrak for a much slower run.