Great thread. I've just skimmed it, so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said. First, I've always liked the idea of rail - either light rail within cities, or interstate rail (which is what the Madison - Milwaukee segment will ultimately be part of). To me, the main benefits are reducing our reliance on foreign oil, reducing congestion, reducing travel times, and being able to read/work instead of driving. However, the more I see the dollar costs and estimated travel times, the more I become skeptical. From this article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (the graphic in the story gives travel times), it shows that with the proposed rail line, to go from Minneapolis to Chicago it would take 5:21 hours by rail , by car 6:39 hours, by bus 8 hours, and by plane 1:20 hours. I know that by plane you add maybe an hour with check-in/security, etc. But with rail being only 1:20 hours faster than car, I think most people would drive - especially when more than one person is the same cost by car, but increases from the additional train tickets. Then there is the hurdle of getting around at your destination. I assume the numbers are based on making one stop in each city. If it stopped at say the state fair grounds, Miller Park, Downtown, and MKE (and multiple stops in other cities), then the total travel time is even worse. I think the money would be better spent adding light rail within Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago. This would help solve a problem people have everyday - traffic. I've never thought of travel between Minneapolis and Chicago as a problem that needed to be solved. The current options work fine - want to travel between the two cheap and slow, then drive; if you want to go fast and expensive, then fly. I'm not sure there is room in the middle from a market perspective for rail. It just doesn't save much time compared to car. Just my $.02