(Re)Mapping Passenger Rail with AGOL & Instant Apps
Intro: the map I wish I didn’t have to make
“Oh, wouldn’t it be nice if we had train service again?”
“I would take the train if we had one, but it will take forever to build.”
“America is too spread out and Americans too attached to their cars.”
Within the context of American passenger rail, I’ve heard every one of these lines. Some are reasonable cautions. But stacked together, they reveal a deeper problem: the United States has been starved of passenger-rail imagination. We are used to treating rail travel as a novelty or a luxury, not as normal transit infrastructure that shapes how areas can grow.
This project started from that frustration. I wanted a way to make potential rail futures legible—first for Wisconsin, then with a view toward how regional corridors fit into a national system. GIS seemed the clear vehicle (no pun intended) for building this vision: rail is geography, and rail advocacy is as much about communication as it is about analysis.
The result is a web map built in ArcGIS Online (AGOL) and shared through an ArcGIS Instant Apps Sidebar experience that walks users through current service, proposed expansions, and the destinations those corridors could connect. You can explore the current prototype here:
Click here for the various Passenger Rail Expansion Apps:
Figure 1: Full Wisconsin app extent showing existing lines, proposed corridors, and destinations.
Background and inspiration
My interest in passenger rail is personal before it’s technical. My grandfather worked for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Rail Division. In the late 2000s/early 2010s, that division helped assemble what would have been the nation’s first true high-speed rail corridor (and would’ve been completed that much more quickly than California’s). The political story of why that effort collapsed is outside of the scope of this article, but it’s central to explaining why a map like this feels necessary. For my money, without a vision we literally cannot see where we're going.
In terms of planning inspiration, I leaned on several big-picture sources already doing the hard conceptual lifting:
- Amtrak’s long-range corridor and service visions
- High Speed Rail Alliance (HiSRA) proposals (specifically in the Midwest)
- Research and advocacy from the Rail Passengers Association (RPA), including
These documents (and the conversations around them) provide a coherent “what should exist” narrative. My goal was to translate that into an interactive map that makes the vision tangible at multiple scales.
Why ArcGIS Online and Instant Apps?
AGOL let me do two things that matter for advocacy-oriented GIS work:
- Prototype quickly in public-facing form.
Hosted feature layers, Map Viewer styling, and pop-up design made it easy to iterate without heavy desktop overhead. - Deliver a guided, approachable user experience.
When the audience includes non-GIS users, a web map alone can feel opaque. Instant Apps’ Sidebar template adds narrative structure without requiring custom development.
There are “fancier,” and frankly better-organized ways to build rail apps. But the Sidebar template hits a sweet spot: it proved quick to configure, clean on mobile, and naturally story-driven for multi-layer exploration.
Data and GIS workflow
Step 1: Assemble base rail geometry
I started with National Rail Network vector polyline data as a foundation. The early work involved pulling line datasets from public rail portals (especially the Federal Railroad Administration data portal), then symbolizing a clean “rail canvas” for Wisconsin and the broader U.S.
Key actions in AGOL Map Viewer:
- Import base rail lines as hosted feature layers.
- Apply distinct symbology for passenger vs. freight where data allowed.
- Set up scale-dependent visibility so the map doesn’t overwhelm users at statewide/national zoom levels.
Figure 2: Rail base layer symbology with scale-based visibility settings panel.
Step 2: Map current passenger service
Once the base network was in place, I added existing Amtrak corridors and stops. This provides grounding: users can compare “what is” to “what could be.”
Popup choices:
- Simple route name + frequency notes (where known)
- Stop popups emphasizing intercity connectivity and transfer potential
- Clean typography and minimal fields to keep Sidebar readability high
Step 3: Draft proposed corridors (sketch to feature layer)
About 80% of the proposed Wisconsin corridors began as sketch lines—concept routes traced over existing infrastructure. At first these were lightweight polylines with few attributes. Sketching in AGOL was fast and helped me experiment with multiple variants.
But sketches hit a ceiling: limited fields, inconsistent topology, and no robust popups. At that point, my mentor Ana Wells helped convert the lines into a properly attributed hosted feature layer:
Workflow:
- Export sketch lines.
- Clean topology, merge segments, and add core attribution in ArcGIS Pro.
- Publish as a hosted feature layer back to AGOL.
- Replace sketch layer in the web map and re-configure popups.
This step turned a concept map into a platform for future analysis (ridership proxies, corridor typologies, phased buildouts).
- Sketching is ideal for ideation.
- Pro cleanup is ideal for publish-ready layers.
- The handoff between the two is what makes concept work scale.
Step 4: Add destinations as answer to "what" and "why"
A rail vision without destinations is just lines. I added a Destinations point layer to illustrate the practical and cultural trips rail can unlock.
Examples include:
- University hubs and campuses
- Major sports/event destinations (Badgers, Packers)
- Regional festivals and downtown cores
These features use custom icons and simplified fields to support rapid scanning in popups.
Figure 3: Destination layer close-up: Milwaukee's Fiserv Forum.
Step 5: Conceptual economic impact zones
Finally, I added conceptual buffer-style layers representing “impact areas” around proposed corridors. These are not final economic models—think of them as conversation starters.
They function as:
- visual proxies for corridor influence
- framing devices to discuss growth, tourism, and weekend economies
- placeholders for future modeling layers
Building the Sidebar Instant App
Why specifically a sidebar
I tried and toiled through multiple app formats, but kept returning to sidebar for two reasons:
- Narrative control.
Rail maps can quickly get layer-heavy. The sidebar lets me curate the order in which users encounter the complexity of feature layers. - A stable, map-plus-explanation layout.
The map stays the primary focus, but tools, legends, and text don’t float or collapse unpredictably on smaller screens. ArcGIS+1
Sidebar configuration highlights
In Instant Apps, I configured:
- Sections/tabs aligned to user questions, e.g.
- Current service
- Proposed Wisconsin corridors
- Destinations and trip logic
- National expansion context
- Bookmarks to jump between story beats. ArcGIS
- Layer toggles with grouped headings to reduce clutter.
- A clean legend + search in the panel for quick exploration.
- Responsive layout defaults to keep the experience usable on mobile/meeting-room screens.
Figure 4 (suggested): Sidebar panel showing section structure, bookmarks, and grouped layers.
How the app works
Wisconsin view
The Wisconsin-focused experience is organized around three layer groups:
- Rail Lines
- Existing Amtrak service
- Proposed corridors traced over current infrastructure
- A Madison-centered vision connecting Green Bay, Eau Claire, La Crosse, and the Superior/Duluth region
- Destinations
- Custom iconography for major cultural/economic hubs
- Built to answer: “Who benefits and which trips become easier?”
- Economic Impact Zones
- Conceptual buffers representing corridor influence
- A structured way to talk about downstream impacts without claiming precision
This view is designed to be intuitive for non-GIS users. The story moves from network → places worth traveling to → why these lines matter.
National view
The national view broadens the lens. Layers are grouped by region and system role:
- Amtrak Midwest
- Amtrak South
- Other national expansions / backbone corridors
The point isn’t to predict a federal master plan. It’s to show coherence—that Wisconsin corridors only reach full value when they connect to a national spine.
Figure 5 (suggested): National extent showing grouped corridors and Wisconsin’s position within a broader network.
What this map is (and what it isn’t)
This project is a proof-of-concept communication tool, not an engineering plan. The proposed corridors are intentionally plausible enough to discuss but flexible enough to revise when better data, cost realities, or stakeholder priorities enter the picture. Furthermore, it is an ongoing work, meaning parts of the app are still being built while the plane (ahem, train) is in the air, accounting for changes in the national vision.
Working without strict specifications was both difficult and liberating. It forced me to invent criteria as I went, but also let me build around real user questions—rather than around a template.
If there’s one big lesson for GIS professionals doing advocacy-oriented work:
GIS is not only analysis. It’s storytelling.
A rail map doesn’t just display lines. It helps people imagine trips they can’t take yet.
Lessons learned
- Prototype fast, then professionalize.
AGOL sketching revealed app structure quickly. ArcGIS Pro cleanup then made the data credible and reusable. - Be transparent about uncertainty.
Early layers were imperfect, but sharing them invited feedback that made later iterations better. - UI structure matters as much as data.
Sidebar turned a “cool map” into an understandable tool for mixed audiences. - Rail visions need destinations.
The point layer work wasn’t decoration; it was the human rationale for investment.
Acknowledgments
Although I built this project largely on my own, I owe much of it to other people’s help and inspiration.
Thanks to my grandpa Keith for instilling a love for rail. Thanks to Howard Veregin and Ana Wells at SCO—especially Ana for hands-on help converting sketches to publishable feature layers. Thanks to Tony Van der Wielen (WisDOT), Terry Brown (WisARP), and Chris Ott (WisARP, formerly HiSRA) for early insight, feedback and encouragement on this project. And thanks to my parents, Mel and Joe, for their curiosity and support. Another big thanks to many others not named here, whose advice and input helped get this project on track (pun intended).