Lacross tribune talks about the proposal. Not many comments to paper.
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/second-train-from-st-paul-to-chicago-would-be-popular/article_b237b93c-a632-56f2-af03-b25254e01fbc.html
The good news is there is about $400 million available in one of the Fed Budgets I read for mass transit or Amtrak startups (was it FRA)?
The bad news is I agree with the spokes person from MN, it might not have high priority in that state. However, they were the ones pushing this along with La Crosse.
BTW, in regards to one of the comments to the news story link above. One of the readers raises a good point about Amtrak connections in Chicago. Seems to me that might be a marketing opportunity for Amtrak to negotiate a one night discounted stay rate for Chicago and help alleviate the cost. The problem is not that Hotels are expensive in Chicago, the problem is Amtrak has no agreement with Chicago Hotels and just pretty much leaves it up to the passenger. I have no issue getting a discounted Hotel room via my Credit Cards in Chicago. So there is ample supply and they are selling discounted rooms there.
An interesting Trains blog on this subject service:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2015/07/16/passenger-train-study-great-potential-costs-politics-no-service.aspx
MidlandMike An interesting Trains blog on this subject service: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2015/07/16/passenger-train-study-great-potential-costs-politics-no-service.aspx
That is interesting. Still I am a believer that some of those asked for up front costs for line capacity improvements can be negotiated downwards.
OTOH, it would be really, really cool if an agreed upon industry wide formula (not railroad specific) that was slightly more fair was agreed upon by all parties (Amtrak and the Railroads) and Congress allowed the railroads to write off the improvements made for passenger trains against their taxes. I think that would fix these huge balloon payments once and for all.
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
True that for most of the way from SPUD-RST. New construction is definitely needed from SPUD-RST from the UP (Old Omaha Road) east of MSP International to RST.
On the other hand, RST-Winona could be upgraded on the existing route with some new construction likely to ease passage down from the plains to the river valley in the Stockton area.
Usage projections go way up in all the various Twin Cities-Chicago studies that MnDOT, Rochester, etc., have had completed over the last 15 years or so when they include a Rochester stop compared to the all-river-valley route and the relative dearth of habitation between Winona and Hastings.
Then again, Megabus is already undercutting a second Amtrak Twin Cities-Chicago frequency in the same way the aforementioned shuttles may be doing already to the Zip Rail project. Maybe added lanes on I94-I90 from the Twin Cities to Rockford and Chicago is the best use of limited Federal and State funds.
kgbw49Why not look at this as a version of a megalopolis HRT system done with HrSR between Chicago, Milwaukee, Rochester and the Twin Cities? Just some conceptual, maybe "pie-in-the-sky" thoughts for the discussion hopper.
I think those ideas are well worth consideration, but you won't find much suspport on here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
kgbw49One interesting tidbit is that while the tracks are gone, the former Chicago Great Western roadbed along Highway 56 between Dodge Center through Randolph to the Koch Refinery in Inver Grove Heights is largely intact and could be, relatively speaking, somewhat easily reclaimed.
I believe there are many abandoned RoWs that could be reclaimed and used for dedicated HrSR and HSR passenger-only servces, along with some underutilized routes. Quality passenger rail services are largely incompatible with freight lines as they are operated here.
Trying to build a new line on those abandoned ROW's could keep several law firms fully employed for a while depending on the land ownership. The mudchicken has commented several times on this issue.
The RoWs are narrow, much narrower than an Interstate, so most land occupants would be OK with the payment. If not, eminent domain could be used, as it was for Interstates
Marketing studies of a second MSP-CHI train are hampered by the fact that the Empire Builder has been so unreliable in the past years. Today (7/23/2015) #8 is 8 hours late and won't make CHI until nearly 11 PM. Ironicially, the Megabus leaves from St. Paul Union Depot every 3 hours and arrives in Chicago 8 hours later for $24. Amtrak cannot do this with the present delays.
I'd like to see the stats on MegaBus eroding Amtraks or even rail passenger loads. I don't think that is true and unless the Bus Service has a direct Amtrak connection I don't see more than 10-15% of Amtrak passengers switching between modes of travel. Pretty sure the University of Texas study on the Hiawatha Service between Milwaukee and Chicago mentioned this at some point (but not 100% sure). I have seen it mentioned by state DOT's as well as NARP that there is not a huge cross transfer between bus and rail when they are competing between the same city / pairs.
Also on the additional Chicago to Mn frequency, pretty sure the Feds would pay for most of the startup funds (thats in the Amtrak bill under new / startup services) and the states would only be responsible for the annual subsidy and a percentage portion of the startup costs. The problem there of course is convincing the Feds to spend the majority $175 million.
Wisconsin and Minnesota would have a fairly strong case in that this is an existing route that already has Amtrak service on it so basically they could cover the relatively reasonable annual subsidy (if it is that high)......additionally the increased frequency would boost Amtrak equipment and employee productivity. For the eariler proposed HSR, Canadian Pacific was discussing shifting some of it's Twin City trains via the West Line out of Chicago and Savanna, IL to accomodate some of the future HSR frequencies (probably low priority freight where time is not important).
As for relaying the rail on an abandoned route. It's happening in Wisconsin currently on several former C&NW routes for freight but my understanding is Wisconsin has a more robust rail preservation program than does Minnesota. However I do not see that out of the realm of possibility and it depends on passenger counts, distance to relay the rail, local resistance to it, etc.
schlimm The RoWs are narrow, much narrower than an Interstate, so most land occupants would be OK with the payment. If not, eminent domain could be used, as it was for Interstates
True in part but I think RR RoWs in Texas (the old ones created more than a century ago by H&TC were 200 feet wide for single track) are not as narrow as one would expect them to be even for single track. Not sure how narrower the newer ones would be but if they are using eminent domain, chances are they are going to plan ahead and grab too much land vs not enough.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.