# Minnesota governor still stumping for HSR



## Ispolkom (Feb 25, 2011)

Gov. Dayton still pro-HSR, in spite of Wisconsin.

Link here

I can't imagine anything will come of this. Was there a Chicago-Twin Cities streamliner that missed Wisconsin? I thought maybe the CB&Q Zephyrs, but they went up the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi.

On the other hand, construction has started at St. Paul Union Depot, so something is moving forward.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 25, 2011)

Although you are probably right, and nothing will come of this, it is still important that MN retains a pro-rail state government. IL & MN are pro-rail and (hopefully) WI will become pro-rail again in the future.


----------



## CHamilton (May 30, 2013)

Resurrecting an old thread for this news.

High-speed rail plan in works for Twin Cities to Milwaukee


> Amtrak could provide high-speed, 110-mile-per-hour passenger rail service between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities under track upgrades the Minnesota Department of Transportation is studying.
> 
> Wisconsin had pulled out of planning for high-speed rail service for a Milwaukee-to-Madison route, a link in the chain leading to the Twin Cities. But Minnesota officials never stopped planning for high-speed service between Milwaukee, St. Paul and Minneapolis.
> The Minnesota Department of Transportation last week announced its intention to draft plans to upgrade track for high-speed service along Amtrak’s existing Empire Builder route between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities. A draft plan will be complete by summer 2014, said Praveena Pidaparthi, planning director of the Minnesota DOT passenger rail office.
> Wisconsin is not paying for any of that $1.2 million study after pulling out of the planning initiative last year, Pidaparthi said. The two states, however, have split a $125,000 bill to study adding a second train to Amtrak’s existing Empire Builder route, which links the two cities, she said.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (May 31, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Resurrecting an old thread for this news.
> 
> High-speed rail plan in works for Twin Cities to Milwaukee
> 
> ...


Biding their time in Minnesota, waiting for the winds to their east to shift in a more favorable direction.

Could the last sentence in the above quote signal a slight shift in those winds?

Possibly, but after the Talgo fiasco, it seems likely to me that the present administration in Madison is just throwing out a bone to help keep the dogs quiet. Now as to the next administration... Who knows? So St. Paul's strategy could pay off in the long run.


----------



## JoeSF (Jun 3, 2013)

In addition to funding studies for MSP to Chicago, the state legislature and Gov. Dayton approved a bill that funds infrastructure in Rochester in support of Mayo Clinic's expansion. Included in the bill is a study of a high speed rail line between Rochester and the Mall of America, with connections to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Union Depot in St. Paul.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_23287571/lawmakers-sign-off-mayo-vision?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

A line to the Mall of America sounds like a terrible idea though. It might work as a stop on the way to MSP and SPUD but not as a terminal.


----------



## Train Rider (Jun 3, 2013)

Since the Twin Cities would retain the primary benefit of a second CHI-MSP train, it is only fitting that they fund the majority of the study. Most of the passengers would entrain or detrain at CHI or MSP with Milwaukee coming in third. The Minnesota cities of Winona and Red Wing would come in with higher counts than any Wisconsin stops except for Milwaukee and Lacrosse, which is across the Mississippi River from MN.

Former Democrat Governor Doyle of Wisconsin made HSR toxic in this state when he signed no-bid contracts with Talgo combined with trying to rush project into place contractually before the 2010 election. The project as proposed was ridiculously expensive with a complete rebuild (through wetlands) of over half the line from Milwaukee to Madison -- those tracks are at best rated 10 mph currently. The myopic residents of Madison forgot that the Midwest HSR initiative was to connect major metros to each other, not to serve as local commuter train. They urged that the Madison station stop planned on the north side of town by the airport -- which provided for an easy connection with the main line -- be moved to downtown Madison, which would have added at least 30 minutes to the trip and required the train to back out of downtown to rejoin the main track.

If the City of Madison really thinks it needs a rail connection to enhanced EB service, it could run a dedicated bus to Columbus, WI, which is an easy 27-mile run on an expressway. 
This would be drastically more cost-effective than moving an entire train route.

The tracks between CHI and MSP are quite good with the most significant hangup (in my riding experience) is the single-track bridge at LaCrosse over the Mississippi River.

Wisconsin's current governor has always stated that he supports the current system and is open to economically feasible expansion/upgrades within the existing system. He tried to get the feds to switch some of the WI HSR money to a Hiawatha upgrade, but the feds wouldn't do that. A second train on an existing corridor falls within the view held by the governor.


----------



## jebr (Jun 3, 2013)

Madison also has 568,000 people in its metro area. Having a one-seat ride serving the main city in that area is not a ridiculous idea, and if we're going to be spending any major amount of money in improving track conditions, etc., we should spend the additional to connect the city as well, instead of forcing a 27-mile bus ride on either end.

If we're just talking an additional one or two EB services at the current speed, then I can understand not re-routing the train. But if we're going to make a high-speed corridor here, we need to find a better way of connecting Madison than a 27-mile each way bus ride.


----------



## JoeSF (Jun 8, 2013)

This week a meeting was held in Rochester to review alternative routes for the Rochester MSP high(er) speed rail line.

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/destination-twin-cities-rochester-high-speed-rail-plan-studied/article_6c3b25cb-c900-5a49-9146-9872c4653692.html

The expansion of the Mayo Clinic seems to be the force behind the new push for HSR in this corridor.

The link includes a map showing the various route alternatives which is complicated by the desire to link downtown St. Paul, Minneapolis and the Twin Cities Airport

In the long term it makes sense to me to route a high speed line through both Rochester and Madison.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2013)

This might be a good way to make use of the 2 brand-new Talgo trainsets that are just gathering dust in Milwaukee now. They could run considerably faster than conventional equipment on existing Canadian Pacific trackage that is already in pretty good shape. This service could be part of the proposed Northern Lights Express from Twin Cities-Duluth. Now if they could just rework the Talgo cab units for a more streamlined look, that would be great.


----------



## WICT106 (Sep 13, 2013)

Train Rider said:


> Since the Twin Cities would retain the primary benefit of a second CHI-MSP train, it is only fitting that they fund the majority of the study. Most of the passengers would entrain or detrain at CHI or MSP with Milwaukee coming in third. The Minnesota cities of Winona and Red Wing would come in with higher counts than any Wisconsin stops except for Milwaukee and Lacrosse, which is across the Mississippi River from MN.
> 
> Former Democrat Governor Doyle of Wisconsin made HSR toxic in this state when he signed no-bid contracts with Talgo combined with trying to rush project into place contractually before the 2010 election. The project as proposed was ridiculously expensive with a complete rebuild (through wetlands) of over half the line from Milwaukee to Madison -- those tracks are at best rated 10 mph currently. The myopic residents of Madison forgot that the Midwest HSR initiative was to connect major metros to each other, not to serve as local commuter train. They urged that the Madison station stop planned on the north side of town by the airport -- which provided for an easy connection with the main line -- be moved to downtown Madison, which would have added at least 30 minutes to the trip and required the train to back out of downtown to rejoin the main track.
> 
> ...


Not all Madisonians wanted the station moved all the way downtown! The groups I've worked with advocated for the airport station because it was on the way to Saint Paul, only to have certain local politicians relocate it downtown, and try to combine it with other things.

It hurt to have other rail advocates and rail groups condemning the Madison Extension as well. It wasn't going to be a commuter train -- but many folks thought it was. It was going to be an extension of service from Chicago, through MKE, to Madison -- but a lot of folks labeled it as the "Madison train," totally ignoring what it actually was.

It also hurt to have Milwaukeeans say that a bus to Columbus was good enough, despite being presented with the drive times from certain parts of Madison and surrounding communities being an hour to Columbus. It was as if folks just looked at the map without figuring the drive time.

We lost this round for a number of reasons. One of them was losing the public relations narrative at the start. Another reason for loss failing to come up with pro-rail PR when the initiative was under attack (a fact-free attack at that), and a third was the criticism coming from other rail riders.

Other train riders ought to recognize that we need to stick together and present a united front against those who are opposed to greater train service. It makes me unhappy to see other train users either sit on the sidelines, or, even join with train opponents when the discussion of service expansion comes up. I'm very unhappy with certain MKE area people because of how they acted in regards to the Madison service extension.

Also, the current governor's support for the Hiawathas is nothing but show -- He and certain folks in the Legislature probably would torpedo those trains if he could.

Sorry about the rant, but I had to vent.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 14, 2013)

Before we get too excited about 110 mph service between Chicago and the Twin Cities, it is worth remembering that into or through the 1950's the Milwaukee had a 100 mph speed limit on the route Amtrak currently uses and the Burlington had a 90 mph limit. For both, as typical at that time, the speed limits could be regarded as suggestions when the premier trains got behind schedule. Even with considerable upgrades to the track and restoration of much of the second main on the currently used route about the best that could be achieve would be the 1950 run time. To do better we would be looking at realignments of slower locations and possibly a higher speed limit.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 15, 2013)

I went back and pulled some timetables for comparison. First, we have the Olympian Hiawatha and the Afternoon Hiawatha, and their times from Chicago to Minneapolis:



> 1956
> No. 15/16 Olympian Hiawatha
> Dep. CHI 1500
> Arr. MSP 2145
> ...


There's what seems to be about 25 minutes of pad for the train EB vs. WB, though that may also be some quirky operational delay (or more stops...let's not forget that a lot of stops were served by interesting mixes of trains).

Next, we have A-Day, with the May 1, 1971 Amtrak timetable:



> 1971
> No. 31/32 Empire Builder
> Dep. CHI 1045
> Arr. MSP 1840
> ...


As you can tell, over an hour has been dropped vs. the Afternoon Hiawathas, and roughly an hour vs. the Olympian Hiawatha.

Finally, today from the Summer/Fall 2013 timetable:



> 2013
> Dep. CHI 1415
> Arr. MSP 2231
> Time: 8:16
> ...


Another 10-20 minutes have been added...not nearly as bad as 1956-71, but still going the wrong way. It's also worth noting that the 30-minute pad at MSP on A-Day has gone to 44 min. WB and 45 min. EB.

This example is illustrative of a point worth noting: The times in the 1950s may not be anything special in some respects, but there are more than a few cases where I think some of us would give our right arm to have those speeds back.

Edit: Please note, moving the terminus from Minneapolis to St. Paul drops about 30 minutes from the trip in 1956 (so you get 6:15 each way). I mention this because of the impending move to SPUD...and it suggests that six-hour runs between Chicago and the Twin Cities wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to hope for as part of such a project. This may not be a silver bullet, but considering what the Builder does with its current situation I'd be hard-pressed to see such a service _not_ succeed.


----------



## jebr (Sep 15, 2013)

Anderson said:


> This may not be a silver bullet, but considering what the Builder does with its current situation I'd be hard-pressed to see such a service _not_ succeed.


Exactly. The fact that there's demand despite the Empire Builder being a pitiful eastbound connection in terms of timekeeping should be proof alone that there's demand in this corridor. If it could be improved to even a reliable 6:30 trip from SPUD it'd have a decent time advantage over bus service (which runs about 8 hours MSP - CHI, which they might be able to pull 7:30 from SPUD) and probably be short enough to take some airline people who aren't insanely busy (considering an additional hour for security purposes, just over an hour for a flight, and an hour to downtown from the station doors means the train would only be an additional 3.5 hours for a person who knows how the airport goes, and probably closer to only 2.5-3 hour difference for those who aren't rushing like mad to and from the flight.)

I'm hoping to see it go to SCD, but if that's not in the cards even extra service SPUD - CUS would be appreciated.


----------

