MN and WI ask for study of second MSP-CHI train

[oldtimer]

With his astounding 8:1 funding advantage Walker will most likely enjoy many years of continued viability in order to further solidify his influence. I wouldn't be surprised to see Walker still at the reigns a decade from now.

I would. Look up "John Doe investigation". He's the main target of a complex multi-year felony investigation by the Milwaukee District Attorney's office, and a second investigation by the FBI. And he's committing more gratuitous and obvious lawbreaking (the latest: http://www.thedailyp...p?article=37109 ).

He also just lost control of the legislature.

This is not a recipe for a long career. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he manages to escape prison, but after a while his funders will realize he's a waste of money. They don't normally have to spend multimillions just to *keep* their candidate in office for the rest of his term.

Speaking of anti-rail governors, Kasich in Ohio seems pretty canny and likely to survive for quite a while. Walker does not.

Maybe him and Blago can share a room at the "greybar motel" !!!

 

[Ispolkom]

The nominal numbers look like they're going to lean towards the DFL, especially in the state House of Representatives. So there might well be money from Minnesota come January.

With an expected budget deficit of $1-2 billion dollars, I doubt that interstate rail will be very high on the Minnesota legislature's priorities, regardless of its composition. Light rail might have a better chance, because that leverages federal money.

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

I would not be surprised to see a train with no stops between LaCrosse and Milwaukee, or possibly even between LaCrosse and Chicago.

The problem with this logic (and the problem, in general, in expecting intermediate states to fund multi-state trains) is that you'd lose lots more money (and therefore, require a lot more in state subsidy) by not stopping than by stopping. There's simply no way around it, short of some super-high-speed train that is directly competitive with flying between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

The distance/time between, say, Winona and Glenview/Chicago is too great to be a viable regular-speed rail market on its own.

Any train that skips LaCrosse (which is in Wisconsin, so if you're going to skip all the stops in WI, there'd be no reason to stop there either; but still has a decent enough population for a western Wisconsin city), Wisconsin Dells (tourist destination), Columbus (close to Madison/major destination; particularly if there's a Thruway connection of some sort), or Milwaukee (again, major mid-point city) is going to be leaving money on the table. The costs of making such stops (assuming the station/infrastructure are already in place and no additional station staffing is required) almost always are going to be less than the revenue gained from stopping there (up to a certain point; you don't want to be stopping at every second tree).

Therefore, keeping the doors closed through a state that doesn't pay is really cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

 

[Anderson]

The nominal numbers look like they're going to lean towards the DFL, especially in the state House of Representatives. So there might well be money from Minnesota come January.

With an expected budget deficit of $1-2 billion dollars, I doubt that interstate rail will be very high on the Minnesota legislature's priorities, regardless of its composition. Light rail might have a better chance, because that leverages federal money.

On the other hand, this train is probably going to cost what? They can probably rent freed-up Superliners from Amtrak (freed up by the 130-car order), so the one-off capex might be near enough to zero. As to annual cost...going off of what most operations in this general vein tend to recall, what would the annual subsidy (capital charge included) likely be? $10-15 million (that guess is vaguely based on the projected subsidy requirement for a second daily Pennsylvanian would probably not be the end of the world for MN to cover.

 

[Ispolkom]

On the other hand, this train is probably going to cost what?

I don't think that it matters. If the Republicans control the legislature, money for the route is unlikely, given their antipathy to spending on rail in particular. If the DFL gets majorities, what are they going to cut to get the money for the train? Health insurance for children? Local government aid?

Or are they going to raise taxes to support a train that, it can be claimed, only benefits the Twin Cities, when their new majority depends on out-state seats?

I would be happily surprised if passenger rail is something that any Minnesota politician is willing to spend political capital on, but I just don't see it. Look at the hue and cry over raising the gas tax in 2008, even after the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse highlighted the poor condition of Minnesota roads and bridges.

 

[afigg]

On the other hand, this train is probably going to cost what? They can probably rent freed-up Superliners from Amtrak (freed up by the 130-car order), so the one-off capex might be near enough to zero. As to annual cost...going off of what most operations in this general vein tend to recall, what would the annual subsidy (capital charge included) likely be? $10-15 million (that guess is vaguely based on the projected subsidy requirement for a second daily Pennsylvanian would probably not be the end of the world for MN to cover.

If the 130 car order refers to the bi-level corridor cars, that would free up the Horizons. I expect most Superliners freed up by the bi-level corridor cars will go to supplement the LD trains. However, depending on the outcome of the election this fall, there could be federal grant funds in FY14 and beyond that states can apply for rolling stock purchases. So, if there was enough political support in MN, they could start a MSP-CHI train with Superliners or Horizons and order corridor bi-level cars for the route.

The cost to MN for a corridor train to MSP would probably be in the $10 million range at the start. But it could be less. I don't think any of us know what the route costs are. $10 million, despite the hue and cry from some quarters, is very small potatoes in a state budget.

In comparison, if I'm reading the Virginia DRPT budget document correctly, Virginia is planning to provide $4.7 million total in FY14 in operating subsidies for the Lynchburg, Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News trains and $1.1 million for Amtrak Capital Equipment Contribution. I should search for IL, PA and NY state budget documents for the next fiscal year to see if there are clearly stated amounts for operating subsidies now that the PRIIA cost allocation formula has been agreed to.

 

[jebr]

On the other hand, this train is probably going to cost what? They can probably rent freed-up Superliners from Amtrak (freed up by the 130-car order), so the one-off capex might be near enough to zero. As to annual cost...going off of what most operations in this general vein tend to recall, what would the annual subsidy (capital charge included) likely be? $10-15 million (that guess is vaguely based on the projected subsidy requirement for a second daily Pennsylvanian would probably not be the end of the world for MN to cover.

If the 130 car order refers to the bi-level corridor cars, that would free up the Horizons. I expect most Superliners freed up by the bi-level corridor cars will go to supplement the LD trains. However, depending on the outcome of the election this fall, there could be federal grant funds in FY14 and beyond that states can apply for rolling stock purchases. So, if there was enough political support in MN, they could start a MSP-CHI train with Superliners or Horizons and order corridor bi-level cars for the route.

The cost to MN for a corridor train to MSP would probably be in the $10 million range at the start. But it could be less. I don't think any of us know what the route costs are. $10 million, despite the hue and cry from some quarters, is very small potatoes in a state budget.

In comparison, if I'm reading the Virginia DRPT budget document correctly, Virginia is planning to provide $4.7 million total in FY14 in operating subsidies for the Lynchburg, Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News trains and $1.1 million for Amtrak Capital Equipment Contribution. I should search for IL, PA and NY state budget documents for the next fiscal year to see if there are clearly stated amounts for operating subsidies now that the PRIIA cost allocation formula has been agreed to.

A lot of this probably hinges on whether the recent fare change to the Northstar improves the public's perception of the line. Right now there's a lot of voter apathy towards regional/corridor rail, since the Northstar is not meeting expectations or projections currently. (I'd argue that it really needs to go to St. Cloud to see the full success or failure of the line, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.) There's many on the right also decrying it because it has an operating subsidy of $18 per passenger, and fares are at most $7 (dropping to $6 for the highest fare on August 1.)

 

[Guest]

I would not be surprised to see a train with no stops between LaCrosse and Milwaukee, or possibly even between LaCrosse and Chicago.

The problem with this logic (and the problem, in general, in expecting intermediate states to fund multi-state trains) is that you'd lose lots more money (and therefore, require a lot more in state subsidy) by not stopping than by stopping. There's simply no way around it, short of some super-high-speed train that is directly competitive with flying between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

The distance/time between, say, Winona and Glenview/Chicago is too great to be a viable regular-speed rail market on its own.

Any train that skips LaCrosse (which is in Wisconsin, so if you're going to skip all the stops in WI, there'd be no reason to stop there either; but still has a decent enough population for a western Wisconsin city), Wisconsin Dells (tourist destination), Columbus (close to Madison/major destination; particularly if there's a Thruway connection of some sort), or Milwaukee (again, major mid-point city) is going to be leaving money on the table. The costs of making such stops (assuming the station/infrastructure are already in place and no additional station staffing is required) almost always are going to be less than the revenue gained from stopping there (up to a certain point; you don't want to be stopping at every second tree).

Therefore, keeping the doors closed through a state that doesn't pay is really cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Agreed. And, many of the folks from MN will be wanting to travel to/from LaCrosse, Milwaukee, etc. Those are the markets which will benefit most from trains -- MSP-CHI by rail will never be able to compete with air travel times and airfares MSP-CHI because of so much competition, but MSP-LSE, LSE-MKE and LSE-CHI, etc. can.

 

[George Harris]

I would be happily surprised if passenger rail is something that any Minnesota politician is willing to spend political capital on, but I just don't see it. Look at the hue and cry over raising the gas tax in 2008, even after the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse highlighted the poor condition of Minnesota roads and bridges.

Poor maintenance had little to nothing to do with the I-35 bridge collapse. Close the sensationist reportage and look for technical analysis. For starts, go to

http://content.asce.org/I-35/NTSBI35W.html

The headline:

NTSB Expected to Adopt Final Report on I-35W Bridge Collapse; Agency Probe Cites Gusset Plate Design Flaw

A quote from the middle of the article:

During Thursday's testimony, federal investigators said they had discovered a major design flaw that dated to the bridge's original design in the mid-'60s -- the steel gusset plates that held beams together were only half the required thickness.

Look to the right side of the picture that is at the top of the linked article. At the right side you will see part of a concrete arch bridge, that would be considerably older than the bridge that collapsed. Give the reaction of reinforced concrete to deicing salts, that this bridge is still standing is a testimony to adequate maintenance.

 

[jphjaxfl]

When Minnesota started the state supported Arrowhead from Minneapolis to Superior, WI, the state also bought several excess BN passenger cars that Amtrak had rejected. While the cars were pretty rugged (they were built for the Gopher /cover Badger passenger trains, they did just fine til Amtrak built the Amfleet Is. The Arrow head morphed to the Northstar.

 

[Ispolkom]

Poor maintenance had little to nothing to do with the I-35 bridge collapse. Close the sensationist reportage and look for technical analysis. For starts, go to

Nice to know in retrospect, but, if I recall correctly the NTSB discovery of the building flaw (or at least its announcemnt) came after the debate on increasing the gas tax. Soon after the new, increased funding became available, MnDOT began replacing inadequate bridges throughout the state -- the Hastings bridge, the Lafayette Avenue bridge in St. Paul (both visible from the Empire Builder), the Granite City Crossing bridge in St. Cloud immediately come to mind.

I'll grant you that perhaps all these bridges were maintained in tip-top condition, but my point was this: it required enormous political capital to raise taxes for roads and bridges (and a little bit for transit), at a time when there was widespread concern about their condition all over the state. What's it going to take to raise money, even a little bit, for a train that will be seen to benefit 1) Wisconsin, and 2) the Twin Cities, and not the rest of the state?

 

[George Harris]

Was not intending to say that Minnesota was the poster child for great highway maintenance. I am reasonably certain they are not. However, the Mississippi River Bridge was not the example. In fact, it was being worked on at the time of the collapse. To see if maintenance is up to snuff, you have to get beyond the paint job. Look for exposed and rusted rebar, significant loss of section of steel members, cracked and potholed pavement, clogged drainage, etc., etc.

Highway bridges seldom collapse baring such things as strikes by river boats, erosion around and under supports, major strikes by vehicles, such stuff as has happened a few times as trucks with flammables burning under overpasses, etc. I really know all but nothing about what is done in the way of structural inspection and ratings by highway departments. However, in general highways are better able to dodge the bulled of inadequate bridge strength due to detrioration than railroads due to the standard loads used in their design. That is normally a series of trucks, which is a loading that seldom coours in all lanes. Someone that actually does bridge design should be able to explain that one more thoruughly. Railroad bridges, on the other hand are designed for a heavy freight train, a loading which does occur regularly. There are many briges out there on the railroad system carrying loads far in excess of that for which they were designed. How? Due to use of safety factors in the design to cover unknowns and careful analysis and strengthening since their construction. A railroad bridge may look like it is being kept together by rust and habit, but that is not the case. The critical items are carefully watched and strengthened and the loss of section due to rust carefully monitored. For many steels the metallurgy minimizes flaking of the rust, and once the oxide coating is thick enough that the oxyogen cannot penetrate further, rusting and metal loss ceases to progress.

 

[George Harris]

Nice to know in retrospect, but, if I recall correctly the NTSB discovery of the building flaw (or at least its announcemnt) came after the debate on increasing the gas tax.

Their report may have been used, but the timing of the release of the report in that issue was most likely accidental. The NTSB is probably one of the least subject to political pressure government agencies.

 

[Guest]

This study of a second train is all fine, but is Canadian Pacific even willing to accept another passenger train on their line without some capacity improvements?

 

[the_traveler]

1340910119[/url]' post='376436']What's it going to take to raise money, even a little bit, for a train that will be seen to benefit 1) Wisconsin, and 2) the Twin Cities, and not the rest of the state?

I had the same issue when I grew up and lived in upstate New York State. Why should most of my state tax money be sent to New York City?

(I lived 180 miles north of NYC, very seldom went there - except to change trains

- and I actually lived closer to Canada than NYC!)

[Moderator speaking]

I know that Amtrak is a political beast, but I have not read anything that says this service (if it happens) will be operated by Amtrak. But I have many comments about the MN and WI governments, the Republicans, the Tea Party and even those politicos in the "Greybar Hotel"! It is a fine line to the "restrictions" we at AU have placed on political comments in threads. I hope any future post do not cross it! I'm not at all saying it has been crossed, but it's getting very close - and I hope it is not crossed.

I think we can all discuss this topic in an adult and civilized manner!

 

[AlanB]

I had the same issue when I grew up and lived in upstate New York State. Why should most of my state tax money be sent to New York City?

(I lived 180 miles north of NYC, very seldom went there - except to change trains

Only one problem with that Dave; most of your state tax money didn't go to NYC.

NYC generated 45 of the State revenues in 2010, but only got back 40%.

The upstate areas, defined as north of I-84 and western NY, generated just less than 28% of the State's revenues, yet got back 42% in spending.

And while those numbers are from 2010, that has been the case for many years where those upstate get more back in state spending than they put in, while the downstate areas get less back in spending than they put in.

 

[jebr]

I know that Amtrak is a political beast, but I have not read anything that says this service (if it happens) will be operated by Amtrak.

I'm curious: if Amtrak wouldn't operate it, who would? It sounds like Amtrak is doing the study, so it seems reasonable that they would be operating it. The only other operator of passenger rail in Minnesota is Metro Transit, and I believe they contract out the actual operation to BNSF engineers.

 

[Eric S]

All little bit off-topic, but, in addition to this CHI-MSP study due out during winter 2012-2013, it is my understanding that IL & WI are sponsoring a study, due in mid-2013, of what sort of improvements would be necessary to increase the number of Hiawatha roundtrips between CHI & MKE.

 

[the_traveler]

1340918430[/url]' post='376476']

1340915779[/url]' post='376463']I know that Amtrak is a political beast, but I have not read anything that says this service (if it happens) will be operated by Amtrak.

I'm curious: if Amtrak wouldn't operate it, who would? It sounds like Amtrak is doing the study, so it seems reasonable that they would be operating it. The only other operator of passenger rail in Minnesota is Metro Transit, and I believe they contract out the actual operation to BNSF engineers.

The Florida East Coast (FEC) service AFAIK will not be operated by Amtrak, but you read about it often here.

 

[afigg]

1340918430[/url]' post='376476']I'm curious: if Amtrak wouldn't operate it, who would? It sounds like Amtrak is doing the study, so it seems reasonable that they would be operating it. The only other operator of passenger rail in Minnesota is Metro Transit, and I believe they contract out the actual operation to BNSF engineers.

The Florida East Coast (FEC) service AFAIK will not be operated by Amtrak, but you read about it often here.

The FEC is a different situation because the FEC owns the tracks & the ROW which are underutilized and the FEC sees potential for a profitable Miami to Orlando service. The key factor in their plans is the huge volume of tourist traffic to Orlando and reportedly enhancing the value of their real estate holdings along the ROW. That the other serious prospect in the US for privatized HSR passenger rail service is to Las Vegas is telling. Orlando, Las Vegas - hmm, what do they have in common? But discussing the FEC and XpressWest (formerly DesertXpress) projects is getting way OT here.

With Chicago as the hub and plans for once a day level corridor service, I can't see anyone else operating this service but Amtrak. The overhead cost of maintenance and staffing for a private operator for an isolated corridor for a once a day train service is going to make it non-competitive for them. Very big difference between a once a day MSP-CHI train running at current trip times and a higher or high speed corridor service with hourly or half-hourly departures during the peak periods.

 

[the_traveler]

Maybe I called it by the wrong name. What I meant was the rail service running from Jacksonville to Miami down the east coast of Florida - bypassing Orlando. I was not talking about the HSR from Miami to Orlando.

 

[Anderson]

Maybe I called it by the wrong name. What I meant was the rail service running from Jacksonville to Miami down the east coast of Florida - bypassing Orlando. I was not talking about the HSR from Miami to Orlando.

That's either going to be Amtrak or FEC...Amtrak is likely going to run a section of one or more Silvers down the FEC, and may run one or more corridor trains as well per a state study. Likewise, the FEC's plans to run a train to Orlando have potential service expansions to Jacksonville and/or Tampa (the FEC is likely trying to backdoor freight access to Tampa in opposition to CSX...at least, that's my guess of the game here). So it could be either (or both).

 

[AlanB]

(the FEC is likely trying to backdoor freight access to Tampa in opposition to CSX...at least, that's my guess of the game here). So it could be either (or both).

Yes, I've long thought that is part of the reason for this sudden interest in passenger service. Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the passenger service does rather well, but I still don't see it as a huge money maker for them, if it makes money at all. The passenger service opens doors that might not otherwise be easy to open, even as it comes with its own baggage that could still hurt them.

 

[jis]

Maybe I called it by the wrong name. What I meant was the rail service running from Jacksonville to Miami down the east coast of Florida - bypassing Orlando. I was not talking about the HSR from Miami to Orlando.

Extension of LD service over FEC between JAX and MIA will almost certainly be operated by Amtrak. As for who the operator will be for the MIA - (Cocoa) - ORL service as well as MIA - JAX service on FEC, that is all up in the air. It is quite possible that FEC will contract the operations out to someone, and it could very well be Amtrak or someone else, and it could be two different contractors for the two routes, since the nature of the service is going to be very different on those two routes.

 

[George Harris]

(the FEC is likely trying to backdoor freight access to Tampa in opposition to CSX...at least, that's my guess of the game here). So it could be either (or both).

Yes, I've long thought that is part of the reason for this sudden interest in passenger service. Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the passenger service does rather well, but I still don't see it as a huge money maker for them, if it makes money at all. The passenger service opens doors that might not otherwise be easy to open, even as it comes with its own baggage that could still hurt them.

Think of the inverse of the statement, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." For the FEC, it could well be that the situation is that "Those who know history are choosing to repeat it."

If you go back to Falgler, he used the fEC to promote south Florida. He really did not care how profitably or unprofitable the railroad was by itself so long as the some of all holdings was profitable. If I recall correctly, the FEC never paid a stock dividend until several years into the post paseenger service time. If the FEC has even a fraction of the land holding that it had a century ago, if the introduction of passenger service helps promote the area and increase the value or income from or both of their land holdings, the passenger service losses would look like small change to them.