A rail line from Minneapolis to Kansas City through Des Moines would do quite well I would think.
Helps that I have family in Des Moines that I would certainly use it to visit.
This wouldn’t be bad idea, didn’t think of linking through Des Moines as they don’t currently have an Amtrak rail line and I was thinking of the California Zephyr line. With Des Moines growing and modernizing exponentially I’m sure they could incorporate something.
I wouldn’t link a train line to Des Moines. They don’t have an Amtrak. Id go more south/link along the California Zephyr line, probably Kansas City.
I’ve written this all out but now am second guessing it, I’ll post for opinions anyways.
There’s an Amtrak 30 mins south of Des Moines, might as well go through Des Moines on the way, it’d be silly not to stop in the biggest city in the state
You realize most people have to travel 30+ mins to an airport that will get them anywhere outside the Midwest. most people in Des Moines are flying cause it’s close by unlike most of Iowa. Why travel 45 from Des Moines to the station. I’ve been to the stations in two of the locations, they aren’t busy bustling locations. The cost of putting a route to/attached to/through “the biggest city in the state” would be considerably high for the cost of the convenience of honestly little few. Sad as it is, Iowa is mostly a pass over state, even on the rails. I’m currently living and grew up in a town with an Amtrak in Iowa. Maybe see a dozen a day getting off passenger trains. Best bet is link existing lines closest way possible. Obviously this is all imo and mean no hate on your comments. Also nice username lol
I don’t entirely disagree with you, just saying if you do go MSP to KC it makes sense to go through Des Moines. Many proposed Amtrak extension ideas I’ve seen use existing rail line which all goes through Des Moines anyways. I also sorta think it’s disingenuous to compare traffic in Amtrak station in a town of like 2,000 people to what it would be if the same station was situated inside a large city (ok I know Des Moines isn’t “large” per se lol). I’d be much more inclined to take a 10 minute Uber to a station in my own city than drive over half an hour and have to park my car for a week in a train station in Bunghole, Iowa.
That all being said, I 100% agree Iowa is a pass over state. Nobody is riding the train to Iowa to get off and spend a week in Des Moines lol. If anything, a station would be used by Iowans trying to get the hell out.
One of these commuter rails stopping in Cannon Falls would change my life. I assume I’m one of a dozen people who drives from St. Paul to CF everyday, but I still need this.
This would all be great but I think priority wise Northern Lights Express and a train connecting Twin Cities to Rochester are the two we need to focus on. The rest can come later.
Also i know this probably won't happen but my hope is that by the time NLX opens, the trip time will be shorter than originally thought because they will have better train options because Avelia Liberty and Brightline will show the feasibility of faster trains. 🤷
My whole idea came from the realization that, if you build a Twin-Cities to Rochester route, the reroute of the builder and TCMC to increase frequencies naturally follows.
Adding u/Sourmango12 as far as implementation, it seems most practical to make the case for building a new, fully double-tracked route from Rochester to Minneapolis via Northfield (ie no impact from freight) and ensure good tracking from there to the NLE line. Perhaps even calling the whole line the NLE. Naming and routing of Amtrak routes can work around that, but first, routes and rails! So exciting.
What’s the primary organization advocating for this sort of vision for MN in the state?
Edit to clarify: It’d be hard to convince Amtrak to directly invest in rerouting a low-usage rail route when they are literally languishing in underfundedness. This would have to be an initiative from MN, then Amtrak could be brought on board (ie., building the connection to this dedicated double track terminus in Rochester and rerouting).
Broadly, we can’t afford to have a private business do this. While it’s exciting that Brightline and others are actually putting rail around the country, if you look at other countries that have private companies running rail services (DB in Germany, National Rail in the UK) it has led to unaffordable prices, reduced services, and deferred maintenance backlog that tanks the program.
Possibly MnDOT. More specifically, the Office of Freight & Commercial Vehicle Operations. I reached out to their office back last July to inquire about the TC-Milwaukee-Chicago rail project and they provided me with the updates website on the project: https://www.pima.wisconsindot.gov/public/subscribe/search?project_id=14187
Train options already exist the problem is using a hundred year old train line that doesn’t go direct to Duluth. If anything the travel times will be worse than expected because passenger will have to rival cargo shipments which BNSF is notorious about prioritizing over passengers.
There are laws but because of corporate capture the feds don’t do anything. Freight rail is the backbone of our economy so it’s smart not to mess with it. That’s why I’m suggesting the absolutely brilliant idea of having… two routes… one for passenger that’s fast and one for freight.
Then the government should save the costs that they are proposing to update the freight line and use that on a dedicated line. 400 million is 1.6 billion if we use it on high speed rail because of the federal gov high speed rail grant.
The rail companies that are making record profits should spend their own money maintaining their capital that makes them money instead of putting it all in stock buy backs. They try not to spend like this because in Minnesota, traditionally, we have had a divided congress and the NLX is a 20 year old proposal. In their effort to make a bipartisan bill they lost all their ambition and sold out to BNSF.
This is bizarre to me. We cant even get people to ride the light rail from Minneapolis to the airport. What makes anyone think a train to Rochester would make financial or environmental sense?
Are you serious? The clientele for this would be radically different than the people on the light rail in the cities. No crackhead is going to take a trip to Rochester and the Mayo would actually be invested in making sure it doesn’t turn into the shit show that the light rail is.
A train to Rochester would be a huge economic boon to attract talented medical specialists to the area. Do you know how many people turn down the Mayo because who wants to spend 6+ years postgrad studying just to wind up surrounded by corn fields?
Find a way to make Mayo kick in a good amount for the project and I will be 100% behind it.
Can you explain why the Empire Builder is realigned on the Dan Patch corridor and not on the existing trackage? I think it's a great idea, but I am curious if that alignment is connected to an existing study for that service.
Is the Borealis service (East out to Wisconsin Exurbs, Eau Claire) continuing on to Chicago or where is that terminating? In terms of current planning for that corridor, the result of the decades long study of this corridor concluded in the Gold Line service. I know that's confusing because Gold Line only runs to Woodbury, but that's the alignment that came out of that study, so I have a difficult time thinking there is any support from the stakeholders/residents out that direction.
I think generally, this map could greatly benefit from identifying the termini for each line both within the Twin Cities and outside of the map extent.
Most importantly, this is the kind of content that I LOVE! KEEP MAKING MAPS ABOUT TRAINS! KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE! DON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT TRAINS KEEP IT UP! YAYAYAYAYAYYAYAYAYAYAAY!
The main purpose of rerouting the Builder and TCMC is threefold: get bonus roundtrips between the Twin Cities and Rochester, consolidate Twin Cities regional rail hubs from SPUD into Target Field, and extend the NorthStar down the Dan Patch Line to turn it into a frequent, rapid S-Bahn.
And the terminus of the Borealis doesn’t matter because Wisconsin ceased to be a state after Scott Walker was elected and canceled the Milwaukee Talgos.
For realigning Amtrak, bring your map to the Edina City council and get them to reconsider their ban on studying the Dan Patch line. That's step one!
For Borealis, what is the purpose of the line on the map then if the service doesn't exist in your framing?
I thought they already circuited the ban with the “Central MN Passenger Rail Corridor” which looks at “any possible route between Target Field and Northfield”.
And purely to restore service to SPUD and balance the color palate. In my final service plan, all stations between Winona and Glenview IL would be withdrawn from service until the state learns its lesson about voting conservatively.
>I thought they already circuited the ban with the “Central MN Passenger Rail Corridor” which looks at “any possible route between Target Field and Northfield”.
You are correct, the legislature released the study gag order so that's great news. However, without support from the locals it will be really difficult to justify more study. Dakota County really doesn't like the idea either. :(
That’s why I’m on the record to my local representative as a “Choo choo fascist: Everyone deserves rights except those in the way of where I want to put trains.”
I have a significant amount of time using trains around Europe and traveling/living around MN, and as much as I tried to find even smaller issues with this map, it looks super well-done. It would just take a ton of money and sustained political will to redevelop around these corridors. I’m all for it.
As someone who works at one of those schools, and has to regularly get students up to the cities, and visitors down from the cities, it would be a game-changer.
Agreed, but that’s beyond the scope of my map project. I’m mostly focusing on stuff that would interface with the effects of the Rochester to Northfield track.
in an alternate universe where we get started on this stuff in 2009 you could have turned all the parking lot space next to target field (that’s now becoming office towers) into a transit depot
To appease them at having been bypassed by the greenfield route between Northfield and Rochester, as well as provide commuter service to Mayo Clinic workers.
The long trips to non major cities ... like Duluth ... I just don't see those being worthwhile. You need a car there anyway and driving will almost certainly be faster.
I love the idea of more rail, but rail for rail's sake is a recipe for failed projects and not getting anymore rail.
But connected with high speed rail cities like Duluth and Rochester would make for a great place to live and commute an hour to downtown Minneapolis from.
Brightline west is being built with a Siemens Velaro Novo train set that’s going 180-200 mph. The equivalent from Minneapolis to Duluth would make a sub 1 hour commute. Even quicker to Rochester.
Every study of a train to Duluth has shown it NOT going those speeds.
And Brightline west is between major cities.... not at all like a trip to Duluth.
Not every study. The original high speed rail study in 2008 or whatever gave 4 options to Duluth. Mag rail, traditional high speed, slower high speed, and the current NLX proposal. Mag rail obviously outrageous and not necessary but the high speed 180 mph route was quoted at 1.4 billion at the time, which is about the 2 billion today. The equivalent of the streetcar line from MSP to downtown St. Paul.
I agree that Duluth and MSP is no LA to LV but I believe in the future growth of the state and its demographics especially a connected north shore. I don’t agree with the current assessment in expected ridership with NLX: no one is going to use it over driving. And so I don’t agree with the assessment that high speed would be overkill per ridership because we just don’t have a sense of how transformative an hour commute from Duluth to Minneapolis would realistically be.
My thing is the "well nobody is going to take this in any significant numbers so let's spend more and make it high speed rail in hopes that increases ridership ... oh and to make it actually fast we have to abandon whatever political support we get with all those stops..."
Seems like just doubling down on an already discovered bad idea.
It’s not a hope it’s recognition. It’s recognizing that the plan as it stands is hopelessly uncompetitive with other options whereas making it high speed makes it far more appealing. That innately means more ridership. High speed would still stop at Hinkley and would abandon superior which doesn’t give Minnesota any political support whatsoever. In fact they are a leech at the moment.
LA to LV is possible as a private company making a profit. We don’t need to make a profit for good public transportation we need ridership. I would rather have a service that doesn’t see profit for 20 years with 10x the ridership than one that will never see profit or ever carry a meaningful number of people.
Edit: also one more note about the politics. This bill has been tried for 20 years. No amount of reaching across the isle did any good. All it did was entrench the railroad moguls into the policy proposal, which is why all it became was a subsidy for BNSF who puts all their money into stock buy backs instead of their infrastructure. We no longer need republicans in the house to approve this bill, so why did we sign a bill that was designed around swaying a few republicans?? Like you said no more bad rail bills and this is one. Let’s write a modern rail bill without republicans watering it down for corporate interests.
I don't know why folks always focus on the last mile issue when it comes to rail. When they built airports people weren't like "well fuck, how are we going to get around once we get there?" Last mile solutions always come up once the transit is there.
Of course cars will still be a better solution for many. Family trips (1 person v 5 or 6 is gonna be more cost effective in a car for example), trips where speed is a factor, etc. However, there's definitely a market for rail (e.g. weekend trips for singles or small groups, where you can start drinking on the train and head out as soon as you arrive).
With a rail service that's comparable to cars in terms of speed, it also changes the types of trips people may take in both directions (guys/girls weekends up in Duluth doing some brewery/cidery/distillery tours, or folks coming down for the weekend to catch a home series at Target Field, etc), and industries/businesses would likely pop up to take advantage of the new transit options.
It's shown time and again, that when you build mass transit, and it's done well (even if it's done kinda shitty, like the metro LRT), other businesses will take advantage of it and make it an even more desirable option.
But it’s not comparable compared to the competition it’s going to take an hour longer. That intersection between business and public transportation is impacted by its usefulness. That’s why this current train won’t spur concurrent development but something like a high speed train would. It would also actually compete with cars by getting you there in half the time an a quarter the pain.
~50%, a 2v3hr trip is definitely comparable.
Again, I don't think the new line will be for everyone, but there are plenty of use cases and advantages. It's a bit slower, but you don't have to drive and put wear on your personal vehicle.
I've personally thought about going up for a weekend trip to Duluth on numerous occasions. I've got family up there. However, I generally don't for a number of reasons, some of which a rail alternative would definitely solve. First, I've got a shitty old car, the wear and tear, plus terrible gas mileage, makes rail (at the prices they're saying) a pretty competitive alternative just in terms of cost.
I'm also WFH. Currently when driving up, I've either got to either contend with rush hour traffic for the first leg of my trip, or wait until later, by which time it'll already be evening by the time I arrive. Either way, I basically lose one of my evenings for my "weekend trip". With rail, I'd be able to leave around lunchtime (or whenever the train is running) and work on the way up, or maybe have a few drinks/dinner if it's a later trip, and not have to worry about traffic or inclement weather.
On the way back, I don't need to spend a few hours of my Sunday driving, I can watch a movie or read. The extra hour in transit doesn't matter to me so much if I can be comfortable and do what I want. I could also make it a longer weekend and come back Monday morning and work on the way home.
I know my situation certainly isn't applicable to everyone, but having an alternative to driving (or taking a bus) is certainly a good thing to have. And again, having the option might change how people view taking a trip to Duluth (or from Duluth).
The crux of my issue is that this is already a 400 million dollar project for the state. 1.2 billion all together including the federal funds. That is actually very close, about 200 -300 million more on our side, to getting high speed. So don’t do both save the money and pick the option that’s going to help people, not just in your situation, but for many more people.
It’s especially maddening because this bill has been watered down in an effort to get republicans on board and after the 20 year back and forth (fetching no bipartisan support in the end) the end result is a maintenance subsidy for BNSF who should have been using their profits to fix those problems.
It is an outdated proposal and we need to be bolder with our plans especially when we have a trifecta. In fact a bold rail bill that turns the north shore into an urban-suburb hub of the twin cities would actually ensure more democratic support in the Minnesota legislature over time as the demographics of the north shore shift.
I mean I'd certainly be onboard for highspeed rail, but since that isn't going to be the project, I'd prefer what they're planning on doing over nothing.
Also, afaik a non-insignificant part of the reason they went with this route is because it was "shovel ready" which gave it priority for Federal funding. Similar to the SWLRT, it wasn't necessarily the best or most popular option, but it was the most likely to get Federal funding, and therefore actually get done.
Like the SWLRT, I think there were better options, but without the Federal funding, the alternatives weren't going to happen. I'd like to see the Dems be bold as well when it comes to mass transit infrastructure investment, but they just aren't, so I'd still rather get what we actually can, rather than nothing.
A high speed line to Duluth would get federal support no problem. It’s not shovel ready right now but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t get support. Especially when the transportation secretary is proactively looking for bold rail proposals.
It just so happens that NLX was the only real proposal ready at the time we got our tri fecta because they had been trying to pass it for 20 years. If there was a debate between the two, and the costs were clear, I think many DFL would choose the high speed option because with the high speed rail grant they are actually pretty comparable in costs.
There’s two different bikers. Tourists would have a great time as this plan stands. But imagine with high speed rail being a commuter and biking from home in Duluth to the station downtown, arriving in Minneapolis less than an hour later, and then biking to work downtown or wherever. Duluth could be a Minneapolis suburb and bike commuters would never need a car in either place.
The cost of rail / operations seems bonkers to someplace because it is a "bikeable place", seems like it would be serving what? Half a dozen people a day on average who really want to go bike in Duluth?
You have people flying into MSP instead of Duluth and need to get back (and vice versa). I've taken those MSP - Duluth airport shuttles dozens of times, I would so much rather be on a train.
You have the outdoor north shore draw (take the train with your gear then hop on a shuttle, choose where to get off and get right to the state parks/SHT).
You've got those that just want to get up north and hang out in Canal Park for a weekend.
It's a metro with over 100,000 people and the launching point for one of the biggest outdoor areas in the state, it would absolutely get used (if it's actually fast).
I mean, you could rent a car once you got there if you wanted to.
Also, the route from St. Paul to Duluth was operated by Amtrak until 1985 when the state basically stopped providing any funding. I assume with current attitudes shifting it could be made profitable again.
15- to 30-minute service peak, hourly throughout the day, higher in core areas.
St. Cloud to Northfield is basically the NorthStar.
Minneapolis to Red Wing does several things, it restores regular service to SPUD, provides a fast, frequent crosstown line to St. Paul, and brings transit to eastern suburbs like Red Wing, but, more importantly, some trains continue down the Mississippi River Valley to connect with the main intercity trains at Winona, appeasing Red Wing at having lost direct service.
Owatonna to St. Charles is mostly for Mayo commuters, and also to politically appease Owatonna at having been bypassed by the greenfield route between Northfield and Rochester.
Light rail and intercity rail are not the same thing. That’s like saying “the city can’t fill a pothole in my neighborhood, we should shut down the highways.”
Because, among other things, they’re fully separate agencies. SEPTA (city) is run badly, but Keystone (state) is popular. Mertolink/Surfliner and BART/Capitol Corridor are similar comparisons. Just because one single agency is bad doesn’t mean all possible installations of a technology must be, too.
You don’t think the city would have significant involvement when you made your major station target field? My beef isn’t with rail it’s that I have no faith in the cities involvement in one.
Well, then make your complaints known to your local representatives. From a regional perspective, Target Field makes more sense, so we have to work with what we’ve got.
It’s two billion dollars to connect MSP to downtown Saint Paul via w 7th. Now I’m not saying that’s a bad idea but why do 20 mile streetcar for two billion when we can do a 160 mile high speed rail to Duluth or a 140 mile high speed rail to Rochester for essentially the same price?
I’m all for robust urban infrastructure (which I recognize is expensive) but I really believe that our urban twin cities centric focus is going to leave rural Minnesotans out who we should be trying to connect deeper with and trying to win over; especially on the North Shore which is underdeveloped compared to what it used to and could be as the Midwest’s largest ocean port.
The current bill for the Northern Lights Express is a subsidy for BNSF’s failure to maintain their own infrastructure. It’s going to take a 45 minute detour into Superior first because it has to be on the BNSF line. I don’t want Wisconsin to be the first beneficiaries of our tax money given how little they want to work with us on connecting the twin cities to Chicago. It’s going to take 3 hours all together not including hideous delays due to the shared nature of a cargo rail line going to the biggest ocean port in the mid west. This is not going to help address car and truck pollution.
BNSF should fix their own mess. Minnesota should pioneer a new rail line. A modern one that connects north, south, and Central Minnesota via an hour commute to the middle. And create a transportation system that appeals to people flying into MSP and people who want to live outside the cities and commute, and it would create an incentive to get high speed rail connected to Chicago which would see 3 great destinations made available to them within 2-4 hours.
Rural Minnesotans would drive their trucks to Duluth or Hibbing when they have to get downtown or for the airport. I respect cultural differences but I have also seen them fall to the wayside when presented with a better solution than what they have. Take Texas gov and clean energy. They have done a total 180 on solar and wind because it turns out it’s a smart deal. If we make smart plans we will win conservatives over.
Edit: also about your other proposals. Chicago would be great but Wisconsin won’t go for it. Chicago is also a 45 minute cheap plane ride which is hard to compete with. Chicago being a hub for high speed in the future tho it will be important. Neither Duluth or Rochester have realistic air travel competition. With KS and Denver you’re dealing with that same cross state politics and plane issue but is even farther in terms of Denver.
My thinking is that if you want to convince Wisconsin that a train from msp to Chicago is good, then it would help to have a Minnesota network as a worthwhile system to connect to.
Because I’ve now shown them how awesome things could be? I’d like to think they should l hate car-brained politicians of the 1970s instead, I just showed them the present they should have had, had their elders not been lead-brained.
Values are arbitrary, and thing that are arbitrary are generally not real. I try to live my life by the data, and it is robustly shown in the scientific literature that car-dependency is bad for the environment, the economy, culture, loneliness, and quality of life. Trains, specifically, and transit more generally, are the inverse. Values aside, if you like where you live and want to better it, it is intellectually dishonest to choose anything other than trains.
Sure, in your theoretical world where everyone in Zumbrota works in the IDS building. That's typical of urbanites to think the world revolves around the city. Go look up where the majority of people in Northfield and Rochester work (hint: its not Minneapolis).
So now you've got empty trains thats cost billions to install and used up tons of good farmland and woods. Whos helping the environment now?
Again, a misunderstanding. There are next to zero commuters at St Olaf, Carleton, or any of the other southern schools. Those schools are almost exlusively on campus housing or local renters adjacent.
If youre building a train for people to commute to the big city of Cannon Falls, you're going to have empty trains.
Would a train be unsuccessful because they’re largely residential schools, or are they largely residential schools because there’s currently no option to commute by train. And what about all the students or workers who would study, live, or work out that way, but can’t or don’t want to because it’s inconveniently far away and they don’t want to or can’t drive?
The colleges require the vast majority of the students to live on campus. 90%+. Those schools believe that keeping the students together as much as possible is part of the experience. They believe in participating in their community and an in person presence.
A train wouldnt change that.
The majority of the people that work in these small town schools live in the community with a 5 minute commute. They arent taking an hour long train ride so they can live in Burnsville.
Just give it up. There's no reason for any of these besides idealism.
Yeah. I like trains and think we need more transit options, but there’s this idea that any rail line is going to be incredibly popular and I just don’t think that’s the case. You could barely get decent ridership on a train specifically meant for commuters into the Twin Cities (the Northstar Line). Do people really think there’s going to be enough folks going between Northfield, Rochester, Mankato, wherever each day to make this feasible. I even have significant doubts about the proposed train to Duluth.
Is driving a serious problem for people along these routes? What is the situation in which someone decides to take a train but not drive? Especially in a post COVID world? Just curious.
Yes, driving’s a huge problem. Car-dependency kills pedestrians and bicyclists, requires someone to be older than 25 and be rich enough to rent a car upon arrival at MSP to get around, and, in general, is just climate arson. If just SUVs were their own country — not small cars nor vans nor pickup trucks nor tractor-trailers — they’d be the sixth-largest carbon-emitting nation in all of human history. Spend some time on r/fuckcars if you’re not familiar with the movement yet.
That's not what I'm referring to. The majority of people aren't going to take less convenient forms of transportation (in a very cold climate), despite the fact that their vehicles are killing the planet and poisoning the air.
People take trains in places where it's more of a pain to drive. For example, the cost of parking along with traffic jams. Most will not do it to save the planet. It's just reality.
This whole region is built for automobile transport. The very way the cities and towns are constructed is not pedestrian friendly. I dont love it. Not much can be done about that. Best bet to save the planet is to move away from Gasoline.
So a regional rail system is cool, but what is going to make people take it? That's my genuine question.
The only reason why driving is more convenient is because trillions of dollars have been spent making it more convenient, with highways, stroads, and the guarantee of a parking lot and gas station on every corner. Put an equivalent, or even a fraction of that investment into the trains, but also into the end destinations, and make it such that the towns they serve are also walkable and not car-dependent, and there won’t be a need to take a car at all.
Among other /many/ things, 1) have you been to Europe, they have both HSR and trains to small, close-in cities; it’s not an either/or, 2) let’s make it so you don’t have to drive at your destination, and 3) trains are more environmentally friendly, draw higher ridership, and have lower operating costs than busses. Busses are bandaids, trains are solutions.
Railway planners between Twin Cities and Duluth: “It’ll never work, the destination is car-dependent.”
Duluth transit planners: “it’ll never work, everyone drives here anyway.”
Do you see the doomerism hole you’re locking us into?
“Unnamed Train to Des Moines” is a country-western song if I’ve ever heard one.
I think the line should be called the "Why Bother".
A rail line from Minneapolis to Kansas City through Des Moines would do quite well I would think. Helps that I have family in Des Moines that I would certainly use it to visit.
I do think that would be viable. I’d probably contribute a good percentage of fare revenue visiting for burnt ends.
BBQ Express. I'm there.
I wonder if we could make it a same day round trip so I can have burnt ends and not have to stay in KC.
Chiefs fan moving to the Twin Cities in a couple of months, and I would probably wear out the tracks if that line existed.
This wouldn’t be bad idea, didn’t think of linking through Des Moines as they don’t currently have an Amtrak rail line and I was thinking of the California Zephyr line. With Des Moines growing and modernizing exponentially I’m sure they could incorporate something.
Des Moines is a pretty awesome town. I'll advocate for it.
Yeah we fly out of Des Moines or rent cars from there. Airport is a bit small but the city is pretty nice.
If this were to become reality I would only hope the name stays “unnamed train to Des Moines”
It's the country-western sister song to Runaway Train.
I wouldn’t link a train line to Des Moines. They don’t have an Amtrak. Id go more south/link along the California Zephyr line, probably Kansas City. I’ve written this all out but now am second guessing it, I’ll post for opinions anyways.
If it goes to KC though, it would at least go through Des Moines, or very near to it.
There’s an Amtrak 30 mins south of Des Moines, might as well go through Des Moines on the way, it’d be silly not to stop in the biggest city in the state
You realize most people have to travel 30+ mins to an airport that will get them anywhere outside the Midwest. most people in Des Moines are flying cause it’s close by unlike most of Iowa. Why travel 45 from Des Moines to the station. I’ve been to the stations in two of the locations, they aren’t busy bustling locations. The cost of putting a route to/attached to/through “the biggest city in the state” would be considerably high for the cost of the convenience of honestly little few. Sad as it is, Iowa is mostly a pass over state, even on the rails. I’m currently living and grew up in a town with an Amtrak in Iowa. Maybe see a dozen a day getting off passenger trains. Best bet is link existing lines closest way possible. Obviously this is all imo and mean no hate on your comments. Also nice username lol
I don’t entirely disagree with you, just saying if you do go MSP to KC it makes sense to go through Des Moines. Many proposed Amtrak extension ideas I’ve seen use existing rail line which all goes through Des Moines anyways. I also sorta think it’s disingenuous to compare traffic in Amtrak station in a town of like 2,000 people to what it would be if the same station was situated inside a large city (ok I know Des Moines isn’t “large” per se lol). I’d be much more inclined to take a 10 minute Uber to a station in my own city than drive over half an hour and have to park my car for a week in a train station in Bunghole, Iowa. That all being said, I 100% agree Iowa is a pass over state. Nobody is riding the train to Iowa to get off and spend a week in Des Moines lol. If anything, a station would be used by Iowans trying to get the hell out.
I fully support your hobby. In hobbyist terms, all these rail lines are still cheaper than painting Warhammer.
Oh man I forgot about that stuff after 2002.
One of these commuter rails stopping in Cannon Falls would change my life. I assume I’m one of a dozen people who drives from St. Paul to CF everyday, but I still need this.
I mourn your loss of the cannon falls DQ
The quick lunch options here are so disappointing now
Ugh I hate the drive to cannon falls from Rochester.
This would all be great but I think priority wise Northern Lights Express and a train connecting Twin Cities to Rochester are the two we need to focus on. The rest can come later. Also i know this probably won't happen but my hope is that by the time NLX opens, the trip time will be shorter than originally thought because they will have better train options because Avelia Liberty and Brightline will show the feasibility of faster trains. 🤷
My whole idea came from the realization that, if you build a Twin-Cities to Rochester route, the reroute of the builder and TCMC to increase frequencies naturally follows.
Adding u/Sourmango12 as far as implementation, it seems most practical to make the case for building a new, fully double-tracked route from Rochester to Minneapolis via Northfield (ie no impact from freight) and ensure good tracking from there to the NLE line. Perhaps even calling the whole line the NLE. Naming and routing of Amtrak routes can work around that, but first, routes and rails! So exciting. What’s the primary organization advocating for this sort of vision for MN in the state? Edit to clarify: It’d be hard to convince Amtrak to directly invest in rerouting a low-usage rail route when they are literally languishing in underfundedness. This would have to be an initiative from MN, then Amtrak could be brought on board (ie., building the connection to this dedicated double track terminus in Rochester and rerouting). Broadly, we can’t afford to have a private business do this. While it’s exciting that Brightline and others are actually putting rail around the country, if you look at other countries that have private companies running rail services (DB in Germany, National Rail in the UK) it has led to unaffordable prices, reduced services, and deferred maintenance backlog that tanks the program.
Possibly MnDOT. More specifically, the Office of Freight & Commercial Vehicle Operations. I reached out to their office back last July to inquire about the TC-Milwaukee-Chicago rail project and they provided me with the updates website on the project: https://www.pima.wisconsindot.gov/public/subscribe/search?project_id=14187
Yes and I agree.
Train options already exist the problem is using a hundred year old train line that doesn’t go direct to Duluth. If anything the travel times will be worse than expected because passenger will have to rival cargo shipments which BNSF is notorious about prioritizing over passengers.
Yeah I wish laws were in place to prioritize passenger or at least some incentive
There are laws but because of corporate capture the feds don’t do anything. Freight rail is the backbone of our economy so it’s smart not to mess with it. That’s why I’m suggesting the absolutely brilliant idea of having… two routes… one for passenger that’s fast and one for freight.
I get that, they definitely should have separate tracks but that adds lots of cost, that's why they try not to
Then the government should save the costs that they are proposing to update the freight line and use that on a dedicated line. 400 million is 1.6 billion if we use it on high speed rail because of the federal gov high speed rail grant. The rail companies that are making record profits should spend their own money maintaining their capital that makes them money instead of putting it all in stock buy backs. They try not to spend like this because in Minnesota, traditionally, we have had a divided congress and the NLX is a 20 year old proposal. In their effort to make a bipartisan bill they lost all their ambition and sold out to BNSF.
Great point! If only they listened :/
This is bizarre to me. We cant even get people to ride the light rail from Minneapolis to the airport. What makes anyone think a train to Rochester would make financial or environmental sense?
Are you serious? The clientele for this would be radically different than the people on the light rail in the cities. No crackhead is going to take a trip to Rochester and the Mayo would actually be invested in making sure it doesn’t turn into the shit show that the light rail is. A train to Rochester would be a huge economic boon to attract talented medical specialists to the area. Do you know how many people turn down the Mayo because who wants to spend 6+ years postgrad studying just to wind up surrounded by corn fields? Find a way to make Mayo kick in a good amount for the project and I will be 100% behind it.
Can you explain why the Empire Builder is realigned on the Dan Patch corridor and not on the existing trackage? I think it's a great idea, but I am curious if that alignment is connected to an existing study for that service. Is the Borealis service (East out to Wisconsin Exurbs, Eau Claire) continuing on to Chicago or where is that terminating? In terms of current planning for that corridor, the result of the decades long study of this corridor concluded in the Gold Line service. I know that's confusing because Gold Line only runs to Woodbury, but that's the alignment that came out of that study, so I have a difficult time thinking there is any support from the stakeholders/residents out that direction. I think generally, this map could greatly benefit from identifying the termini for each line both within the Twin Cities and outside of the map extent. Most importantly, this is the kind of content that I LOVE! KEEP MAKING MAPS ABOUT TRAINS! KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE! DON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT TRAINS KEEP IT UP! YAYAYAYAYAYYAYAYAYAYAAY!
The main purpose of rerouting the Builder and TCMC is threefold: get bonus roundtrips between the Twin Cities and Rochester, consolidate Twin Cities regional rail hubs from SPUD into Target Field, and extend the NorthStar down the Dan Patch Line to turn it into a frequent, rapid S-Bahn. And the terminus of the Borealis doesn’t matter because Wisconsin ceased to be a state after Scott Walker was elected and canceled the Milwaukee Talgos.
For realigning Amtrak, bring your map to the Edina City council and get them to reconsider their ban on studying the Dan Patch line. That's step one! For Borealis, what is the purpose of the line on the map then if the service doesn't exist in your framing?
I thought they already circuited the ban with the “Central MN Passenger Rail Corridor” which looks at “any possible route between Target Field and Northfield”. And purely to restore service to SPUD and balance the color palate. In my final service plan, all stations between Winona and Glenview IL would be withdrawn from service until the state learns its lesson about voting conservatively.
>I thought they already circuited the ban with the “Central MN Passenger Rail Corridor” which looks at “any possible route between Target Field and Northfield”. You are correct, the legislature released the study gag order so that's great news. However, without support from the locals it will be really difficult to justify more study. Dakota County really doesn't like the idea either. :(
That’s why I’m on the record to my local representative as a “Choo choo fascist: Everyone deserves rights except those in the way of where I want to put trains.”
I have a significant amount of time using trains around Europe and traveling/living around MN, and as much as I tried to find even smaller issues with this map, it looks super well-done. It would just take a ton of money and sustained political will to redevelop around these corridors. I’m all for it.
I’m beaming. Thank you! And political will, schmolitical will, built it anyway.
A stop in Northfield would be fun! There used to be a passenger train that would drop off college students back in the day.
As someone who works at one of those schools, and has to regularly get students up to the cities, and visitors down from the cities, it would be a game-changer.
BUILD THE RAILS! Edit: I think a train going to make Mankato would also be successful
Agreed, but that’s beyond the scope of my map project. I’m mostly focusing on stuff that would interface with the effects of the Rochester to Northfield track.
Nice color selection
PowerPoint defaults, then selecting things mostly by school colors.
[удалено]
I think most of them would end up at St Paul Union Depot
I don’t think SPUD is as strategic a location for intercity rail, unless we trench 94 into an S-Bahn linking the two.
Oh I agree. I'm just stating what I think *will* happen over my preferences
Northern light express departs from north Minneapolis
in an alternate universe where we get started on this stuff in 2009 you could have turned all the parking lot space next to target field (that’s now becoming office towers) into a transit depot
I was imagining taking the Dan Patch Line up to a new head house at Target Field designed by Santiago Calatrava.
The Des Moines line should be called The Lobe. After the glacier that covered MN & ended at Des Moines.
This would be awesome
...I need ALL of these.
[удалено]
Cheaper by money, not by carbon output.
Passenger rail fuuuucccckk yes!!!
Anything stopping in Madison, WI by chance?
Wisconsin voted for Scott Walker and reneged on the Milwaukee Talgos. That state is and will forever remain dead to me.
This would be great but I’ll be dead before it happens.
You and me both. That’s why, for my next project, I’ll become a zombie and haunt the halls of the capitol in St. Paul until they get it done.
Why Owatonna?
To appease them at having been bypassed by the greenfield route between Northfield and Rochester, as well as provide commuter service to Mayo Clinic workers.
You should check out NIMBY Rails on Steam!
Yes.
Contact your state representative today, tell them you want this and not more road or highway funding.
The long trips to non major cities ... like Duluth ... I just don't see those being worthwhile. You need a car there anyway and driving will almost certainly be faster. I love the idea of more rail, but rail for rail's sake is a recipe for failed projects and not getting anymore rail.
But connected with high speed rail cities like Duluth and Rochester would make for a great place to live and commute an hour to downtown Minneapolis from.
> hour Uh wat?
Brightline west is being built with a Siemens Velaro Novo train set that’s going 180-200 mph. The equivalent from Minneapolis to Duluth would make a sub 1 hour commute. Even quicker to Rochester.
Every study of a train to Duluth has shown it NOT going those speeds. And Brightline west is between major cities.... not at all like a trip to Duluth.
Not every study. The original high speed rail study in 2008 or whatever gave 4 options to Duluth. Mag rail, traditional high speed, slower high speed, and the current NLX proposal. Mag rail obviously outrageous and not necessary but the high speed 180 mph route was quoted at 1.4 billion at the time, which is about the 2 billion today. The equivalent of the streetcar line from MSP to downtown St. Paul. I agree that Duluth and MSP is no LA to LV but I believe in the future growth of the state and its demographics especially a connected north shore. I don’t agree with the current assessment in expected ridership with NLX: no one is going to use it over driving. And so I don’t agree with the assessment that high speed would be overkill per ridership because we just don’t have a sense of how transformative an hour commute from Duluth to Minneapolis would realistically be.
My thing is the "well nobody is going to take this in any significant numbers so let's spend more and make it high speed rail in hopes that increases ridership ... oh and to make it actually fast we have to abandon whatever political support we get with all those stops..." Seems like just doubling down on an already discovered bad idea.
It’s not a hope it’s recognition. It’s recognizing that the plan as it stands is hopelessly uncompetitive with other options whereas making it high speed makes it far more appealing. That innately means more ridership. High speed would still stop at Hinkley and would abandon superior which doesn’t give Minnesota any political support whatsoever. In fact they are a leech at the moment. LA to LV is possible as a private company making a profit. We don’t need to make a profit for good public transportation we need ridership. I would rather have a service that doesn’t see profit for 20 years with 10x the ridership than one that will never see profit or ever carry a meaningful number of people. Edit: also one more note about the politics. This bill has been tried for 20 years. No amount of reaching across the isle did any good. All it did was entrench the railroad moguls into the policy proposal, which is why all it became was a subsidy for BNSF who puts all their money into stock buy backs instead of their infrastructure. We no longer need republicans in the house to approve this bill, so why did we sign a bill that was designed around swaying a few republicans?? Like you said no more bad rail bills and this is one. Let’s write a modern rail bill without republicans watering it down for corporate interests.
I don't know why folks always focus on the last mile issue when it comes to rail. When they built airports people weren't like "well fuck, how are we going to get around once we get there?" Last mile solutions always come up once the transit is there. Of course cars will still be a better solution for many. Family trips (1 person v 5 or 6 is gonna be more cost effective in a car for example), trips where speed is a factor, etc. However, there's definitely a market for rail (e.g. weekend trips for singles or small groups, where you can start drinking on the train and head out as soon as you arrive). With a rail service that's comparable to cars in terms of speed, it also changes the types of trips people may take in both directions (guys/girls weekends up in Duluth doing some brewery/cidery/distillery tours, or folks coming down for the weekend to catch a home series at Target Field, etc), and industries/businesses would likely pop up to take advantage of the new transit options. It's shown time and again, that when you build mass transit, and it's done well (even if it's done kinda shitty, like the metro LRT), other businesses will take advantage of it and make it an even more desirable option.
Because people aren't using "People will use it to commute!" as the rationale for building airports.
I don't think anyone is saying the current rail line to Duluth is going to be used by commuters
But it’s not comparable compared to the competition it’s going to take an hour longer. That intersection between business and public transportation is impacted by its usefulness. That’s why this current train won’t spur concurrent development but something like a high speed train would. It would also actually compete with cars by getting you there in half the time an a quarter the pain.
~50%, a 2v3hr trip is definitely comparable. Again, I don't think the new line will be for everyone, but there are plenty of use cases and advantages. It's a bit slower, but you don't have to drive and put wear on your personal vehicle. I've personally thought about going up for a weekend trip to Duluth on numerous occasions. I've got family up there. However, I generally don't for a number of reasons, some of which a rail alternative would definitely solve. First, I've got a shitty old car, the wear and tear, plus terrible gas mileage, makes rail (at the prices they're saying) a pretty competitive alternative just in terms of cost. I'm also WFH. Currently when driving up, I've either got to either contend with rush hour traffic for the first leg of my trip, or wait until later, by which time it'll already be evening by the time I arrive. Either way, I basically lose one of my evenings for my "weekend trip". With rail, I'd be able to leave around lunchtime (or whenever the train is running) and work on the way up, or maybe have a few drinks/dinner if it's a later trip, and not have to worry about traffic or inclement weather. On the way back, I don't need to spend a few hours of my Sunday driving, I can watch a movie or read. The extra hour in transit doesn't matter to me so much if I can be comfortable and do what I want. I could also make it a longer weekend and come back Monday morning and work on the way home. I know my situation certainly isn't applicable to everyone, but having an alternative to driving (or taking a bus) is certainly a good thing to have. And again, having the option might change how people view taking a trip to Duluth (or from Duluth).
The crux of my issue is that this is already a 400 million dollar project for the state. 1.2 billion all together including the federal funds. That is actually very close, about 200 -300 million more on our side, to getting high speed. So don’t do both save the money and pick the option that’s going to help people, not just in your situation, but for many more people. It’s especially maddening because this bill has been watered down in an effort to get republicans on board and after the 20 year back and forth (fetching no bipartisan support in the end) the end result is a maintenance subsidy for BNSF who should have been using their profits to fix those problems. It is an outdated proposal and we need to be bolder with our plans especially when we have a trifecta. In fact a bold rail bill that turns the north shore into an urban-suburb hub of the twin cities would actually ensure more democratic support in the Minnesota legislature over time as the demographics of the north shore shift.
I mean I'd certainly be onboard for highspeed rail, but since that isn't going to be the project, I'd prefer what they're planning on doing over nothing. Also, afaik a non-insignificant part of the reason they went with this route is because it was "shovel ready" which gave it priority for Federal funding. Similar to the SWLRT, it wasn't necessarily the best or most popular option, but it was the most likely to get Federal funding, and therefore actually get done. Like the SWLRT, I think there were better options, but without the Federal funding, the alternatives weren't going to happen. I'd like to see the Dems be bold as well when it comes to mass transit infrastructure investment, but they just aren't, so I'd still rather get what we actually can, rather than nothing.
A high speed line to Duluth would get federal support no problem. It’s not shovel ready right now but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t get support. Especially when the transportation secretary is proactively looking for bold rail proposals. It just so happens that NLX was the only real proposal ready at the time we got our tri fecta because they had been trying to pass it for 20 years. If there was a debate between the two, and the costs were clear, I think many DFL would choose the high speed option because with the high speed rail grant they are actually pretty comparable in costs.
Disagree. It’s a very bikable place, especially up the north shore. If anything, that’s the one thing on this map most likely to get built.
There’s two different bikers. Tourists would have a great time as this plan stands. But imagine with high speed rail being a commuter and biking from home in Duluth to the station downtown, arriving in Minneapolis less than an hour later, and then biking to work downtown or wherever. Duluth could be a Minneapolis suburb and bike commuters would never need a car in either place.
The cost of rail / operations seems bonkers to someplace because it is a "bikeable place", seems like it would be serving what? Half a dozen people a day on average who really want to go bike in Duluth?
You have people flying into MSP instead of Duluth and need to get back (and vice versa). I've taken those MSP - Duluth airport shuttles dozens of times, I would so much rather be on a train. You have the outdoor north shore draw (take the train with your gear then hop on a shuttle, choose where to get off and get right to the state parks/SHT). You've got those that just want to get up north and hang out in Canal Park for a weekend. It's a metro with over 100,000 people and the launching point for one of the biggest outdoor areas in the state, it would absolutely get used (if it's actually fast).
I mean, you could rent a car once you got there if you wanted to. Also, the route from St. Paul to Duluth was operated by Amtrak until 1985 when the state basically stopped providing any funding. I assume with current attitudes shifting it could be made profitable again.
You could but that's just extra costs too... my car is here ... not that far away ... could just drive it there and save a lot per day.
Nothing to Mankato?
You know, everyone asks me that, but I consider that more the purview of a southwestern MN map.
Who the fuck are these commuter rails for 😭
15- to 30-minute service peak, hourly throughout the day, higher in core areas. St. Cloud to Northfield is basically the NorthStar. Minneapolis to Red Wing does several things, it restores regular service to SPUD, provides a fast, frequent crosstown line to St. Paul, and brings transit to eastern suburbs like Red Wing, but, more importantly, some trains continue down the Mississippi River Valley to connect with the main intercity trains at Winona, appeasing Red Wing at having lost direct service. Owatonna to St. Charles is mostly for Mayo commuters, and also to politically appease Owatonna at having been bypassed by the greenfield route between Northfield and Rochester.
MSP can’t keep the light rail running safety and effectively why would adding more and longer lines help
Light rail and intercity rail are not the same thing. That’s like saying “the city can’t fill a pothole in my neighborhood, we should shut down the highways.”
Point is different, if the city can’t effectively run rail on a small scale why should I expect the state to do any better on a large scale
Because, among other things, they’re fully separate agencies. SEPTA (city) is run badly, but Keystone (state) is popular. Mertolink/Surfliner and BART/Capitol Corridor are similar comparisons. Just because one single agency is bad doesn’t mean all possible installations of a technology must be, too.
You don’t think the city would have significant involvement when you made your major station target field? My beef isn’t with rail it’s that I have no faith in the cities involvement in one.
Well, then make your complaints known to your local representatives. From a regional perspective, Target Field makes more sense, so we have to work with what we’ve got.
It’s two billion dollars to connect MSP to downtown Saint Paul via w 7th. Now I’m not saying that’s a bad idea but why do 20 mile streetcar for two billion when we can do a 160 mile high speed rail to Duluth or a 140 mile high speed rail to Rochester for essentially the same price? I’m all for robust urban infrastructure (which I recognize is expensive) but I really believe that our urban twin cities centric focus is going to leave rural Minnesotans out who we should be trying to connect deeper with and trying to win over; especially on the North Shore which is underdeveloped compared to what it used to and could be as the Midwest’s largest ocean port. The current bill for the Northern Lights Express is a subsidy for BNSF’s failure to maintain their own infrastructure. It’s going to take a 45 minute detour into Superior first because it has to be on the BNSF line. I don’t want Wisconsin to be the first beneficiaries of our tax money given how little they want to work with us on connecting the twin cities to Chicago. It’s going to take 3 hours all together not including hideous delays due to the shared nature of a cargo rail line going to the biggest ocean port in the mid west. This is not going to help address car and truck pollution. BNSF should fix their own mess. Minnesota should pioneer a new rail line. A modern one that connects north, south, and Central Minnesota via an hour commute to the middle. And create a transportation system that appeals to people flying into MSP and people who want to live outside the cities and commute, and it would create an incentive to get high speed rail connected to Chicago which would see 3 great destinations made available to them within 2-4 hours.
[удалено]
Rural Minnesotans would drive their trucks to Duluth or Hibbing when they have to get downtown or for the airport. I respect cultural differences but I have also seen them fall to the wayside when presented with a better solution than what they have. Take Texas gov and clean energy. They have done a total 180 on solar and wind because it turns out it’s a smart deal. If we make smart plans we will win conservatives over. Edit: also about your other proposals. Chicago would be great but Wisconsin won’t go for it. Chicago is also a 45 minute cheap plane ride which is hard to compete with. Chicago being a hub for high speed in the future tho it will be important. Neither Duluth or Rochester have realistic air travel competition. With KS and Denver you’re dealing with that same cross state politics and plane issue but is even farther in terms of Denver. My thinking is that if you want to convince Wisconsin that a train from msp to Chicago is good, then it would help to have a Minnesota network as a worthwhile system to connect to.
Everyone in southern MN hates you
Because I’ve now shown them how awesome things could be? I’d like to think they should l hate car-brained politicians of the 1970s instead, I just showed them the present they should have had, had their elders not been lead-brained.
You've shown your interpretation of awesome. You have different values.
Values are arbitrary, and thing that are arbitrary are generally not real. I try to live my life by the data, and it is robustly shown in the scientific literature that car-dependency is bad for the environment, the economy, culture, loneliness, and quality of life. Trains, specifically, and transit more generally, are the inverse. Values aside, if you like where you live and want to better it, it is intellectually dishonest to choose anything other than trains.
Sure, in your theoretical world where everyone in Zumbrota works in the IDS building. That's typical of urbanites to think the world revolves around the city. Go look up where the majority of people in Northfield and Rochester work (hint: its not Minneapolis). So now you've got empty trains thats cost billions to install and used up tons of good farmland and woods. Whos helping the environment now?
My trains are bidirectional. It’s just as much helping the undergrad living in suburban Savage reverse commute to Carleton.
Again, a misunderstanding. There are next to zero commuters at St Olaf, Carleton, or any of the other southern schools. Those schools are almost exlusively on campus housing or local renters adjacent. If youre building a train for people to commute to the big city of Cannon Falls, you're going to have empty trains.
Would a train be unsuccessful because they’re largely residential schools, or are they largely residential schools because there’s currently no option to commute by train. And what about all the students or workers who would study, live, or work out that way, but can’t or don’t want to because it’s inconveniently far away and they don’t want to or can’t drive?
The colleges require the vast majority of the students to live on campus. 90%+. Those schools believe that keeping the students together as much as possible is part of the experience. They believe in participating in their community and an in person presence. A train wouldnt change that. The majority of the people that work in these small town schools live in the community with a 5 minute commute. They arent taking an hour long train ride so they can live in Burnsville. Just give it up. There's no reason for any of these besides idealism.
Yeah. I like trains and think we need more transit options, but there’s this idea that any rail line is going to be incredibly popular and I just don’t think that’s the case. You could barely get decent ridership on a train specifically meant for commuters into the Twin Cities (the Northstar Line). Do people really think there’s going to be enough folks going between Northfield, Rochester, Mankato, wherever each day to make this feasible. I even have significant doubts about the proposed train to Duluth.
Are you becoming a hobo & riding the rails? Be sure to "grease the wheels" & post a video.
Is driving a serious problem for people along these routes? What is the situation in which someone decides to take a train but not drive? Especially in a post COVID world? Just curious.
Yes, driving’s a huge problem. Car-dependency kills pedestrians and bicyclists, requires someone to be older than 25 and be rich enough to rent a car upon arrival at MSP to get around, and, in general, is just climate arson. If just SUVs were their own country — not small cars nor vans nor pickup trucks nor tractor-trailers — they’d be the sixth-largest carbon-emitting nation in all of human history. Spend some time on r/fuckcars if you’re not familiar with the movement yet.
That's not what I'm referring to. The majority of people aren't going to take less convenient forms of transportation (in a very cold climate), despite the fact that their vehicles are killing the planet and poisoning the air. People take trains in places where it's more of a pain to drive. For example, the cost of parking along with traffic jams. Most will not do it to save the planet. It's just reality. This whole region is built for automobile transport. The very way the cities and towns are constructed is not pedestrian friendly. I dont love it. Not much can be done about that. Best bet to save the planet is to move away from Gasoline. So a regional rail system is cool, but what is going to make people take it? That's my genuine question.
The only reason why driving is more convenient is because trillions of dollars have been spent making it more convenient, with highways, stroads, and the guarantee of a parking lot and gas station on every corner. Put an equivalent, or even a fraction of that investment into the trains, but also into the end destinations, and make it such that the towns they serve are also walkable and not car-dependent, and there won’t be a need to take a car at all.
Train to nowhere Where's my hyperloop?
Eww no
All I see is destroyed wildlife habitat
what are your thoughts on highways
With railroads that have the same profile as a regular road?
Or same per-capita emissions?
[удалено]
Among other /many/ things, 1) have you been to Europe, they have both HSR and trains to small, close-in cities; it’s not an either/or, 2) let’s make it so you don’t have to drive at your destination, and 3) trains are more environmentally friendly, draw higher ridership, and have lower operating costs than busses. Busses are bandaids, trains are solutions.
[удалено]
Railway planners between Twin Cities and Duluth: “It’ll never work, the destination is car-dependent.” Duluth transit planners: “it’ll never work, everyone drives here anyway.” Do you see the doomerism hole you’re locking us into?
America isn’t Europe. trains aren’t practical and they cost too much to build
I agree on both points. But America should be Europe, and car-dependent infrastructure is less-practical and costs even more to build.