Woah. These are some big numbers.
The proposed passenger rail line from Minneapolis to Duluth is expected to help generate nearly $2 billion in development around five Minnesota stations, including almost $1 billion around the Minneapolis station at the Twins’ new ballpark, according to a study presented Tuesday.
A line supporting eight daily trains capable of speeds up to 110 miles per hour would generate 13,833 jobs throughout the corridor, the Minneapolis Transportation & Public Works Committee and Anoka County board were told in separate presentations.
With a slowing economy, this proposal looks even more attractive. The cost of the line is projected to be $400 million. That’s cost effective on face, but when you factor in the 70 or 80 percent the feds contribute, all of the sudden Minnesota is investing $80 million to get a $2 billion payout. Not bad for government work.
Remember, you gotta spend money to make money. This one is a no-brainer.
Just to prove that there is diversity of thought within the Republican Party, I just want to say…. I agree!
Minnesota is way behind on rail in general. As we compete for knowledge workers in the creative economy, they are looking for transit options that don’t always include a car. We need to get going or cities like Portland and Denver are going to get too far ahead of us on this front.
Plus, we already subsidize roads.
The only place where I disagree with Dems on this one is how to pay for it. They say “open the floodgates” with public money — which is code for the tax check we write each April. I say do it in a way that doesn’t make those same knowledge workers want to go somewhere else because our income taxes are too high.
Wise words from Dan — I could not agree more — brilliantly spoken, and represents the sort of forward thinking, where can we agree, and get some common sense, common good work done.
Clearly, government can’t, and shouldn’t try to, solve every problem, but I do think government should be in the business of creating an environment where I can do my business as well as possible.
And Dan is exactly right in that taxation has to be balanced with services in such a way that we keep the economic climate as lush as possible.
“Dan must be a RINO!!!”
Say, Dan?
“Mega dittos, pal!!!”
The problem is, how do we get a deal like this done, when in this toxic political environment a “win-win deal” means ya can’t plaster the opposition party with sludge??!?
Dan — You’re popular around here today, it seems.
The devil is always in the details — how do we pay for it? Relying too much on bonding is a mistake, as it only defers the inevitable. Fuel or highway weight taxes seem like the best way to go, if income taxes are not used.
Thanks for the pats on the back, everyone. Hope you realize many of us are willing to have real dialogues on issues like this.
I am at odds with the MN GOP on this one. This is about growing our economy with jobs for the future — ones that can’t be outsourced. We need a full court press on attracting knowledge workers, not trying to keep the manufacturing sector alive.
Funny thing is that other states’ GOP’s are bought into mass transit because they get that it is an important piece of a healthy future tax base.
How to pay for it? I’m not opposed to bonding for much of the buildout. I get a mortgage when I add on to my home, but I would never use a mortgage for my annual homeowner expenses. Same goes for the buildout of rail — OK to borrow for the intial investment, but never borrow for ongoing maintenance, etc.
I’m not opposed to some tax $ going to this, but prefer it not simply be another income tax on those in the upper range of tax brackets. All of the bright researchers, execs, entreprenuers that we need to attract view themselves as being successful one day. We don’t want that mental image to also include a 50% total tax rate. Taxes are already my largest family expense — 3 times what my (too large) mortgage is. I’d like to see more focus on usage tax.
Wonderful, we can spend billions to run a train into an area that will be developed. What does that do for the tiring inner ring suburbs and core cities? Instead of running a train into farm fields and swamps in the name of development, lets get some real transit where it is needed first. Then the development will be redevelopment.
I didn’t realize this was an “inner ring” v. “outstate” either/or choice.
In fact, this seems like a brilliant way to change trains from ‘expensive boondoggle’ to ‘source of jobs’ in a lot of outstate minds. Make them more comfortable with it, and getting state money for trains in the metro will make more sense to to them.
A tree doesn’t grow to the sky. Exactly how big are we going to make these roads?
My points are about transit in general. I’m pro transit. I’m not specifically advocating for this rail line, although I’m not opposed to it either.
Zack, you are brilliant. This train to Duluth idea has been a life-long dream of mine. Live in Duluth and commute to downtown Minneapolis? What could be better?
The economics of commuter rail are very persuasive- by using an already existing freight line and adapted freight locomotive technology, we get incredible bang for the buck. Something this good should be shared with the whole state- besides the Duluth line, we should have passenger trains supplementing Amtrak from the cities to Winona and Fargo as well as trains to Rochester, Mankato, Willmar, and into western Wisconsin.
Ioannes-
You must have missed the part where $1 billion of the development will be in Minneapolis. Then there is the station in Coon Rapids, which is a 2nd Ring suburb. Most of the money benefits the metro.
Zack - What does it do for North Mpls? What does it do for South St. Paul? what does it do for Richfield? My point is that before we start paving over Pine County, we need to restore the inner city and first ring suburbs.
Though I support better mass transit, the resurrection of what used to be called the Northstar (Amtrack ran to Duluth for a number of years from the Twin Cities) hasn’t got a customer base right now. Building it would only create more suburban sprawl. Sprawl by the way is ok, I am opposed to telling people they can’t move out to a rural area, but I think policy that encourages it (while creating problems for the core cities) isn’t in our best interest. You wanna do something powerful with transit, do this:
Support a metro sales tax and do what Denver did (112 miles of LRT within the Denver Metro Service Area). See how previously blighted neighborhoods were reborn!
But if it is build, I will ride it to go smelting
Sorry guy. I am a pro-transit Republican, but this
is a horrible idea. What problem is it trying to solve?
Rush hour congestion? That is what Northstar is for.
If you want another commuter rail line, fine. But why the hell take it to Duluth? What family of 4 is going to spend
$120 on 4 round trip tickets when they can drive their
and back for $30?
Again, what problem is this going to solve?
Nobody is going to take the train to their cabin.
What car holds a family of four and can get from Metro to Duluth and back on $30 worth (10 gallons) of petrol?
Or was 1984 your last visit to Duluth?
150 miles each way, 300 miles. If you get 30mpg highway that’s 10 gallons. 10 x $3.50 = $35. Those actually look like pretty good numbers. The Civic, Accord, Camry, Corolla all get 30 mpg highway (along with a whole host of other cars that crumple like paper when hit by an SUV):
30 mpg cars
Well, there was over thirty kids from Eden Prairie that graduated last spring, and are now freshman at UMD.
And I know that there’s a whole bunch of metro kids that would be taking the train back and forth to school.
That’s just for starters.
I know there’s a demand for that train.
I’m curious as to the particulars of the train itself. Given average occupancy today, Amtrak trains get 45mpg per passenger using diesel fuel. It’s probably time we started thinking about how to upgrade our infrastructure to use a fuel neutral (not tied to one source of power) inter-city transit system.
The main ridership would probably be within 30 miles of the Twin Cities. In Chicago, people take commuter rail to work for as short trips as 3 miles. The point is that you are building on an existing rail so it is faster to build and cheaper.
Denver has the right idea, and ironically it is a Republican state govt and Mayor who made it happen.
Well anything that gets about 30mpg would do it.
To measure whether the idea is good there has to be a few more facts taken into account both on the cost and the benefit sides.
For costs the idea that “the feds” are paying for anything is not really true. Minnesotans paying taxes is where that money is coming from. While we must work to make sure we get back as much as we put into Washington the fact remains that it was our money to begin with so the cost is still ours. We would do just as well to work to keep that money from being cycled through the Federal system and paying them to hand it back to us.
If we look at the Hiawatha line for an indication of a cost estimate compared to final real costs we can expect the current budget of $400 million to end up at around $600 million and as the article says, “that figure does not include the cost of building stations or the unspecified amount Burlington Northern Santa Fe will charge for use of its property.”.
As for the benefits the figures of 13,833 jobs and $2 billion dollar payout are absolutely ridiculous. For that to be true you would have to assume that none of that money would have been used for any other purposes. Maybe that would be true for a small percentage of the capital but not for much of it. The spending also acts primarily as corporate welfare since most of the development will be done by large firms who will most likely ask for, and receive, tax increment financing. That means that there will be little to no increase property tax receipts. While if that money had been spent without TIF we would see increased state income from property taxes. Even if we assume that 10% of the development is “new capitol” the final numbers would be about $600 million in for $400 million out and a loss of property taxes.
Also, for this project to be an option you have to believe that $400 million spent getting people between Duluth and Minneapolis, which encourages sprawl, provides a better return than increasing spending on education, health care or maintaining existing infrastructure.
Lastly, remember the person presenting this entire plan is from a company that makes its money encouraging these types of projects. Many of these studies are funded by the developers looking for public funds to be used to increase the value of property and developments in which they have an interest.
There is never, ever, anything no-brainer about these projects.
Say, Dan? Sounds like they have real Republicans there, and not the psuedo-con/republiCons that are running the party here.
I believe that the majority of the Republican party is alot more like Ramstad and Erhardt than Krinkie and Bachmann….. We just haven’t been able to work our way into leadership positions.
Dan, I believe you are correct, Sir.
Here in Eden Prairie, the local GOPers are in an “Urge To Purge” mode, ridding the party of RINOs and moderates.
Phil Young trashed the former Mayor, Republican Nancy Tyra-Lukens, as “left of center.”
The GOPer in charge of the SD42 website trashed former Council Member, and Republican, Ron Case as fiscally irresponsible.
Now, perhaps the psuedo-cons can explain how those two Republicans, who let the city to a Money Magazine “Top 10” rating, AND a Moody’s “AAA” bond rating, can be “left of center” and fiscally irresponsible??!?
This should tell everyone out there, just how extremist Erik Paulsen is.
Dan, you real Republicans need to toss those psuedo-cons out of your party, so there can be real conversation between the parties and things can actually get fixed.
Send ‘em to Idaho.
Better yet, tell ‘em if they emigrate to JonesTown, they’ll get extra tax-breaks. And tax-credits, too!
Oh - and free kool-aid!!!!
Jeebus, we were almost having a real discussion, too bad somebody(s) had to turn it partisan
What - you don’t think the inmates, er, ‘scuse me, “psuedo-cons” are running the GOP, these days?
This is about the dumbest thing I have ever read. Rail makes sense to help relieve traffic congestion, which is a problem that doesn’t exist in the Duluth-Cities corridor. There is a freeway that gives you a straight shot at 70 mph. There are a bunch of other places where rail makes a lot more sense (i.e. to St. Cloud) but don’t run through Jim Oberstar’s district.
That $80 million may be hard to come by once we cough up the $58 million (145 X $400,000) for the folks hurt by the bridge collapse.
Good point, Tom. I wonder if the State is indemnified? Serious question.
When i start hearing talk of a “2nd Interstate Beltway” 10-20 miles further out than the 494/694 beltway, I immediately start to think that rail needs to be a bigger part of the mix.
Ah, a few comments. Last time I was on 35 to Duluth was Christmas day, and southbound north of St. Paul was at a creep/standstill. Poor weather. Road looks heavily traveled most times to me.
And what’s this about putting a family of 4 in a civic or corrolla? LOL. Take a look around. I think 50 cents a mile is the figure typically used for the total cost of vehicle operation. So if you have 300 miles RT(seems low?) X 0.50= $150 dollars $150>$120 for ticket prices.
Whether you have a new road improvement or transit, there is a build it and they will come factor. Better for transit than roads for this to happen.
Bobbi, I think that figure needs some explaining. How much of that 50 cents per mile includes the cost of the car, insurance, etc. - i.e., things you’d be paying for even if you left your car in the garage.
aaa 50 cents per mile
My question is, why Duluth to Minneapolis? There are very very few people who commute from Duluth to Minneapolis for work. If you’re going to try to reduce congestion, why not build rail along major freeways where people drive in for work? Moreover, you’re forgetting the fact that every government in the United States subsidizes the operation of light rail and commuter rail lines to the tunes of millions of dollars each year beyond the cost of construction. Even in Washington, D.C., which has one of the finest metro rail systems, the city subsidizes the operating expenses for its Metro to the tune of millions each year.
The difference between roads and rail is that the people who use the roads truly pay for them. The people who use rail depend on people who don’t use the rail to make it work. That’s not true for roads.
Say, Donn?
***
SUBJECT:
2008 IRS Mileage Allowance
DATE:
November 28, 2007
The IRS has announced the new standard mileage rates for 2008. The standard mileage rate increased to 50.5¢ per mile, up from 48.5¢ in 2007, for business miles driven beginning January 1, 2008. ***
The difference between roads and rail is that the people who use the roads truly pay for them. The people who use rail depend on people who don’t use the rail to make it work. That’s not true for roads.
Say, Chris?
ROFLMAO!!!!
You go with that.
TwoPutt,
Who subsidizes roads besides people who (1) buy license tabs, (2) pay the gas taxes, (3) pay for Motor Vehicle Sales taxes, (4) pay wheelage taxes, etc.?
donn,
You talk about running diesel trains and using that as an example of going into the 21st century. Actually diesel trains have been around for more than 100 years. That’s not moving ahead to the 21st century. That’s looking back to the 19th century.
Uh Chris,
Try people who pay property tax and federal income tax. Many cities in Minnesota have been paying for construction of desperately needed roads that the state should be building but can’t because there is no money.
Actually people who don’t use the roads also pay for them. Roads are very heavily subsidized - and when you are talking about expanding freeways in urban areas, you’ve got to factor in the loss of taxable property to pay for roads that help those who don’t live in the urban core. Loss of taxable property, means everyone elses property taxes goes up - and the taxes are going up to subsidize those who live in the suburbs more than those who live in the city.
The areas in Minneapolis and St Paul that were carved through by both 35W and 94 have never really recovered. The more vibrant neighborhoods in Minneapolis don’t have close freeway access (think Uptown, Northeast, Nakomis, Prospect Park, Lindon Hills, etc.)
I’d think a priority for high speed rail - after Northstar going all the way to St Cloud, would be a commuter rail route to Rochester - and that one should be higher priority over the train to Duluth.
That being said, I remember the Duluth train when it existed - and it was a nice train ride.
It’s really interesting how bloggers like Kevin Ecker - very conservative, isn’t so excited now that MNDot is looking at widening Cedar Avenue in his area.
Chris - Roads get some general fund money. They aren’t only funded by gas tax. It’s a very complicated formula.
Eva,
Look at the MNDOT budget. Our roads and bridges are built with the trunk highway fund. There may be a small portion of the MNDOT budget for plowing, etc. that doesn’t come from dedicated funds. Everyone benefits from roads whether you use them or not because all of our goods and many of our services are hauled over roads. You can’t say that about light rail. I think your comment about roads causing cities to go broke from losing property taxes is just plain silly.
attilla,
Are you actually claiming that federal income taxes are being collected and diverted to cities who cannot afford to build their own roads? That’s about the most ingnorant thing I’ve heard in a long time. The money that comes to Minnesota from Congress is supposed to be from the federal trunk highway fund. Ideally, it would come back to the states in blocks and allow individual states to decide which projects are the highest priority. That is not happening because of the corrupt earmark system that pork barrels dollars to individual Congressmen’s districts.
Two putt, what’s your point? I linked to an article that said the AAA estimate for TOTAL price of ownership of a car per mile, excluding fuel, was 50. That includes wear and tear, the vehicle payments, insurance, etc. How does the IRS mileage allowance change that at all?
If you own a car and take a train to Duluth you’re STILL making your car payments and paying insurance, and would have to reduce the 50 cent figure per mile, taking out insurance and car payments.
Let me explain it differently - assume you have a car and all you do is take the train except for driving one mile. Let’s say you pay $4000 in car payments, insurance, vehicle stickers/tags per year. Then for you, driving one mile wouldn’t cost $0.50 per mile, it would cost $4000 per mile.
Some of the parts of the $0.50 per mile figure are based on average miles driven, average car price, insurance prices, expected wear and tear, maintenance. Some of those things, if you own a car, and don’t drive, will not go down. So to say that each mile you drive costs $0.50 is just flat out wrong.
The point about how few if anyone commutes from Duluth to the Cities or vice versa is a good one. You need people who ride the train every day, not kids who come home from college to visit every couple of weeks. And 8 trains a day? This is just mind-bogglingly stupid.
My thoughts - roads are heavily subsidized and have been for over 6 decades. In general tax-dollar terms 80% federal 15-20% state and 5-0% local. Fuel taxes, vehicle taxes and other fees are collected from vehicle owners directly. They are paid indirectly by non vehicle owners because when they do ride a bus/taxi or buy groceries or clothes - those fees and taxes are passed along as “costs”.
As for the cost of a trip to Duluth. Dollar to Dollar you can argue all day. 2 and a half hours of bucolic scenery while sipping a cool one (legally!) and listening to tunes or chatting with friends/family or drafting semis, palying bumper tag with 120 miles of boat trailers and campers, Even if the car was half the cost of the train - I’d rather travel that way. Plus consider this - if there were more trains - who needs a car! then the cost computation goes of the chart.
If the corridor ever does get hot ( jobs, business growth like 94 to Saint Cloud) Minnesota couldn’t afford to buy real-estate let alone expand the road. With rail, just increase train count to capacity and then , if needed, a marginal increase in parallel real-estate can support another equal increase in growth. Rail can absorb growth and increase capacity witha flexibility that roads cannot.
Lastly I like rail, but I agree the build-out needs some intelligence. First off, build or upgrade track all the way to Duluth to get the system in place that will feed tourism in the summer, but provide commuter service only as far north as demand requires. Forrest Lake, then Stacy , then North Branch, then …
who knows maybe some of the commercial interests like the Black Bear Casino, Wild Mountain, etc will “sponsor” stations, special trains-
It is after all the approach we used to build roads until they got to be a problem in terms of capacity and maintenance costs.
Mn/DOT funding information:
1-pager general big picture : http://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/funding2006/TranspFunding.pdf
Web page with more funding information and other DOT money information:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/about.html
and some communities are shouldering higher local costs to pay for a “community” desired improvement “now” that wouldn’t occur for several years if they waited for a state project to get funded for their area. Local development often does not occur in perfect synchronization with state decisions on transportation infrastructure. Fact of life.
Say, Chris? Isn’t T-Paw proposing a roads/bridges package using BONDING?
Explain to me, exactly, how borrowing for roads is a conservative platform, will ya?
Also, one thing you may have forgotten about diesel, is that it’s called a “Diesel Engine” ‘cause the guy who invented it was named - coincidentally, perhaps? = “Diesel”.
And he invented that engine to run on VEGETABLE OIL. No, not the stuff that slimes off your typical, brain-dead, JasonLewis listenin’ republiCon; think Wesson. Think McDonalds deep fryer.
Just (CHENEY)IN’ THINK, will ya? Moron.
donn, if Uncle Sugar (a/k/a, “IRS”) is now giving 50.5 cents a mile, how much do you think it really, Really, REALLY costs?
And I don’t know about you, but when I price used vehicles, there’s always a “mileage” adjustment.
So, yes, while you’re ridin’ that train, not watchin’ your speed, you’re still makin’ insurance payments, etc etc etc.
But you’re NOT increasing the mileage, and your vehicle will be worth more.
Oh - and Dan?
Has there ever been a transit project you liked?
I thought not.
Chris -
TwoPutt already kinda made this point, but I just wanted to note that you are the one always prowling around this site talking about how Pawlenty has made the BIGGEST investments in transportation. But they have been through bonding! BONDING! And now he wants to do even more of that instead of being responsible and creating a stable system for funding our roads. Bonds, by the way, are not paid out of the trunk highway fund and the gas tax/wheelage tax money does not pay a dime of the service on our bonds. So under TPaw’s preferred road financing formula, non-drivers do pay for the roads.
“Say, Chris? Isn’t T-Paw proposing a roads/bridges package using BONDING? Explain to me, exactly, how borrowing for roads is a conservative platform, will ya?”
Borrowing for major projects, as long as it is a capital investment, is fully acceptable. It is the borrowing for regular maintenance and operation that is terrible.
We borrow for alot of major projects — new Arts venues, additions to the U of M campus, improved hospitals, schools, etc. Why should a road or rail investment be any different?
Operating in a yearly deficit is bad. That means you spend more than you take in for normal Government operations. But using credit for something that will be around for 30, 50, or 100 years is perfectly acceptable in my mind.
According to Kelly Blue Book the fiver year cost of owning a new 4-door Civic including car payments, insurance, fuel and maintenance is about $25,000 which is 50 cents a mile at 10,000 miles a year. Fuel, maintenance and half the depreciation are about $10000 of that which is 20 cents per mile for costs affected by how much you drive. This means a round trip to Duluth from Minneapolis would cost about $60 or about $15 per person round trip assuming you would own the car anyway.
Two Putt, maybe you should do a little research before commenting. Right now you are adding nothing to the conversation and seem to be looking to become MNpublius’s version of Chestnut.
Kerosene Hat - Yeah, but who still drives 10k miles per year?
Well I only drive about 2500 miles per year. Plus driving more miles does not change the per mile disposable costs, fuel, tires etc. and actually reduces the per mile costs of insurance and the car payments. In the end driving more per year would most likely make each mile cheaper.
Zack,
We have a bonding bill every two years that costs about $1 billion give or take $50 million. The bonding bill pays for everything from wastewater treatment projects to buildings to swimming pools and bike trails. If you don’t have a problem running up the states’s “credit card” to build the Guthrie, or the Trafton Science Center at MSU, or pay for projects in the Metropolitan Regional Park syatem, why would you care if we bonded for roads? Roads and bridges will last as long as any of these other capital projects.
Chris, because roads could come somewhat close to paying for themselves through “user fees” - i.e., gas tax.
Using bonding is simply the republiCon method to starve the beast.
KH?
Unlike chesty, I’ll rip both sides of the aisle, but: only if they deserve it.
And that comment that “those that use the roads pay for it” is bull(cheney)in’shit, and you know it. Why you want to give that guy a pass on it, is up to you.
The point that Greg and Two Putt and others have missed is that in a free society it is good to own a car. The idea that we should depend on the government to run us around the state is just ridiculous. Cars don’t have operating hours and they don’t go on strike. Moreover, we are far behind other metropolitan areas in terms of our roads. I-35W is still a four lane freeway between Burnsville and Bloomington during rush hour. We still have some of the worst bottlenecks in the U.S. We already have the entertainment train that takes people to the Twins and Vikings games, why should we build the Minnesota Zephyr II to Duluth? Let’s build projects that will ease congestion first.
Two Putt - You are right in that roads could pay for themselves with the right, high toll price. But then you guys would all complain that it is regressive — the guy making $12 per hour has to pay the same toll as the guy making $75K per year.
But the exact same argument could be made for new facilities at the U - just increase tuition and have the users pay. Or you could raise the ticket prices at the Guthrie to fully fund the building in a PayGo method.
But that would never fly.
Bonding for roads and rail is not a bad thing! Credit has a purpose — and that purpose is for long-term capital investments.
Chris -
I want to agree with you, my conservative comrade. But cars aren’t nearly as “free” as we think. We buy a vehicle, can choose the model and get to control our radio station. But it ends there.
We rely on a fixed monopoly (OPEC) for the gas for those cars - we are completely at their mercy. Then we drive on roads, which must be maintained in the summer and cleared of snow in the winter. What good is our car without the network of roads and highways? We “depend” on roads to get around.
The farmer who has 600 acres and can drive his 4wd pickup truck all over his land is truly free — no reliance on roads or traffic management, just has to buy the inflated priced gas. All the rest of us depend on roads.
Chris, the point YOU miss, is that in a “free society”, for some it’s goot NOT to own a car.
And you also miss the point that if it’s good to subsidize roads, and we do, then it should also be good to subsidize transit.
Why should those that subsidize roads not have their preferred method of transit - “transit” - subsidized, too?
And don’t give me that “socialism” bullshit.
Thoe folks that own the companies that build those massive projects are good capitalists, too. And the companies that make dough maintaining said projects are good capitalists, too.
TwoPuttTommy (aka Mr. Bigtime),
Why do you keep bitching about people paying for roads as if we should get rid of the roads. Everyone who uses roads pays for them. Yes, people who don’t have cars pay for roads when they buy goods and services. But then how do you expect your grandma’s groceries to be delivered, via parachute?
TPT, I don’t know if you were referring to me (I can barely understand most of your comments) but I do support rail projects that make sense like the Hiawatha line, the soon to be university line, and the Northstar. A train to Duluth does not make sense, and is the kind of boondoggle that gives rail projects a bad name.
What are you going to do in Duluth without a car? Even those kids from Eden Prairie who go to UMD are going to have to take buses or cabs on both ends to finish their trips.
TwoPuttTommy,
We already subsidize the hell out of transit. We pay millions a year to subsidize the entertainment train beacuse the tickets don’t come close to covering the cost to move people from Downtown Minneapolis to buy a pair of socks at the Mall of America (or conversely to move people from Bloomington to the Twins game). We pay tens of millions a year to subsidize our bus system because we don’t make enough money in fares to pay for the cost of moving people around. We need roads to move people and goods from point A to point B. Roads are the most cost effective way of moving people and goods around.
You are all missing the point of this Duluth train.
Look at Chicago. There is a line that runs from Chicago to Kenosha, WI. How many people need to get from Chicago to Kenosha? Few!
But thousands of people daily take that very train from Evanston to Chicago, Highland Park to Chicago, Winnetka to Chicago, etc. Most probably have nice cars in that part of town, but they are free to choose. And thousands daily make the choice that a train is their smartest way to get downtown. These are not “granola, joint-smoking, dont-want-a-car-cuz-of-greenpeace” hippies, they are people in all walks of life who do very well for themselves. Same in the NYC area.
Stop the fixation on where the terminus of the line is (Duluth)… it is as much about moving people through the congested I-35 corridor in the Twin Cities suburbs.
Chris, you cannot build your way out of congestion by roads alone.
Here’s the point - I’d MUCH rather pay an extra dime a gallon for better roads; THAT is the fiscally prudent way of paying for them. If we had better roads, I’d more than make that dime up in extra sales; sales that I can’t make now ‘cause I’m stuck in traffic.
And I have no problemo with building mass transit to COMPLIMENT our roads.
It seems to me that the more the freeways are widened, the futher out communters live.
They are called “INTERstate”, not “intraSTATE” - and the system wasn’t designed and built so people in St. Cloud or Faribault could communte to St. Paul or Minneapolis.
A train to Duluth does not make sense, and is the kind of boondoggle that gives rail projects a bad name.
Dan, isn’t that what the nay-sayers said about the Hiawatha line?
Even those kids from Eden Prairie who go to UMD are going to have to take buses or cabs on both ends to finish their trips.
Yeah, so? Did you have a point to make?
Actually, the Chicago example demonstrates just how unbelievably stupid this is.
It is 65 miles from downtown Chicago to Kenosha, less than half the length of the train to Duluth. Packed into that 65 miles are a portion of the 2.8 million people who live in Chicago itself, hundreds of thousands of people who live in the Chicago suburbs in Cook County north of Chicago, and over the over 700,000 people who live in Lake County, Illinois, which falls between Cook County and the Wisconsin border. Kenosha County Wisconsin has 162,000 people and Kenosha itself has 96,000 (vs. Duluth’s 86,000). The population density is very high.
In comparison, Pine county has a population of 34,000 and Carlton County has a population of 31,000. St. Louis County has over 200,000, but a lot of those people would have to drive 2-3 hours to get to the station since the county is so big.
It would make sense to run the train along 35 out to Lino Lakes, or maybe even North Branch. But it would be a complete waste to run it to Duluth - the project serves its purpose if you cut off the last 130 miles. Unfortunately, though, North Branch is not in Oberstar’s district.
TwoPuttTommy,
Yes, you can build your way out of congestion when your roads are inadequate to begin with. We have way too many bottlenecks in this state and some of them are among the worst bottlenecks in the United States. If you raise the gas tax 10 cents a gallon, you’ll receive $300 million a year in revenue. That’s not enough to take care of the mess.
The Hiawatha Line is not a success. The ridership is on weekends and nights for people going to the Twins, Vikings and Gophers games. The Hiawatha Line has not done anything to ease congestion.
TPT,
I have on this blog on numerous occasions advocated for a increase to the gas tax that would allow it to pay for all road costs. I also find bonding acceptable as long as those bonds used for roads could be paid off using the gas tax or other automotive and trucking fees. Chris and I have gone back and forth at length and I didn’t feel the need to repeat myself.
Even if we were to double fuel costs with an increase to the gas tax the round trip to Duluth would increase about $30 or $7.50 per person for a grand total of $22.50. If we used the same rules for judging the train we would need to recoup all costs from fares.
So how about a little simple math. Given the $600 million price and figuring with 30 year period to pay that off there would need to be 2435 round trips taken every day at $22.50 for fares to pay for the initial costs. But if you recall the price quoted did not include station costs, rail usage, fuel, personnel or ongoing maintenance. Let’s take a guess and say five stations at about $10 million a crack for $50 million which would bump the number of rider needed to 2639 round trips per day at $22.50. Now we would have to add in the other costs for the train like fuel, maintenance and personnel. I’m feeling nice so let’s say that is only $11.25 per round trip. That would either make the train more expensive or create a need for a 50% increase in passengers for a total requirement of 3959.
Right now the daily traffic count on 35 around Moose Lake is 15,000. If we say that includes 10,000 passengers after removing commercial traffic and then make a generous assumption that only half of the remaining people are not local traffic, taking trips from Sandstone to Moose Lake, the train would need to be used by 80% of the remaining people driving on 35. 8% would be a lofty goal, 80% is beyond fantasy.
Remember, all of this does no include any interest payments for the construction costs and assumes it is competing with people paying an extra $3.00 a gallon in gas tax.
And Two Put, even if I were to believe that you are non partisan, despite showing no such inclination, you are still every bit the poster Chestnut is since you seem to be all rant and little else.
The Hiawatha Line is not a success. The ridership is on weekends and nights for people going to the Twins, Vikings and Gophers games. The Hiawatha Line has not done anything to ease congestion.
ROFLMAO!!!!
“Maga diittos, Jason!!!”
TwoPuttTommy,
Where is your evidence that the Hiawatha Line is a success? You’ve proven nothing.
TPT, the nay-sayers about the Hiawatha line were opposed to rail and mass transit no matter what. I thought and still think the Hiawatha line (and any other urban/suburban lines they build) are a good idea. The reason the Duluth line is such a stupid idea is that the train covers a lot of distance through a sparsely populated area. You can’t just build rail for the heck of it (or as a Jim Oberstar pork project) it has to make sense.
Chris, the Hiawatha line has been a success, does have regular ridership, and has spurred a ton of growth along the line. Seriously, drive up 55 and look at the construction taking place around the stations. Do the fares pay for the train? Of course not, but roads (which don’t take in any fares) don’t pay for themselves either.
Dan, I’m not gonna claim the Duluth line is - or even should be - the highest priority.
If anything, the St. Cloud line should be the highest priority.
That said, the simple fact that the Duluth line is possible, and leveraged by federal funds, makes it worth looking into.
TPT - Fair enough.
Dan,
The ridership of the Hiawatha Line has been mostly on nights and weekends. Contact the Metropolitan Council and ask them if you don’t believe me.
I can’t believe you people who say that roads don’t pay for themselves. Look at our budgets. We do not divert monies away from health care, education, veterans, the DNR or any other budget area to pay for roads. The money for roads comes primarily through constitutionally dedicated funds. For years, we actually took money away from roads when we put half of the MVST into the general fund instead of putting it all in roads and bridges. The money for federal interstate and highway projects comes from the federal trunk highway fund. In other words, your federal income taxes don’t fund roads either.
You guys keep repeating the same talking points but provide no evidence of your opinions. Why don’t you look at a budget sometime and figure it out.
Ya know, Chris, it’s guys like you that give conservatism a bad name.
Now, the Met Copuncil is run by Peter Bell, who is a fairly conservative guy. Not to mention, a decent, honest, thoughtful, and all-around good guy.
You won’t find many on either side of the aisle trashing Peter, and that’s for the good ol’ fashioned reason: he don’t deserve it, ‘cause he’s a good, decent, honest, thoughtful and all-around good guy.
So, what does the Met Council have to say?
Let’s take a look!!!
***
Passenger capacity to grow on Hiawatha line
Three new rail cars will join fleet
When the Hiawatha Line made its debut in 2004, ridership hit nearly 3 million. A fleet of 24 light-rail cars handled demand when a portion of the line opened in June of that year and were used more extensively when the entire line was completed in December.
Since then, ridership has more than tripled, yet the number of rail cars has remained static. Ridership surged to 7.9 million in 2005 and grew another 20 percent last year, to 9.4 million.
Since opening in June 2004, ridership on Hiawatha light rail has grown steadily. Each quarter’s ridership has been higher than the same quarter a year earlier.
To help keep up with customer demand, three new light-rail cars will be added to the fleet this winter. This is the first fleet expansion since light-rail service began with 24 cars.
“One can clearly see the need for the additional capacity to our rail system,” said Metro Transit General Manager Brian Lamb. “The public’s appetite for rail service continues to grow.”
Changes coming in March
Starting in March, Metro Transit will operate 12 two-car trains during rush hours, which will increase the rail system’s capacity to carry customers at times when demand is highest. That’s not the only benefit customers will see.
The expanded fleet also enhances capacity for train service during special events, such as home games for the Twins and Vikings at the Metrodome. “In 2006, we provided service at more than 100 special events in downtown Minneapolis,” Lamb said. “With the extra capacity, we’ll be able to move more people faster than we ever have before.”
Finally, the expanded fleet means less pressure on the system’s maintenance schedule because there will be more spare trains. Increased ridership had forced Metro Transit to put extra miles on its current fleet, cutting into the amount of time rail cars are out of service and available for cleaning and regular maintenance. With the additional vehicles, customers will be assured of more reliable and cleaner trains.
***
Say, Chris? Lemme repeat something, just for you:
Starting in March, Metro Transit will operate 12 two-car trains during rush hours, which will increase the rail system’s capacity to carry customers at times when demand is highest.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/directions/transit/transit2007/RailCarsJan07.htm
Say, Chris?
This is about the time ya start doin’ some “mea culpas”….
TwoPutt, biofuels are great when no one uses them. But everything has ripple effects - if we were to switch all of our diesel production to agricultural sources we’d once again drive up the amount of land used for agricultural purposes, increase our demands on our water supply, increase the price of food, and possibly modify the train engines since oil diesel and bio diesel are not the same. Corn, which so far produces the highest yield of biodiesel, requires 18 acres of land to be cultivated to make ONE gallon.
In Europe passenger lines are predominantly electrified. Why? Because it’s the most energy efficient way to move people around, as opposed to moving freight.
Apparently a lot of people are only now realizing that ethanol isn’t a free source of energy just because it’s renewable. I do try to think when possible!
By the way, I’m not against trains at all, or a Duluth line. We’ve seen here in Chicago that when you build a train line, property values and densities increase near stations. It can act as a spur to growth, rather than just as a service to already existing populations. Even if the people near the stations don’t actually use the train, they like knowing the option is there. Anecdotally, I knew a guy who commuted every day from Kenosha to Chicago using Metra - without the train service living in Kenosha wouldn’t have been feasible.
donn, I’m sure ya do. That comment was directed specifically at Chris.
As far as your comment about corn-to-biofuels, you, Sir, are correct; it’s not that great, today.
Then again, when JFK said we were going to put a man on the moon, we didn’t know how we were going to do it, at that time he made the challenge.
My point? Corn-to-biofuels is just the start.
I happen to believe that America is capable of greatness, and put our best and brightest to work on this, and it will be done.
As to your point about Europe and electrification, please note Europe has placed a tremendous dependency on nuclear, which I happen to oppose as nuclear is not cost effective.
Now, some folk are gonna wonder why I say that - and here’s the answer: nuclear depends on a HUGE subsidy.
They don’t have to provide liability insurance for their product.
Everyone else does; why doesn’t nuclear? ‘Cause they got a hand-out from the feds in the form of laws not requiring them to have to have liability insurance in the case of a melt-down.
Gee - wish I didn’t have to buy liability insurance for my business….
Chris, the funds for roads may be constitutionally dedicated, but they still come from taxes - its not income that is generated from roads.
Corn-based biofuels are an environmental disaster and a bigger boondogle than the Duluth train. The line about corn being transitional is just an excuse to keep that gravy train going.
Care to elaborate about that “boondoggle”, Dan?
Sure, even under the most optomistic measurements, corn ethanol barely produces more energy than it takes to produce. By some measurements, corn ethanol is actually a net loss. Part of the problem is that cars are less fuel efficient when they run on ethanol. Then there is the fact that corn production requires a lot of fertilizer and chemicals that are damaging to the environment. Land that had been set aside for conservation is being plowed under to grow corn because of the high prices (and being subjected to chemicals and fertilizer). Corn ethanol requires a ton of water, which is going to create problems. It is also driving up the price of food because of the demand for corn.
Corn ethanol is basically about the worst product out there since asbestos. And what is unbelievable is that it is still being peddled as being environmentlally responsible.
Since asbestos, eh?
Well, maybe not asbestos. But its a terrible, terrible product.
Terrible for who - the oil industry?
What you’re tellin’ me, is completely at odds what some of the tree-huggers have been tellin’ me.
I wonder why that is?
Dan has it exactly right. Corn based ethanol is a disasterous and foolish energy policy but a great farm policy (if you are a farmer or ADM). Corn is one of the most energy intensive crops and greatly contributes to the Mississippi water pollution and the “dead zone” in the Gulf. The ratio of energy produced vs. energy inputs (EROEI) is right around one which means it is simply a way to convert mainly natural gas to ethanol with no net energy gain.
Switch grass and biodiesel are much better having a (EROEI) of around 4 or 5.
Attila and Dan have hit it right on the head. Ethanol is great. Corn based ethanol is an utterly useless waste of resources.
Incidentally, I’ve been hearing for years that one of the best ethanol sources is industrial hemp. Hemp incidentally requires no fertilizer and virtually no water, and even in Minnesota two full crops could be grown in the time it takes to bring a crop of corn to harvest. I’ve never mustered the energy to check into the ethanol part; if it’s true, I’ll have to start being a little nicer to the hippies who’ve been pushing this concept for decades…
Hemp and switchgrass may be better solutions. The problem is that the technology isn’t here and won’t be for years, and all those are used for at this point are excuses to continue with the corn. Corn ethanol is called a “transitional” fuel, which is just bullshit. We should stop using corn altogether, and then if and when hemp and switchgrass technology becomes available, try that.
Here ya go Two Putt.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/#more-1051
http://www.energybulletin.net/28610.html
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2007/04/the_evils_of_ethanol.php
By the way most of the “Tree Huggers” I know have realized that ethanol is a disaster of epic proportions. It is not a bridge to other solution either. Ethanol subsidies make fuel cheaper which causes more consumption rather than encouraging efficiency.
Maybe you should try reading a little before forming opinions. So far you’re batting 0 for everything. Are your poor decision skill the reason you never respond with any factual information?
From Amy Klobuchar’s website:
“I have introduced the Ethanol Education and Expansion Act, which would provide grants to farmer-owned ethanol producers to install E-85 pumps at rural gas stations. I’m also taking the lead on efforts in the Senate Agriculture Committee to advance the nation to the next generation of biofuels — cellulosic ethanol — made from agricultural residues, wood chips and switch-grass”
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/energy.cfm
See, the corn ethanol gets lumped in with the cellulosic as being environmentally friendly.
Dan, I won’t pretend to be a chemist, but my understanding is that essentially any fermentable plant matter can be converted to ethanol using existing technology. Corn has become so very prevalent because of pressure from agricultural businesses, farmers and (some) environmental groups, not because of technological impediments to other sources.
There are still technical impediments, at least as far as making the process cost-efficient.
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm
I worry that even if switchgrass et al does work, that the corn lobby will keep us uing corn. That is why we need to separate out bad corn ethanol from cellulosic, and not combine them like Klobuchar does.
KH, and here I thought you were gonna give me somethin’ I didn’t know.
BTW - Some of those tree huggers are in the environmental departments, charged with watching those plants.
And those tree huggers didn’t like Reagan, and don’t follow his “trust, but verify” admonition; they’re more like “I don’t trust ADM, Cargil, or ANY of their paid scientists, and I’m keepin’ a CLOSE eye on ‘em”.
You, of course, realize no one is seriously advocating ethanol completely replacing oil, doncha?
Interesting stuff, Dan. Thanks. As for the corn lobby, if we hit the expiration dates of government subsidies and there’s a more viable alternative ready to go, corn-based ethanol will vanish.
And, TPT, an awful lot of people see replacement of oil as the long-term goal with ethanol. While it’s primary use would be to replace gasoline, Brazil has been using sugarcane based ethanol in an industrial capacity for decades.
Granted, ethanol has probably caused Brazil as many headaches as it’s solved, especially social ones; the cane has to be harvested by hand, which has created a massive rural underclass.
And, incidentally, reading back up the thread a bit, nuclear energy, while far from a perfect source, is undoubtedly a better option than fossil fuel. And until we have an energy source that can actually provide the baseload to power a city, well, it’s kinda essential. Wind, solar, deep-water turbines, geothermal, these are all great, but outside of geothermal they’re unable to provide consistent electricity. And geothermal power is really only practical in, well, the only country that took it seriously, Iceland.
Tanuki, again - my biggest problem with nuclear, is that it receives a HUGE subsidy.
Give those subsidies to green sources, and see what they can do.
Ironically, you seem to have no problem with the gargantuan subsidies given out for ethanol production.
Giving those subsidies to “green” sources won’t keep my lights on, my computer running, or my heater blasting. And as I said, even if solar, wind etc. does miraculously come along at a faster pace than anyone expects, they’re not reliable sources of power. Cloudy days happen. Windless days happen.
We may be spending too much to support nuclear power, but for the foreseeable future it’s the only game in town. Personally, I’d rather see it subsidized than see my already titanic electric bill double.
T