Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Transit systems aren't supposed to run on profit , neither are roads or General Bridges....its Infastrature. Rail subsides tend to be less that of Roads and sometimes they do turn a profit. If you want faster then 110mph , you need a larger population , Transit usage would have to be higher in both cities. While that will be the case in a few years in the Twin cities , not so much in Duluth. The Reason why Private Market doesn't get into Freight or Passenger is the rules that date back to the 1970s which where created to benefit big Freight and squeeze out the Passenger industry which rebounded in the 90s. If you have every visited the Coastal Northeast you'll notice that we have great Transit and fast trains...most lines hit up to or are rated to 90mph. Which is fast , most trains in Europe go 90mph with the exception of the High Speed Rail which goes 120mph+. And No i'm not from Duluth or MN , but I know alot about the Railroads in this country....
It is interesting, IMHO, whenever I make the argument of the gross non-profitability of public transit I hear the quick argument of "roads are subsidized too!" - yet I rarely hear how that is an apples-to-apples comparison. Roads are used by the vast majority of society and even a libertarian such as myself would agree that a city of all strictly private roads would be a dysfunctional society. However, public transit to a large degree is a niche product. It is not used by the vast majority of society, and certainly not as generally a method of moving freight. Thus, the vast subsidies that seem to never-endingly be demanded by advocates of public transit have difficulty being justified. Those subsidies do often benefit politicians and their supporters who don't seem capable of finding work that would support themselves without essentially a handout by the taxpayer.
The quote, "The Reason why Private Market doesn't get into Freight or Passenger is the rules that date back to the 1970s which where created to benefit big Freight and squeeze out the Passenger industry which rebounded in the 90s." needs further clarification. You're saying the private market doesn't get into Freight? What exactly are railroads such as BNSF or Canadian Pacific moving? Also, what is "big Freight"? Wouldn't that be BNSF or CPR (among others, those are just the examples I can think of at the moment)? Last I checked, BNSF and CPR are privately owned corporations.
Finally - "If you have every visited the Coastal Northeast you'll notice that we have great Transit and fast trains...most lines hit up to or are rated to 90mph." Thanks for sitting on the East Coast and seeming to condescendingly tell this resident of fly-over country that trains go fast...here I was sitting thinking trains still went "chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga" as someone pitched coal into a furnace and big flumes of smoke billowed out the top of the locomotive. I now feel so enlightened!
Disregarding my last visit to NYC seeming to have a memory of sitting on subway cars waiting, hearing stories of frequent delays, and more, I'll take your word trains can go fast, at least in theory. The president of Amtrak in 2007 seemed to be less confident of the product his publicly owned company was offering. Amtrak president: High-speed rail would cost billions - USATODAY.com.
"Even if it spent $7 billion on track upgrades, Amtrak couldn't reduce the travel time between Washington and New York to less than 2 hours and 20 minutes, which is only 25 minutes less than the trip now takes, the company's president told Congress on Wednesday." $7 billion (in 2007) so a relative handful of people can sip their coffee in their house or coffeeshop for an extra 25 minutes? A lot of money for questionable benefit...
Point is this: Amtrak is expensive to build and maintain, and certainly will be in a theoretical line between MSP and Duluth. The costs are so far outweighed by benefit it is a ridiculous argument to make, as it usually is for most government spending.
The right of way and track is already in place.
It will take very little work to have a train travel on them at the proposed speeds.
It's not about if Duluth has enough folks to make it work.
It's about folks who don't want to live in Mpls moving to Duluth and working in mpls making Duluth a bedroom community. It's about increasing tourism as most of our tourism comes from Mpls.
If your not driving you can work as you travel.
"it's still all a boondoggle of government spending to support political favors."
You mean like the substitutes that are paid to the oil company's? Pork is pork, but in this case we might get something for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBCommenter
Point is this: Amtrak is expensive to build and maintain, and certainly will be in a theoretical line between MSP and Duluth. The costs are so far outweighed by benefit it is a ridiculous argument to make, as it usually is for most government spending.
Dont forget in the future Twin Cities and Chicago (If Wisconsin Cooperates) May have a bullet train connecting the cities (less than a 3 hour commute) So if we have this train going up to Duluth. People from Chicago can easily vacation in Duluth
It is interesting, IMHO, whenever I make the argument of the gross non-profitability of public transit I hear the quick argument of "roads are subsidized too!" - yet I rarely hear how that is an apples-to-apples comparison. Roads are used by the vast majority of society and even a libertarian such as myself would agree that a city of all strictly private roads would be a dysfunctional society. However, public transit to a large degree is a niche product. It is not used by the vast majority of society, and certainly not as generally a method of moving freight. Thus, the vast subsidies that seem to never-endingly be demanded by advocates of public transit have difficulty being justified. Those subsidies do often benefit politicians and their supporters who don't seem capable of finding work that would support themselves without essentially a handout by the taxpayer.
The quote, "The Reason why Private Market doesn't get into Freight or Passenger is the rules that date back to the 1970s which where created to benefit big Freight and squeeze out the Passenger industry which rebounded in the 90s." needs further clarification. You're saying the private market doesn't get into Freight? What exactly are railroads such as BNSF or Canadian Pacific moving? Also, what is "big Freight"? Wouldn't that be BNSF or CPR (among others, those are just the examples I can think of at the moment)? Last I checked, BNSF and CPR are privately owned corporations.
Finally - "If you have every visited the Coastal Northeast you'll notice that we have great Transit and fast trains...most lines hit up to or are rated to 90mph." Thanks for sitting on the East Coast and seeming to condescendingly tell this resident of fly-over country that trains go fast...here I was sitting thinking trains still went "chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga" as someone pitched coal into a furnace and big flumes of smoke billowed out the top of the locomotive. I now feel so enlightened!
Disregarding my last visit to NYC seeming to have a memory of sitting on subway cars waiting, hearing stories of frequent delays, and more, I'll take your word trains can go fast, at least in theory. The president of Amtrak in 2007 seemed to be less confident of the product his publicly owned company was offering. Amtrak president: High-speed rail would cost billions - USATODAY.com.
"Even if it spent $7 billion on track upgrades, Amtrak couldn't reduce the travel time between Washington and New York to less than 2 hours and 20 minutes, which is only 25 minutes less than the trip now takes, the company's president told Congress on Wednesday." $7 billion (in 2007) so a relative handful of people can sip their coffee in their house or coffeeshop for an extra 25 minutes? A lot of money for questionable benefit...
Point is this: Amtrak is expensive to build and maintain, and certainly will be in a theoretical line between MSP and Duluth. The costs are so far outweighed by benefit it is a ridiculous argument to make, as it usually is for most government spending.
Aside from Speeding up , alot things need replacing. So 7 Billion $ would go alot towards Replacing wires , switches , bridges and sub stations which are critical to the NEC. 25 mins is alot , if you commute daily in the Northeast you would understand that. But alot people rather see the 7 Billion go to line enhancements. The Govt has neglected it for so long it needs billions , this is an Important corridor for this region's economy. Outside the NEC most lines are cheaper and easier to build , we tend to have higher and different standards then the rest of the US. The line between MSP and Duluth would not be Amtrak. As for the private market , i'm saying the rules were set up to benefit the Big Freight movers and kill off the smaller ones and make it harder for the smaller ones and public systems to grow. The Rules are so outdated and broken , its holding this country back. What does subway car delays have to do with Amtrak?
As a destination/origin city, Duluth doesn't have a large enough population to support this. I could understand if Duluth was set up like, say, the Quad Cities, where we had 4-5 cities the size of Duluth all within 20 minutes of each other. But there's nothing near us that has the population or affluence to support anything anymore. Duluth is pretty much the end of the line - and this is not the Duluth of 40 years ago - this is a poorer, more transient, less educated Duluth...those who have the education, the money, the career promotions have all left. Unless you have family here, no money to leave, a decent job with a house already paid off; there's no reason to stay here. Most commuters have done their research and the thing that keeps coming up is this: 160 miles. 160 miles to Minneapolis/Saint Paul. What if I buy a house/condo in Duluth and that great job suddenly disappears. When you get a great job in Duluth, most of us from here know that you will likely never get the same kind of job again - most people, if they want to make money, have to move. And again, those who are here have some kind of tie to the city - it's true that in some ways the lack of social life here is exchanged for an increase in quality of life in general.
I was in Niagara Falls, which does have some commuters to Toronto with their GO Train - but again, that corridor has 2 million people stretched over 100 miles. Out there, they have the money, the corporations to help pay for this kind of transportation, and a generation that has already grown up using this kind of transportation. Duluth/Superior is barely squeaking past 150,000 people. In terms of cost (high speed rail) we might as well be International Falls. It's just not enough of a population, and we are way too far away from a major metropolitan area for it to realistically work. If the metro area was an hour closer to Duluth, yea, this would definitely be a much more affluent city with a more professional, diverse, young/single/childless population; instead we now are chock-full of group homes for mentally disabled, naughty kids, people in drug/alcohol treatment, etc; telemarketing places, lots of 25 year olds on SSI/Disability for some outrageous thing like 'defiant personality disorder' or 'ADHD'...just a lot of this is disappointing that with all the work that was done to manicure that lakefront and downtown, not to mention the mall area, and this is the population we end up with - unskilled, unwilling to work, very able to have lots of kids though, and once they see what's available to them here, they'll never leave. I see it every week.
While your take on some of the locals is right on, it's not about Duluthens per say. It's as you said our quality of life.
The life all the Duluthens that left for a better job at the cost of leaving what they didn't want to.
IF
If it did happen those folks in the city's who only moved for a job could now raise their families in Duluth. Thus making Duluth a bedroom community and a tourist destination.
The locals with the money and education c=would not need to move the falily for a job.
Hummm, would that be good for Duluth or would the poor undereducated with ADHD complain to much?
I wouldn't be too concerned about commuters using it for work. I don't really think anyone in their right mind would work 2 hours away from where they live if they had to. I don't even think a HS train would really do it. It's a 2.5 hour drive if you don't speed like a mad-man. The rail would have to go at least 155 MPH to make it in an hour and have to go nearly 200 mph to accomodate stops.
Duluth has what very few cities in the upper midwest have - Tourism appeal and a large metro population (200,000). Duluth is a city that strives off of tourism. I've lived there. It's incredible how many people come to the city not only during the summer and for fall foliage, but also for the events throughout the year, such as Grandma's Marathon.
Now that I'm back down in the Twin Cities I so often hear people talk about 'day trips' to Duluth. Many have done the trip but often complain about it being a little too far. That's also the same reason why many people are so reluctant to go there. I have a co-worker from Texas who wanted to go in the fall and see the leaves, and wanted to just go for the day. After he asked me how long it took he was bummed, hoping the drive was more around 90 mins instead of 2.5 hours. I feel like Duluth would have an influx of new tourism - day trippers. I myself would take advantage of a HS rail to go see all my old friends and check out the scenes of Duluth on a Saturday, but not waste 5 hours in a car.
I feel like business feels the same way. Maybe you'll see new residents who use the rail to commute to MPS each day, seing as there are people in the metro who already sit in 2.5 hours of traffic a day, so I guess it's justifiable. However, businesses might be more inclined to have meetings, you know do business stuff. Think of the convenience of flying NYC to MSP and getting on a rail to Duluth only 90 mins after landing.
Business stuff
yea, like not having to drive the 2.4hrs one way.
Instead they could work those 2.5hr, eat,sleep, make calls etc,etc all instead of driving in blizzards fog, rain or dogging deer on the highway.
Sure tourists will use it but as I mentioned it would make Duluth a bedroom community.
Thus making it worth while for Duluth.
Meany see that Duluth has as a much beater environment to raise a family in. Folks moved away from Duluth for a job.
Not because they thought the city's was a better place to raise a family
This would allow them to raise a family in Duluth while maintaining employment.
I think it would be hard to convince anyone to commute the 2 hours it will take to get from Duluth to the Twin Cities. It could be a commuter line for people in-between who want to live in one of the small towns with a station, but this will always be a primarily tourist/business line, I'm sure. The density of Minnesota simply doesn't justify anyone living that far away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While your take on some of the locals is right on, it's not about Duluthens per say. It's as you said our quality of life.
