PORTAGE, Wis. — A proposal for a second daily Amtrak train between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul should receive a waiver exempting it from a full environmental impact report, easing the process of preparing to launch the train.
Arun Rao, passenger rail manager for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, discussed the project at a recent meeting of the Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers in Portage, the Portage Daily Register reports. He said the Federal Railroad Administration told the state that the project would qualify for a “categorical exclusion,” allowing a more abbreviated environmental report, because the project involves an existing railroad.
Rao said the report could be completed as early as 2020. Planning, including studies of ridership, equipment, and revenue, is 25 to 50 percent complete, he said. That planning is fully funded in Wisconsin and is expected to receive full funding in Minnesota.
The train could begin service as early as 2022, Rao said. Construction and implementation costs to allow the train to launch are currently estimated at $76 million, with annual operating costs of $5.5 million to be shared by Wisconsin, Minnesota, and possibly Illinois.
The proposed schedule for the eastbound train would run 4 to 5 hours later than that of the Empire Builder, the route’s current service. The westbound train would run 4 to 5 hours ahead of the Builder.
The ridiculous, eight hour (add an easy hour if you are headed to ORD), once daily “Empire Builder” between St. Paul and Chicago needs complete reexamination. A straighter, shorter route through Eau Claire and fast-growing state capital, Madison, then connecting to UPNW and Ohare would make a five-hour trip with existing equipment compelling. Track would need to be rebuilt between Camp Douglas and Wyeville and a crossover built at Deval between UPNW and Soo Line. MSP is one of the top destinations for both Chicago airports and west central WI needs to be back on the passenger rail map.
One wonders at $76 million in “construction and implementation costs” as well as the time delay. As to scheduling times, look at the Milwaukee’s Morning and Afternoon Hiawatha timetables. And FWIW, a better picture of the Hastings lift would show the Milwaukee’s shield on the towers.
Amtrak is trying to expand Hiawatha service between CHI-MILW, but northern CHI suburbs are holding it up. What effect do these NIMBY’s have on this service? I also question why an environ impact statement would even be thought of. How nice of them to consider waiving it. Just more unnecessary gov regulations.
Methinks the problem is paralysis by analysis!
In the 70’s when Amtrak wanted to add another train, it didn’t take years. When Amtrak began, May 1, 1971, the only Chicago to Twin Cities train was the Empire Builder as is the case now. November 14th 1971 Amtrak added a second frequency from Chicago to the Twin Cities and called it the Hiawatha. Three times a week, the train was called the North Coast Hiawatha. On those days, the train continued onto Seattle over the old Northern Pacific. My how we have regressed.
Mike Lustig
Talk about regulatory paralysis.
Three years to add a train?
2022? What’s the hurry?
Another option that would be interesting and would love to see by the states, give BNSF/private operator a shot at competing offer with same exclusion on the environmental review & same allocation of state supported funds. If given the change, I wonder if Virgin & Siemens (think ready to go trainsets) would be interested in proposing on the same service?
Appreciate M Singer stab at Amtrak’s convoluted accounting system and enjoyed Train’s May column on some out of the box ideas column for Amtrak. Not really sure if agree on all M Singer comments and plenty of federal money is flowing to keep the national routes going.
My two cents, it makes a lot of sense to me that it is now time for congress to separate Amtrak as national/federally sponsored passenger rail provider and Northeast Corridor. What options. Let Amtrak National rail routes and state supported service stand as is. Congress can decide if the Southwest Chief is direct through service or has a bus bridge in between via appropriations. In the same breadth, states that want more service should really spend more.
For me it makes sense that California doubles down on state supported rail corridors and should pay for it. For me it makes sense for Minnesota & Wisconsin add more service between Twin Cities and Chicago. However, Does Minnesota need train service to Duluth is a good hard question, same for every city of size in IL & Iowa having train service to & from Chicago when money is probably better spent improving Chicago to St. Louis, Milwaukee and Detroit corridors.
Time for Northeast Corridor to be a stand alone entity required to pay its own way (think Conrail), give it flexibility to charge for use of tracks/infrastructure (think all the commuter rail users), give it extended access to Richmond VA & Hampton Roads VA on south end and Portland ME on north end for future expansion/electrification and allow it to compete directly for federal grants & loans (think FRA grants, BUILD grants and TIFA loans). Finall In return, write in law for Amtrak national route & state sponsored trains get full access.
Cool!
Charles, it can actually take anywhere from months to years to add flights to a schedule, I know, I work at an airport and there are more considerations than just plugging in departure and arrival times. Those run from gate and runways space and time availability, ground crews, baggage carousel space(for loading/unloading), there are FAA requirements too…and others that have to be considered, such as Terminal capacity, checkpoint capacity, etc.,
Anthony – You wonder if it would take three years to get an airline to schedule an extra departure. I should think three weeks would be an average time.
Environmental analysis. Airlines add or subtract schedules on a daily basis. Trucks get rerouted on an hour’s notice. Bus routes get dropped every time you look. Freight train schedules vary greatly from one day to the next. But you need an environmental document to add a passenger train?
Why do these state DOTs ignore, and their state media so oblivious, to the “Big Kahuna” of the significantly imposed costs imposed by PRIIA on any state or joint state service under 750 miles?
PRIIA was deliberately crafted by a current officer at Amtrak to subsidize the high infrastructure and operating costs of the NEC, by forcing states to pay the full cost allocation as prepared by Amtrak’s own highly questionable cost methodology; oblivious to GAAP by including NEC and other non-related costs. Concomitantly, the states along the NEC between BOS-WAS do not pay for the trolley-like frequency of their intercity trains.
Another example of the Northeastern bias of Amtrak’s Board and how it has historically been in cahoots with the politico powers of the Northeast, is the fact that it took a mandate from Congress in December, 2015, to force Amtrak to even start collecting a modicum of the operating expenses and infrastructure costs from the majority users of the NEC–the regional commuter rail lines.
Despite PRIIA as the “elephant in the room,” what is disconcerting coming out of the highway dominant WIDOT includes:
1-Schedule: to best serve this market and control costs, the “Baby Builder” needs to be scheduled to optimize using one consists, turning in St. Paul, just as the CB&Q did for decades with its “Twin Cities Zephyrs.” CHI-STP should depart 0730, arrive 1530. STP-CHI should depart 1600, arrive 2359.
2-Equipment: as Amtrak will certainly parlay its self-defined monopoly powers to prevent a private operator, the states involved would be wise to control their costs by leasing equipment and motive power from a vetted private source.
3-F&B: instead of Amtrak’s Penn Central cafe with a $46/hour LSA untrained in mixology and not provided the liquor kits, the states should utilize a private F&B firm to bartend and run the grill–to enhance the customer experience-and increase revenues.
4-Marketing: As Amtrak long ago lost interest in marketing west of the Potomac, the states will need to invest in significant marketing to introduce the new schedule, and to maintain interest. With the “short” coach removed from the “Builder’ between CHI-STP, the public will require significant information that “trains are back.”
Interesting times, 4 to 5 hours latter eastbound, and 4 to 5 hours earlier westbound. With the timekeeping on the Empire Builder, they might run almost side by side. Seems to me would be better to have early AM on time departures and latter PM westbound. There might be some consideration adjusting travel times on the Builder. I know might affect connections, but the eastbound has problems making reliable connections with their timekeeping the way it is now. Plus an added note 3 years to get service started is ridiculous. I bet it wouldn’t take that kind of time to get a new airline departure done.