PIERRE, S.D. — A resolution in the South Dakota House is calling for support of the state’s congressional delegation and the Trump Administration for Amtrak service in the state.
House Resolution 6008 is sponsored by Rep. Tim Goodwin, a Republican who represents the 30th District, in the state’s southwestern corner. It was introduced on Feb. 5 and is slated for a hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 18. It requests “full support of the South Dakota congressional delegation, in cooperation with the Trump administration, to work for an Amtrak route between Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul by way of Rapid City, Pierre, and Sioux Falls.”
The bill does not address funding for the service.
The Denver-Twin Cities route was one of 15 included in the Federal Railroad Administration’s final Long Distance Study report, released in January [see “Houston-New York service gets highest ranking …,” Trains News Wire, Jan. 21, 2025]. It was one of five routes tied for seventh in the report’s preliminary ranking. It would require the greatest expense in terms of infrastructure work necessary to launch the service — up to $5.83 billion, more than the next two most expensive routes combined — because of the lack of Class 4 track needed for passenger operation. Overall, the FRA estimated the service would cost $44.39 billion to $59.03 billion to launch.
The resolution points out South Dakota is the only state in the contiguous 48 that has never had Amtrak service.
“It may or may not be a solid “corridor route, but 1 or 2 trains a day would benefit those communities.”
I agree with you Dominik. IMHO, at least one of the links of the chain are aready there, such as Chicago to Minneapolis/ St. Paul, and other existing RoW links are being actively discussed, such as Minneapolis/ ST. Paul to Denver via SD.
Then the next link could be Denver to and through Albuquerque (and with maybe a Santa FE branch turn-around) and then onto El Paso/Juarez and perhaps even beyond someday to Mexico City where El Presidente Sheinbaum could appear receptive to some of this.
Not every passenger train on this proposed and suggested idea has to necessarily travel the entire distance from Chicago to El Paso (and/or beyond to Mexico City), but only as demands dictate, as all the RoWs are all in place, just “connect the dots”, but with some pricey upgraded improvements.
Some trains could be long distance express while other trains could be shorter cityand town locals, just like the NYC 8th Ave A Train non-stop express from 125 St to 59th St., and the AA 8th Ave locals stopping at all stations in between. And Amtrak personnel need to take charge of all this, provided Musk hasn’t fired them… lol!
I have nothing against SD, but it should pay a huge chunk of any service. Americans are weary of taker states like WV, AR, AL, LA, MS, TN, SC, KY, GA always receiving more federal money and services than they contribute.
CA, NY, IL, PA, NJ, WA etc. underwrite the taker states.
Yeah, and Americans really believe that accounting, ey?
Of course they don’t Charles, just like you don’t. Facts are a difficult concept for you and those of your ilk.
Much of the difference is due to the larger states having larger payments of individual & business Federal Income Taxes to the Federal Government due to population. It’s not a conspiracy. In addition, many of the rural western states are limited in Federal income tax growth because so much of their lands is controlled by the Feds.
Per Mr. Landey’s comment here, if the federal government’s (and Amtrak’s) were subject to the same regulations and requirements as the private sector in the United States, the responsible persons in the federal govt. (members of congress?) would be sent to prison ……
Don’t worry yourselves it will never happen, neither will any of those earlier new proposed corridors. Passenger rail is dead in the water & President Musk & Emporer Donny are about to fire the torpedo to sink it once & for all. Oh! but you’ll still have your beloved Brightline, HA, HA! That house of cards will fall apart popsicle stick tower, can’t wait to LMAO when that happens!
Remember this one? Decades ago, TRAINS ran a rather questionable article. Quebec was making serious noises about seceding from Canada. Some author sought to string together a rail route through USA to connect Ontario to the Maritimes bypassing Quebec. It was a pretty dumb concept, as Quebec was proposing political separation, not war. There’d be no reason why CN and CP couldn’t continue to run trains through an independent Quebec.
Be that as it may, the author traced a route through the upper reaches of New York State, Vermont, Hampshire, and Maine, over a bunch of branch lines and short lines, some of which barely existed even back then.
That’s what this South Dakota proposal reminds me of. Find a bunch of secondaries that sort of connect to form this route, and wish they were capable of improvement at a cost that the budget could support.
I wish to add to John Rice’s reply to Mark Meyer re: previous passenger service in South Dakota. I don’t have my timetable collection with me right now, so I may have some details incorrect.
Besides the services mentioned, there was also a Twin Cities-Aberdeen round-trip that turned at Aberdeen during the night. It was coaches only and I think it ran as long as it did for regulatory/political reasons and maybe a small postal contract. It ended about 1969. I recall seeing the schedule and it was a fast train that made only a few stops along the route.
Also, I believe that service was cut back from Rapid City in phases, and that for a time the train came as far west as Huron.
Clarifications and corrections are welcomed.
Has South Dakota considered the benefits of never having had Amtrash “service”?
Rep. Goodwin will never slide this by President musk or King trump. By the way I was at the grocery store today and eggs are $2 higher than when the orange one took over. I seem to remember him saying it was President Biden’s fault and he’d fix it on day one. About the only thing he’s done he said he’d do is become a dictator.
Lame nonsense. Seems the yolk has gone to your head anyway.
Richard you must have voted for that idiot. Says a lot about your judgment.
Talk is cheap. Mr. Goodwin should put his money where is mouth is, and instead:
.
WHEREAS all of the proposed route across South Dakota is “dark” territory (lacking block signals) with a maximum speed of 10 to 40 mph;
.
WHEREAS no money is currently available for long-distance route expansion anywhere in the United States;
.
WHEREAS no money is currently available to cover day-to-day operating costs of additional Amtrak long-distance trains;
.
WHEREAS Amtrak currently is operating most of its Western long-distance trains without a full complement of cars, so it is obvious no equipment is available for expansion;
.
WHEREAS the money available in the IIJA for new long-distance equipment is only to replace the 30-to-45-year-old equipment on existing trains;
.
WHEREAS the design and selection of manufacturer for new long-distance equipment has yet to be determined suggesting that any additional rolling stock will be eight to ten years off;
.
WHEREAS the delivery of new equipment for Amtrak has historically seen delivery delays of three years on average;
.
WHEREAS current long-distance trains are at risk for discontinuance as the life of decaying equipment may not extend to the as-yet-to-be-determined date of new equipment, resulting in no existing system to build additional routes upon;
.
WHEREAS given the current atmosphere in Washington, D.C. is to cut funding for any and all existing programs, suggesting additional money for any program, including Amtrak, to be nil;
.
WHEREAS according to current law, the introduction of Amtrak service to South Dakota will terminate Special Transportation Circumstances grants, vital to South Dakota’s one regional and numerous short line railroads;
.
WHEREAS of the 15 long-distance routes studied by the FRA, the Denver-Twin Cities route across South Dakota is by far the most expensive at $8 billion, and will increase in accordance with inflation;
.
WHEREAS this $8 billion is more than the entire budget for the state of South Dakota in 2024 ($7.4 billion);
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the One Hundredth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature respectfully requests the full support of the South Dakota congressional delegation to cancel all state spending for all other programs and fund an Amtrak route between Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul by way of Rapid City, Pierre, and Sioux Falls.
WHEREAS I couldn’t come up with a more loser route if I thought all day, considering insane costs and no substantial revenue
WHEREAS SoDak didn’t have service BEFORE Amtrak so don’t blame Amtrak for leaving the state out
WHEARAS I need to look at some other website before my head explodes
Well South Dakota did have passenger service at one time. My ancestor was a fireman on the Milwaukee Road and was pulling a passenger train from Sioux Falls to Aberdeen when it derailed north of Hosmer SD. Once stopped, he jumped out of the engine and started to run back to see if any passengers were injured. As he did the baggage car turned over on top of him and killed him instantly. This was way back in 1910.
Service to Rapid City ended in 1960. Service to Sioux Falls ended in 1965. Service of any kind ended in 1969 when Burlington Northern stopped service between Alliance, Nebraska and Billings, Montana. They used to have a passenger depot in Edgemont SD.
so hows about South Dakota supplying the equipment first? Do not come to the negotiations without some substantive contribution.
Is this resolution to serve real customers in need, or get South Dakota off the “never served” list?
I don’t know, but in my unprofessional opinion, this looks like a solid route combining major cities with rural communities. It may or may not be a solid “corridor route, but 1 or 2 trains a day would benefit those communities.