Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
It's possible, but would be a little awkward. Unless we're willing to spend to rehab an abandoned corridor from Little Falls to Brained, such an extension would require going a little out of the way and passing through Staples. To stop in Staples, such a route would require pulling into and backing out of the existing station.Would it be possible to extend the Northstar service from St. Cloud to Brainerd? It's a relatively large region that continues to grow. In particular, I imagine folks taking the train during the summer and meeting up with family or friends that drove avoiding the weekend traffic congestion. IMO it seems more logical than the route all the way to Winnipeg, which is really far away (450+ miles).
True - I was thinking of the Cascades, which are called that regardless of whether a specific train runs to Vancouver or only Seattle, but it could certainly be a different service name for the Winnipeg route. When and if the new long-distance equipment order makes more long-haul routes possible, it would probably be reasonable to have the Winnipeg route be a National route run from Chicago rather than being just part of an MSP-centered regional network.I would think there would be more trains running daily to Fargo versus Winnipeg
It's a sample size of one, but I would absolutely visit the Brainerd Lakes area more often if I could go by train.Would it be possible to extend the Northstar service from St. Cloud to Brainerd? It's a relatively large region that continues to grow. In particular, I imagine folks taking the train during the summer and meeting up with family or friends that drove avoiding the weekend traffic congestion. IMO it seems more logical than the route all the way to Winnipeg, which is really far away (450+ miles).
Any idea what accounts for the difference? Are there competing cost estimates, or is one body looking to pay for some bonus features or something?Northern Lights Express has local funding in both the House and Senate passed transportation bills. It seems the amounts will be reconciled in the conference committee.
For the first true city-pair intercity rail in the state, I'd choose A. The most frequent criticism I hear lobbed at it is that "isn't faster than driving", so removing that talking point would probably be the most cost-effective use of extra dollars from a "get new riders riding" perspective.Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations
If we make the trains faster, more people will take it and the trains will fill up. Then there will be public support to increase service too!Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations
My vote goes to more frequent service. While people complain about the travel time being the same as a car, people also complain about not being able to go whenever they want like if they had a car. Obviously the frequency wouldn't be LRT/BRT levels, but extra trips will make it more flexible with people's schedules.Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations
I'd guess it'd be like the Lincoln Service River Runner, where they glued together one run of the Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service and one run of the St. Louis-Kansas City River Runner into one awkwardly named unit. My hope (selfishly, since I live and plan to keep living much closer to Target Field than to SPUD) is that it would hit both SPUD and TFS - both trains are intended to be push-pull capable, so it wouldn't need a turnaround movement, the operator just would need to change ends at TFS. It would require traveling that 1.5 miles between TFS and the Minneapolis wye twice, but that doesn't seem insurmountable?So the new Great River route could eventually be Duluth to Chicago, by way of stops at Target Field Station and SPUD? And that would effectively replace one trip of the NLX (in each direction)? Or is it more likely that one trip would skip Target Field Station and head directly to SPUD?
While not ideal from the perspective of simplicity, I don't think it would be that confusing if one daily trip leaving Duluth goes to St. Paul (to Chicago) instead of to Minneapolis like the NLX trips. In the southbound direction, the worst outcome is that you board a train in Duluth thinking it's going to Target Field and you wind up in St. Paul and need to get on the Green Line. Whereas in the northbound direction if you're trying to travel from the TC metro to Duluth...you have to make sure you're in the right city for that one odd trip per day.
EDIT: If they do extend the Great River route to Duluth, the maddening typo on the Ticket to Ride board game becomes at least slightly forgivable. (for those not familiar, the game features "Duluth" as one of the station cities, but the location of the dot on the map is more like St. Paul, if not Hastings)
Anyone know an example or have experience with a regional or intercity route changing ends before reaching its terminus? I believe the Ventura County Line of Los Angeles Metrolink does this at its westernmost point.I'd guess it'd be like the Lincoln Service River Runner, where they glued together one run of the Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service and one run of the St. Louis-Kansas City River Runner into one awkwardly named unit. My hope (selfishly, since I live and plan to keep living much closer to Target Field than to SPUD) is that it would hit both SPUD and TFS - both trains are intended to be push-pull capable, so it wouldn't need a turnaround movement, the operator just would need to change ends at TFS. It would require traveling that 1.5 miles between TFS and the Minneapolis wye twice, but that doesn't seem insurmountable?So the new Great River route could eventually be Duluth to Chicago, by way of stops at Target Field Station and SPUD? And that would effectively replace one trip of the NLX (in each direction)? Or is it more likely that one trip would skip Target Field Station and head directly to SPUD?
While not ideal from the perspective of simplicity, I don't think it would be that confusing if one daily trip leaving Duluth goes to St. Paul (to Chicago) instead of to Minneapolis like the NLX trips. In the southbound direction, the worst outcome is that you board a train in Duluth thinking it's going to Target Field and you wind up in St. Paul and need to get on the Green Line. Whereas in the northbound direction if you're trying to travel from the TC metro to Duluth...you have to make sure you're in the right city for that one odd trip per day.
EDIT: If they do extend the Great River route to Duluth, the maddening typo on the Ticket to Ride board game becomes at least slightly forgivable. (for those not familiar, the game features "Duluth" as one of the station cities, but the location of the dot on the map is more like St. Paul, if not Hastings)