MSP to Rochester High Speed Rail

[Korh]

Ok I'm a bit more willing to believe Brightline (or a real private company and not some Chinese scam company this time) coming to Minneapolis might be possible in 10ish year, but based on what I've seen from the FL and Vegas projects I'm willing to bet 2 things
1) they'll probably build their own station rather then use target field or SPUD, maybe build a new one at MSP or one closer to the cities (also anyone wanna bet a small fight between Minneapolis a St. Paul if only one can get a station at launch)
2) It will probably be in the ROW of a highway and the company heavily promote that there also improving entrance exit ramps to get a bit more political leeway from rural MN voters and politicians, although I might argue the brightline using the 94 corridor through Eau Clair instead is just as likley since i think there might have more space inside the 94 row then the 52, plus hasn't the West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition been trying to attract public and private investors for like 10-15 years now.

[bubzki2]

One nice thing about running the MSP-ROC rail next to/above traffic is that if it's above about 80MPH (as it should be) and in the shared Highway 52 corridor, the drivers would have to watch the trains pass them daily at much higher speeds. Those optics might help boost ridership for what at least a few years was literally thousands of daily car commuters in the corridor.

Or drivers would complain that we wasted money on a train when the money could've been used to upgrade Highway 52 to freeway standards. That's not my opinion of course, I'm just thinking of the mindset of a rural Minnesotan.

Maybe if some improvements to Highway 52 were included with a rail project people would be more okay with it. Also an argument could be made that the train would remove some traffic, particularly those going between the Twin Cities and Rochester, which means more room for people that need to drive. Whether people would accept that argument is anyone's guess.

Oh, I'm not talking about rural Minnesotans. I think convincing them of the value of rail is 100% a lost cause.

I'm specifically referring to the several thousand daily commuters (again, pre-pandemic numbers) that commute between Roch and MSP; i.e., city dwellers.

[VacantLuxuries]

They do like their own stations, but mostly for land development reasons. I could see two scenarios where they would be open to using existing infrastructure:

- Union Depot gives them the space and means to create their own customer experience at the station, similar to airport lounges for preferred passengers of given airlines.
- If connecting to Union Depot was made a condition of approval for use of MN-52 ROW. Union Depot is still pretty quiet years after the promise implied in all the renovation money. Perhaps they'd still operate an additional MSP area station of their own elsewhere, such as a station in the southeast suburbs that becomes their main park and ride/development hub.

I don't think the Minneapolis Interchange station would be considered at all, frankly. There's no universe in which Brightline could make that freeway underpass into the luxury experience they've built their brand on. Additionally, I would be shocked if they planned a Chicago train and did not intend to use Chicago Union Station as their final destination. The cost of building new infrastructure there would be astronomical.

I really doubt they would choose Eau Claire over Rochester if their end goal was a new Chicago route. If their other projects follow suit with the way they developed Florida and they build an initial operating segment while they continue developing and negotiating further extensions, MSP-Rochester has far more development potential (on the Rochester side especially) than Eau Claire, and it puts off having to deal with the Wisconsin government for a future phase. I'd like to believe the naysayers in WI would be more amiable to a private rail project, but you never know. Rail might stop being a cost problem for Republicans and become yet another front in the culture war, like with Texas fighting private HSR between Houston and Dallas.

[MattW]

Ok I'm a bit more willing to believe Brightline (or a real private company and not some Chinese scam company this time) coming to Minneapolis might be possible in 10ish year, but based on what I've seen from the FL and Vegas projects I'm willing to bet 2 things
1) they'll probably build their own station rather then use target field or SPUD, maybe build a new one at MSP or one closer to the cities (also anyone wanna bet a small fight between Minneapolis a St. Paul if only one can get a station at launch)

I agree with this analysis. Unless the city/state/railroad is willing to sell air rights to the space around TF station, I don't see how Brightline could be profitable. I don't have an idea of their finances, but I could see them pricing their tickets in FL to break even and have the leases and other revenue generators at the stations where they drive their profits. The MTR in Hong Kong operates using this model.

Maybe they could plop a station near MOA and have it served by the blue line?

[Korh]

I really doubt they would choose Eau Claire over Rochester if their end goal was a new Chicago route. If their other projects follow suit with the way they developed Florida and they build an initial operating segment while they continue developing and negotiating further extensions, MSP-Rochester has far more development potential (on the Rochester side especially) than Eau Claire, and it puts off having to deal with the Wisconsin government for a future phase. I'd like to believe the naysayers in WI would be more amiable to a private rail project, but you never know. Rail might stop being a cost problem for Republicans and become yet another front in the culture war, like with Texas fighting private HSR between Houston and Dallas.

I don't think politics might be as big of an an issue because like I said, Brightline managed to start in the red state of FL, under Rick Scott who notoriously killed Florida's high speed rail project, and management to get DeSantis to list them as an essential business and to continue construction during the pandemic when a few of his state party members were prematurely celebrating the death of the project.
As for the project in Texas, I kinda think TCR had it's own set of issues beyond rail or culture wars. But TCR is probably worth it's own separate discussion

[Trademark]

They do like their own stations, but mostly for land development reasons. I could see two scenarios where they would be open to using existing infrastructure:

- Union Depot gives them the space and means to create their own customer experience at the station, similar to airport lounges for preferred passengers of given airlines.
- If connecting to Union Depot was made a condition of approval for use of MN-52 ROW. Union Depot is still pretty quiet years after the promise implied in all the renovation money. Perhaps they'd still operate an additional MSP area station of their own elsewhere, such as a station in the southeast suburbs that becomes their main park and ride/development hub.

I don't think the Minneapolis Interchange station would be considered at all, frankly. There's no universe in which Brightline could make that freeway underpass into the luxury experience they've built their brand on. Additionally, I would be shocked if they planned a Chicago train and did not intend to use Chicago Union Station as their final destination. The cost of building new infrastructure there would be astronomical.

I really doubt they would choose Eau Claire over Rochester if their end goal was a new Chicago route. If their other projects follow suit with the way they developed Florida and they build an initial operating segment while they continue developing and negotiating further extensions, MSP-Rochester has far more development potential (on the Rochester side especially) than Eau Claire, and it puts off having to deal with the Wisconsin government for a future phase. I'd like to believe the naysayers in WI would be more amiable to a private rail project, but you never know. Rail might stop being a cost problem for Republicans and become yet another front in the culture war, like with Texas fighting private HSR between Houston and Dallas.

I agree that SPUD would be the choice. If we could get the St Paul Downtown Airport closed as part of this it would open up so much land for Brightline to develop that is now just surface parking lots which would make the service much more attractive to them.

[NickP]

They could also build a stations near target field stations and connect to it. Many rail stations in Japan are like this, with multiple rail companies having their own section of a station to use.

[Trademark]

They could also build a stations near target field stations and connect to it. Many rail stations in Japan are like this, with multiple rail companies having their own section of a station to use.

They could do it, but where would be a chunk of easily developable land near it?

[Korh]

This might be a hot take but let me cook.
Brightline probably won't really look at the route for another 10 years
Target Field will be 23 years old at that time
The Twins moved out of the Metrodome after 25 years and Metropolitan Stadium after 20.

[Trademark]

This might be a hot take but let me cook.
Brightline probably won't really look at the route for another 10 years
Target Field will be 23 years old at that time
The Twins moved out of the Metrodome after 25 years and Metropolitan Stadium after 20.

Target Field is nowhere near the state of the Metrodome or the bad location of Metropolitan Stadium. I see it staying for at least 50 years.

[Mdcastle]

Maybe the Twin decide they want a stadium with a retractable roof?

[Korh]

Lets see them win another world series first before they start asking for a new stadium. Should of actually been a condition for funding US Bank since that might of meant the Vikings finally winning something.

[bubzki2]

HERC's days are numbered. That could be a nice location for an actual transit hub. Just sayin'

[Tom H.]

I mean - maybe, but in the post-Camden Yards era, there really hasn't been the same flurry of new stadiums. I think part of the reason is that more are now in downtown locations, which are inherently more desirable than the old-style suburban sea-of-parking stadiums. A few quick google searches tells me that there's only a handful of exceptions to this rule:

- Rangers leaving the Ballpark at Arlington (built 1994) for their new suburban stadium (Texas being Texas?)
- Brewers are kinda-sorta clamoring for a new stadium or renovation money (currently in a close-to-downtown sea-of-parking stadium)
- Diamondbacks are making noise about a new stadium (current one built in 1998)

Other than that, most post-Camden ballparks have had cheaper renovations instead of outright angling for new stadiums. Sounds like the Royals are getting a new downtown stadium to replace their 1970s suburban park, and the Athletics are the Athletics, but those are not comparable modern stadiums.

Long story short, I think the current generation of post-Camden Yards neo-classical ballparks are more likely to ask local governments for renovation / improvement money than to threaten relocation. Sure, tastes could change, but I think too many of them have prime urban, transit-accessible locations to give them up.

[Trademark]

HERC's days are numbered. That could be a nice location for an actual transit hub. Just sayin'

I'm still standing by the 394 trench as the transit hub. With a couple block cut and cover on N 3rd it would connect to the rail line across the river.

[StandishGuy]

City Geek on Youtube ran an analysis of the 10 U.S. rail corridors most ready for high speed rail awhile back. The MSP to Chicago didn't make the list due to lack of density and the significant distance of 400 miles. So, I doubt Bright Line or Amtrak will consider it, and the fact that a Rochester route doesn't exist means it is a long way off... likely in fantasy territory.

[J. Mc]

Having an additional station somewhere in the southeast suburbs could make a lot of sense. I remember seeing the Rochester City Lines commuters coaches dropping off at their Inver Grove Hts. park and ride lots a few times prior to the Covids and there was always a decent group of commuters. 30-40 IIRC. That was just a coach bus running 2-3 RT/day. Unfortunately the service has not resumed since the Pandemic suspension. RCL is currently operating some special event service to the Twin Cities from Rochester however. (Concerts, State Fair, etc.) Their Vikings games shuttle last fall apparently sold out the first coach so a second was added.

Maybe the Twin decide they want a stadium with a retractable roof?

If they do we should just get the ballpark to switch corporate naming rights from Target to Rubbermaid. Then fabricate a giant 'Roughneck' trash can lid to snap on top for the not ideal weather games. On the nice days just plunk it over the HERC. Bonus, we would get the added tourist draw of Worlds largest trash can lid! Might get a little dicey on the windy days though having to go retrieve the lid from one of the suburbs. Ohh, World's largest bungee cord!!

[Trademark]

City Geek on Youtube ran an analysis of the 10 U.S. rail corridors most ready for high speed rail awhile back. The MSP to Chicago didn't make the list due to lack of density and the significant distance of 400 miles. So, I doubt Bright Line or Amtrak will consider it, and the fact that a Rochester route doesn't exist means it is a long way off... likely in fantasy territory.

I like CityGeek's channel a lot but a top 10 video won't influence decisions made by a company.

[VacantLuxuries]

I think it's also worth remembering that Brightline views their efforts in California/Nevada (and to a lesser extent Florida) as pioneering projects. They believe that having a 180mph train in operation and a demonstrable business model will help to inspire other companies to start picking at their list of priorities.

So when we're talking about a route like MSP-Chicago, Brightline may not ever pick this route. But if major investment firm Blackrock sees that major investment firm Fortress managed to make a sizable profit from land speculation via transit corridor development, there may be a Blackrock funded railroad that pops up and starts developing their own network, and there begins to be competition for the best and second best available HSR routes. That's Brightline's stated goal - to prove there's money in this and to inspire others to finally get us on the road to catching up with our industrial nation peers on rail infrastructure.

I don't necessarily like leaving important infrastructure projects to the whims of the private sector like this, but the CityGeeks and CityNerds of YouTube are correct in the sense that if there's a place to put billions of public investment into HSR that will move the largest number of passengers and be the best demonstration corridors for HSR in America, it's California, and getting NYC-Boston running at speeds higher than a commuter train. If Brightline's vision pays off, and other companies follow their model, it stands to reason that one of those companies would view a Chicago based system as a solid bet, and MSP-Chicago would be one of the stronger corridors of that system.

[nBode]

HERC's days are numbered. That could be a nice location for an actual transit hub. Just sayin'

I'm still standing by the 394 trench as the transit hub. With a couple block cut and cover on N 3rd it would connect to the rail line across the river.

Agreed wholeheartedly. The 3 blocks from 2nd to 3rd Ave N and Washington to 5th St would make an excellent site for a real central station. Tracks could also loop back on the west side and connect to the existing line to eliminate backings-out. Although ideally I'd like to see the whole I94 corridor repurposed to make space for a direct line between Target Field and SPUD.

I do also think the HERC site could be pretty suitable for an upgraded TFS, though, maybe also including Mary's Place. Realistically, 4 through-running platforms would give plenty of capacity for the foreseeable future.