transit54
Conductor
There's absolutely no reason that we should skip WI. However, the project needs to be lead at the state, not the federal level. In order to make the application, the state needs to agree to a commitment to fund the operating costs of the service. The exceptions I would make are for situations where a small portion of a recalcitrant state lies between two otherwise desirable endpoints - such as the Downeaster through NH. But regardless of past politics, all interested applications should be considered equally.I'm inclined to agree -- but for those who say to skip WI, I have already made my suggestions about connecting Saint Paul with Omaha or Kansas City. Also, make the service more than one-train-per-day-each-way. Think of the population centers served along the route, not just the endpoints -- that is one way to argue for better service: point out the population served along the line.
To clarify: I think it's really MN's call regarding WI. If MN is willing to foot the bill regardless of what WI does, let them build it. Regardless of political affiliation, WI isn't going to block a project they won't have to contribute to. But fares can be adjusted accordingly to compensate somewhat, although that's less than ideal.
Last edited by a moderator: