I prefer to stick to facts and political reality. The political reality is that the state of Minnesota will never pay to run a train that goes through Wisconsin without Wisconsin also paying. I'll happily promise to buy you a first-class ticket on the first run of any such train, because I know I'll never have to pay up.
Heh. Thanks -- we'll see. That's a particularly easy bet to win, because I don't think any such train will *have* first class seats.
Coach-only seems to be the trend...
FWIW, Michigan runs trains through Indiana, Maine runs trains through New Hampshire, and Oklahoma used to run a train through Texas, without support from the intervening states.
Also, NC pays for the Carolinian which runs through VA. Vermont was exclusively paying to support the Vermonter north of Springfield, although MA and CT are now chipping in for their share of the passengers north of New Haven.
I would think the deciding factor for Minnesota is how much it will cost in one time capital costs and continuing subsidy to operate a single daily train to Chicago. The trip times of the EB from CHI to the Twin Cities is already fairly good, so there is not a need for major track upgrades to get decent speeds. It comes down to how much CP will demand in track upgrades to add a second passenger train to the route? If it is not much or the state and CP can reach an agreement on a multi-year series of incremental upgrades for future service improvements that spreads the cost out while the new corridor service is running, then it won't cost MN much out of its annual budget. The state and the Twin Cities are spending a lot of money to add light rail lines and restore SPUD as a modern intermodal station. The cost of a single daily Twin Cities to Chicago corridor train should be small potatoes in comparison. The bigger cost may be in the rolling stock if MN wants to have the new corridor bi-level cars for the service. But there may be ways to pay for that.
As for first class seats, the corridor bi-level order includes a number of cars with business class seating. So substitute a business class ticket for the bet if you win.
Other states do lots of things that Minnesota doesn't do. I've been told, for instance, that other states allow you to buy liquor or a car on Sunday. Every year polls show that the vast majority of Minnesotans want to buy hootch on Sundays, and every year the bill to allow it goes down by something like 100 to 30 in the house.
The devil is, as usual, is in the details. Most of the costs of the light rail lines, and almost all of the SPUD restoration are paid for with federal funds, and they are facilities that are in Minnesota. If you can pay for a new train from St. Paul to Chicago with federal funds, no problem. If you expect state money, though, you're out of luck. Who are the advocates for intercity rail in the Minnesota Legislature? I sure haven't heard them.
Opponents, though, I can name. The heads of the house tax and the transportation committees are hostile to passenger rail. The latter, for instance, recently explained that commuter rail east of the Twin Cities is a non-starter. Why? The poor ridership on the North Star line shows that Minnesotans won't ride trains. I can assure, you, though, that there would be howls of opposition to wasting money on a choo-choo train (another phrase I've heard often from legislators) that stops in maybe three or four cities in Minnesota, especially since the Twin Cities already has frequent air and bus service to Chicago for which the state doesn't have to appropriate money.
The problem is that the DFL isn't interested in intercity rail, and the Republicans tend to be hostile. Without any ardent supporters, nothing happens. Look at the
governor's bonding proposal, you'll see.... $2 million for grade crossings.
As for CP, I'd expect a very large bill for upgrades, given how much traffic they are moving both to and from the North Dakota oil patch. If you look at the Empire Builder OTP, CP's delays aren't much lower, proportionally, than BNSF's.
