Much of the area at the former Milwaukee Road Depot's tracks were has been paved -- they put in a parking lot.
Inside the new St. Paul Union Depot
- Thread starter jebr
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
In my opinion the best location for a station in the twin cities would have been where Minneapolis Union depot was. The federal reserve bank was built on that site and the tracks are gone across the stone arch bridge that connected Minneapolis to St. Paul. What a short sighted decision to abandon these tracks through downtown Minneapolis.
The reason why so many grand railroad stations were torn down is because the shortsighted thinking of the day was that they would never be used again. Some beautiful architectural masterpieces have been lost forever. Structures that could never be rebuilt again. Minneapolis is just one city where this happened.
XHRTSP
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Messages
- 327
Maybe that's why so many airports look like ass, so they can eventually get razed like the train stations but without any great loss (architectural at least, Daley can still go to hell over Meigs). I don't think anyone cared when Stapleton got plowed over.
leemell
Conductor
One of my favorite hates --- Daley's midnight destruction of Meigs Field runway. Ranks right up there with the Colts NFL team sneaking out of Baltimore at midnight.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Wrong! Newspaper reports in the last few months have indicated that the Minnesota government is interested in "going it alone" on MSP - Chicago corridor service. I can imagine some interesting schedules (express from La Crescent to Milwaukee?). I wouldn't expect it to happen quickly though.
Trainut
Train Attendant
When the switch to SPUD comes about, be prepared to get the wallet out. The only reasonable place to park is under the depot. It will be very costly. When I went there just to look over the depot it cost me $5.75 for just 1 1/2 hours. I hate to think it will cost for 2 days or longer. Unless they put in new signage, good luck finding your way around the parking ramp. Just saying.
Ispolkom
Engineer
Nonsense. What part of the Minnesota government? Not the legislature. Not the governor, who's up for re-election this fall and won in 2010 in large part because the Republicans nominated a terrible candidate, Tom "Waiters make $100k a year" Emmer, and then only won the election by less than 9k votes. Who are you talking about?
I'm sorry, I live in St. Paul and follow our legislature closely. There is no way on God's green earth that the Minnesota legislature would appropriate money (and remember that the legislature appropriates money) for a train that would mostly benefit Wisconsin and the Twin Cities. Suburban legislators won't vote for that, and since they are the margin between the two parties for control of the legislature, DFL party leaders won't ask them to vote for that, even if that were the plan, which as far as I know it isn't. (You do know that the DFL lost both houses in 2010 and regained them in 2012, and are very hesitant to do anything to cut their margin of control, don't you?)
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nathanael
Guest
What part ofthe government? Department of Transportation.
If you're saying the legislature won't appropriate money, well then maybe they won't.
But there's a lot of interest in being able to get to Chicago by train (without fighting against the hopeless unreliability of the Empire Builder), even in the suburbs, though not so much in the rural areas. Intercity trains appeal to a different group of people than urban trains.
I don't know how stupid the suburban DFL legislators are -- maybe you're right and they're scared of spending money on anything useful or popular. That happens. It's a good way to get the other party elected, though.
Nothing will happen until after the next election, of course. Not enough lead time.
If you're saying the legislature won't appropriate money, well then maybe they won't.
But there's a lot of interest in being able to get to Chicago by train (without fighting against the hopeless unreliability of the Empire Builder), even in the suburbs, though not so much in the rural areas. Intercity trains appeal to a different group of people than urban trains.
I don't know how stupid the suburban DFL legislators are -- maybe you're right and they're scared of spending money on anything useful or popular. That happens. It's a good way to get the other party elected, though.
Nothing will happen until after the next election, of course. Not enough lead time.
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Does anyone know if theres a way to route trains from SPUD to Minneapolis Interchange (Target Field)?
NW cannonball
Conductor
There is. Follow the way the Builder takes now westbound via Short Line through the MNNR yard past the present Midway Amtrak station, west through Saint Anthony Park onto the BNSF, then take the wye west at Harrison street.
Yes, however if you are suggesting having the EB stop there, the train would have to take the south switch of the wye at Harrison St., across the Mississippi, into Target Field station, then back track back to Harrison st and continue on. There is no way anyone would be willing to add even more time to the already delay-prone Builder.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ispolkom
Engineer
Money talks, and nonsense walks. It doesn't matter how interested a bureaucrat is in trains, if the legislature isn't, and the governor isn't. And they aren't.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Well, I'm sorry to hear that they're scared of their own shadows. If they're that scaredycat about other things, they'll get kicked out -- nobody likes an elected official who won't push for anything.
The plan being proposed by DOT, as I've read it, is extremely mild and consists essentially of running a single daytime train each way from MSP to Chicago year-round, so as to eliminate the problems associated with delays coming from the west, replacing the "807/808" extra car currently run to MSP on the Empire Builder. I believe DOT's first goal was to do a study and get an estimate from Amtrak (& CP & BNSF & Metra) as to how much it would cost, and that alone is probably going to take a couple of years. The study might get funded sometime in the next few years.
By comparison with other routes, I'm personally guessing it would be less than $7 million / year to operate (that's based on looking at the Adirondack, Vermonter, and Piedmont). Perhaps after an election or two someone will be more interested in funding the actual operation.
We're talking 10 years in the future in any case. In that timescale, I think the interests of the bureaucrats and the people are better predictors than the interests of the current legislators.
Ispolkom
Engineer
If you believe that, Wisconsin has a couple of Talgo sets to sell you. Elected officials make policy. Bureaucrats implement it. I don't doubt that whatever office in MnDOT that handles passenger rail is busy making studies and plans. That's their job. It doesn't mean that those studies amount to anything.
In any case, the governor and legislature aren't scaredy cats. They just don't care much about intercity rail, and I've never seen evidence that that isn't a good reflection of most Minnesotans' opinion. And if the current people are turned out at the next election, their replacements won't be more interested.
But now you're talking about ten years out. I don't pretend to know what Minnesota politics will be like in 2024, and find it odd that you have such strong opinions. I only know about what things are like now. And now there is no way the Minnesota state government will fund a train that Wisconsin doesn't participate in funding. Facts are stubborn things.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Green Line to Union Depot is scheduled to start revenue service on June 14, 2014. News in Railway Age: June debut for St. Paul Metro Green Line. Assuming Amtrak has moved by then, that will add another station with local rail transit connections to the expanding list.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Well, I guess I've researched long-term trends more than you have have. And I'm pretty sure the Minnesota government will be funding intercity rail within 10 years.
I'm not disagreeing about today, but I have good reason to disagree about the future.
G
Guest
Guest
Well according to this article a decision on Amtrak Service to SPUD will come out next week.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_24946706/st-paul-cusp-transit-transformation
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_24946706/st-paul-cusp-transit-transformation
Ispolkom
Engineer
Hmm, like the long-term trend of Wisconsin expanding passenger rail? With minor issues like passenger rail, there are no long-term trends. Instead policy is swamped by contingent effects from other, more important issues. Scott Walker's election as governor ended any expansion of the Hiawatha, and set back any possible long term trend toward a Chicago-Twin Cities train. Was the Hiawatha actually an important issue in that election?
The route to Duluth was viable as long as Rep Oberstar was the congressman for that district. He had influence in federal transportation funding. When he lost a reelection bid in 2010, that pretty much ended that project's viability, even though the project was not an issue in the campaign. Neither of his successors have spent any time or effort I've seen on passenger rail.
To believe in long-term trends is to imagine that politics have no effect on policy. That simply isn't true. It can be terribly important who is elected, as the 2010 elections in Minnesota and Wisconsin showed. In any case there is no long-term trend in favor of passenger rail. Sure, we got the North Star commuter line, but that was a poisoned gift. The poor ridership numbers on that line are used as proof that Minnesotans won't ride trains, except perhaps to Twins games.
You want to know what's important? Money. Look where the money goes. Look, for instance, at how much state and local money has been appropriated for passenger rail, and compare that to how much has been appropriated for sports stadiums. That is the sort of trend that matters.
I wish it were otherwise. I wish that I had there were more than two trains a day in St. Paul, and that I could regard OTP as something other than a joke. But that's not the reality.
This is good news! Good to see Union Depot becoming an intermodal center with lots of use by all styles of public transportation.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Amtrak Forum mobile app
N
Nathanael
Guest
You want to know what predicts long-term trends? Public mood.
There was no trend of more passenger rail in Wisconsin, there was little public mood for it, and frankly I was positively surprised when the Madison project got off the ground. Walker of course sabotaged it deliberately by breaking contracts, which is actually unusual (though it is what you expect from someone most of whose senior staff has been convicted). Even so, the project will probably be back eventually because the city of Madison wants it, and everyone's staring at next-door Illinois.
(Why do I say there's no trend in Wisconsin? The existing Milwaukee service and the existing Metra service to Kenosha both predate 1970. Attempts to increase frequencies have failed. Attempts to extend Metra service have failed. Attempts to build a Milwaukee Streetcar have not succeeded yet. The extension of the Hiawatha Service to Watertown in '98 was started and then cancelled. The only successful projects so far are the miniscule Kenosha streetcar and the minimalistic Milwaukee Airport station.)
By contrast, there is a trend of more passenger rail in Minnesota, and an increase in "mindshare". There wasn't before Jesse Ventura got the Hiawatha Line opened, but there has been since then, and it hasn't stopped. Projects are going to keep getting funded and built. And intrastate politics is going to mean that one of the intercity projects is going to get built relatively soon (next decade or so), due to the usual way the arguments play out when everyone starts being pro-rail: after the first several urban lines, people start saying "Why can't we get to other cities?". It is possible that Chicago-Twin Cities will be pushed onto the back burner repeatedly if *another* project successfully gets funded like St. Cloud or Duluth or Rochester or something -- but that seems truly unlikely.
If not, and if a standalone Chicago-Twin Cities service turns out to be relatively cheap (as it is likely to be), a standalone Chicago-Twin Cities service will probably be the sop thrown to intercity rail.
Duluth service (before Chicago service) was always a longshot and was maintained purely by Oberstar's advocacy -- but you'll notice he didn't manage to get it done despite being in office for decades. Politicians make a difference, but politicians are swayed by the public mood.
And I guess you don't think Minnesotans give a damn about whether they can get to Chicago by train. Well, I think the percentage who give a damn has been slowly edging up and will continue to do so. This question could only be settled by polling which I haven't been able to find.
You speak of money. Well, look how much money actually has been appropriated for passenger rail in Minnesota. Yes, you've blown vast quantities on stadia, but you've also actually put meaningful amounts into passenger rail. The fact that most of it has happened at the county level doesn't really change the long-term implications of that, politically. By contrast, Iowa seems unable to spend a dime.
There was no trend of more passenger rail in Wisconsin, there was little public mood for it, and frankly I was positively surprised when the Madison project got off the ground. Walker of course sabotaged it deliberately by breaking contracts, which is actually unusual (though it is what you expect from someone most of whose senior staff has been convicted). Even so, the project will probably be back eventually because the city of Madison wants it, and everyone's staring at next-door Illinois.
(Why do I say there's no trend in Wisconsin? The existing Milwaukee service and the existing Metra service to Kenosha both predate 1970. Attempts to increase frequencies have failed. Attempts to extend Metra service have failed. Attempts to build a Milwaukee Streetcar have not succeeded yet. The extension of the Hiawatha Service to Watertown in '98 was started and then cancelled. The only successful projects so far are the miniscule Kenosha streetcar and the minimalistic Milwaukee Airport station.)
By contrast, there is a trend of more passenger rail in Minnesota, and an increase in "mindshare". There wasn't before Jesse Ventura got the Hiawatha Line opened, but there has been since then, and it hasn't stopped. Projects are going to keep getting funded and built. And intrastate politics is going to mean that one of the intercity projects is going to get built relatively soon (next decade or so), due to the usual way the arguments play out when everyone starts being pro-rail: after the first several urban lines, people start saying "Why can't we get to other cities?". It is possible that Chicago-Twin Cities will be pushed onto the back burner repeatedly if *another* project successfully gets funded like St. Cloud or Duluth or Rochester or something -- but that seems truly unlikely.
If not, and if a standalone Chicago-Twin Cities service turns out to be relatively cheap (as it is likely to be), a standalone Chicago-Twin Cities service will probably be the sop thrown to intercity rail.
Duluth service (before Chicago service) was always a longshot and was maintained purely by Oberstar's advocacy -- but you'll notice he didn't manage to get it done despite being in office for decades. Politicians make a difference, but politicians are swayed by the public mood.
And I guess you don't think Minnesotans give a damn about whether they can get to Chicago by train. Well, I think the percentage who give a damn has been slowly edging up and will continue to do so. This question could only be settled by polling which I haven't been able to find.
You speak of money. Well, look how much money actually has been appropriated for passenger rail in Minnesota. Yes, you've blown vast quantities on stadia, but you've also actually put meaningful amounts into passenger rail. The fact that most of it has happened at the county level doesn't really change the long-term implications of that, politically. By contrast, Iowa seems unable to spend a dime.
Ispolkom
Engineer
We'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't have a clue what public mood is, or what your perception of it is based on. It does seem to not be based on anything citable, and I'll say in advance that polls aren't worth much, because there are lots of things that people will say they want, but aren't willing to pay for. Look at North Dakota and the Churchs Ferry project which, as far as I can see, North Dakota hasn't appropriated a dime for.
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.
On the other hand, I'm modestly hopeful that I was wrong in my claim that light rail would start at SPUD before Amtrak moves in. I eagerly await the January 27 announcement.
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth
Engineer
You know the return on investment of a sports stadium vs public transit? And what if the government stopped subsidizing roads and air in favor of rail?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ispolkom
Engineer
Is there a return on public "investment" in a sport stadium? I've always thought that any public money spent on sports teams was a dead loss.
As for your second question, Minnesota won't stop subsidizing roads and air in favor of rail. The air subsidies are minor, I think (mostly improvements at small airports), but the requirement to maintain a public road network has been a whole separate article in the state constitution for almost a hundred years.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
Connecticut Inland Route and Albany - Boston Corridor (Compass Service)- Latest: AmtrakMaineiac
-
-
-
-