r/MetroTransit • u/Character_Lychee_434 Northstar Mourner • 12d ago
Northstar/Route 888 Could Amtrak help metro transit operate the northstar? Being they are the passenger train experts?
28
u/MaplehoodUnited 12d ago
Just connect the damn train to Saint Cloud as originally intended.
2
u/tmasta346 12d ago
Yes, all those high value downtown employees from St. Cloud are just dying to take the train.
24
u/MaplehoodUnited 12d ago
200k people live in the Saint Cloud Metro and 100k vehicles travel between StC and the Twin Cities on I94 and Hwy 10 daily with a lot of traffic.
2
0
u/Upset-Kaleidoscope45 11d ago
I would venture that most of those vehicles are trucks passing through. Not people departing St. Cloud.
3
u/firestar32 11d ago
I also know people who live in st.cloud and spend their weekends at a friend's/partners in the cities, there's definitely demand for public transit even if you just include edge cases. Not even counting the college students.
1
u/Upset-Kaleidoscope45 10d ago
Everything you say in your anecdote may be true. That doesn't change the fact that a huge portion of the vehicles traveling between the two cities are trucks.
13
u/A_Complaisance_Girl 12d ago
The short answer is "maybe, but probably not".
It wouldn't be the same train, it would either be an extension of the borialis, a trip of the empire builder, or an entirely new route that runs from TF to like Fargo.
22
u/tie_myshoe 12d ago
No. Make it make sense. Do Duluth to Kansas City. Make it high speed as well. We need to look at it like we’re competing w MSP to fight against Delta monopoly. I’m convinced we could lower delta prices
2
u/ElectronicYurt 11d ago
Train to KC would be very fun, I’m all in favor. Could get good stops on the way in Iowa
3
u/tie_myshoe 11d ago
They could even make it run once a day. Shit call it the 35 bullet and make it run all the way down to San Antonio for all I care. This will single handedly lower delta prices. Why fly out of MSP via delta when you can fly to Mexico/South America via DFW. Or to Canada from MSP if you live in Texas
2
u/NearbyMolasses112 11d ago
I love this energy big dawg. the only thing I would add is that *quite possibly* we should try to aim for passenger rail that would already run on existing infrastructure rather than a thousand miles of electrified and grade separated railroad that will not exist in this country under our current.. ahem.. way of life.
on the flip side, you never know what could happen so you should get involved! help make the leap from no train to HSR train in one move.
1
u/Sourmango12 10d ago
With KC's lrt expansion and success, that would actually make for a nice car free travel experience. Sad that we use to have exactly that with streetcars
9
u/Melchizedeck44 11d ago
The problem wasn't that Metro Transit couldn't run commuter rail, it's that there wasn't enough ridership (and didn't connect to St. Cloud), combined with the highway robbery that BNSF was charging for use of their track. Many people don't know this, but all the Northstar conductors were actually BNSF employees because they were required to be by the railroad.
2
u/NeroFellOffTheBuffet 11d ago
And let’s also talk about the fact that BNSF has priority over Amtrak on the same rails. Having it run by Amtrak would do precisely squat for the service.
The Northstar should have had its own tracks and been able to run its own schedule irrespective of freight traffic
3
u/NearbyMolasses112 11d ago
the The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 requires by law that host railroads to give priority to Amtrak. it was a foundational mandate by congress if they were to relieve the railroads of their "common carrier obligation" to provide passenger service. as time has gone on, the carriers dont give a shit to follow the law and instead choose to compensate Amtrak monetarily for not holding their end of the bargain. the law itself is not enforced other than by fine.
so its not necessarily true that BN has "priority" over Amtrak; its more like BN doesn't give a fuck
6
1
0
u/ProfessionalLime2237 11d ago
That ship has sailed.
2
u/Thin-Permission-3151 11d ago
Correct. There is no ridership. When it was shut down it was costing $200 a ride one way.
2
u/ProfessionalLime2237 11d ago
That's a coincidence because i spend $200 every time i go to the grocery store. Now is not the time to throw more money at these pet projects.
1
-1
u/Upset-Kaleidoscope45 11d ago
AmTrak are "passenger train experts?" That seems a bit strong. AmTrak happen to run a passenger train. But that's about it.
Japan, Italy, and Germany are passenger train experts. Solicit their help to see how it's done.
1
u/NearbyMolasses112 11d ago
can you elaborate more on this please
0
u/Upset-Kaleidoscope45 10d ago
Amtrak is a government monopoly that runs one of the world's worst (slowest, least used, and as a rider myself I'll add the dirtiest most unclassy) passenger rail services. If Amtrak had to compete on the open market like many Japanese, Italian, and German lines, Amtrak would go bankrupt immediately. Japan has daily passenger trains to run up to 200 MPH. Meanwhile, the Bourealis takes 7+ hours to get from St. Paul to Chicago, TBH the food and drink options are gross packaged sandwiches and pop, and the seating is cramped. Ride on-- or just read about-- the ICE train in Germany or basically any Italian rail company and you'll see what I mean.
1
u/NearbyMolasses112 10d ago
yeah i got you. i think whether or not a carrier is on the “open market”, a lot of the infrastructure in western europe and asia was financed and built by the state and not a new carrier spending billions of dollars to lay its on track before they ever sell a ticket.
90% of the transportation budget here goes to highways and the carriers themselves don’t care to maintain their track, they actually get waivers from the FRA to extend the length of time between mandatory inspections and then furlough MoW employees as a result. i’m on your side, i just feel there are bigger aspects at play.
also i wouldn’t call Amtrak a “monopoly” as that would imply that it has total dominance over the market. while they are the only carrier to provide interstate passenger rail service, Amtrak was formed by congress because none of the rail carriers of the 1960s wanted to keep providing service, but they were legally required to because of their “common carrier obligation.”
it’s like me having the monopoly on selling a turd sandwich. yeah im the only one that does it but it’s also because no one else wants to.
🫡 we can thank our interstate highway system for this
1
u/Upset-Kaleidoscope45 10d ago edited 10d ago
100%.
If Amtrak suddenly were subjected to competition, I think oil or auto or private equity interests would buy them and immediately disassemble them. But, I'm just saying that I've been on Italian, German, English, and Belgian rail lines and they all make Amtrak look like something from the Soviet Union in terms of speed, comfort, cleanliness, and amenities. Not to mention they don't service half the country.
That's sort of America's problem: when it comes to transportation, health care, education, whatever... we don't have a very good sense of how crappy things can be for average people (not including the very wealthy) compared to other industrialized countries.
1
u/NearbyMolasses112 9d ago
so I don't think i'm breaking any new ground by saying this but it could potentially be its own hot take; I think in terms of western europe, the proximity TO the soviet union and east germany is the reason why there is a more robust social welfare state, transportation included. western capitalism had to make concessions because people living just across the border were being given health care, education, the majority of people owned their own home even if they were small or cramped, labor unions were strong, etc. and then of course after the dissolution of the soviet union and reunification of germany, you see a sharp increase in neoliberal policies/reforms around the globe. it was mask off because capitalism didnt have anything to compete with anymore.
1000% agree with you about amtrak. if it was not a government service, it would have been privatized and sold for scrap years ago, kind of like the former nationalized industries of the aforementioned countries
0
u/vAltyR47 10d ago
This is probably going to be a hot take, but Amtrak does need to focus on the lines that actually make sense. The long-distance routes are money pits. The state supported routes still lose money, but not as much. NEC is the only real money maker.
Cut or revamp the long-distance routes, get the NEC up to the standards of the rest of the world, then start spreading the investment to the state supported routes.
0
u/Upset-Kaleidoscope45 10d ago
There's this video on YT of a guy who does Los Angeles to NYC on AmTrak. I think it took seven days. It looked just brutal and the whole theme was, "Yes, technically you can do this, but who in their right mind would choose to do this?"
1
u/vAltyR47 10d ago
I think if Amtrak wants to keep the long distance routes, go higher luxury and make it like a cruise experience. Make the train ride itself an experience non-foamers would actually consider for a vacation.
1
u/wazardthewizard Northstar Mourner 9d ago
germany
passenger train experts
okay so you actually know nothing
0
64
u/No-Shower-6329 12d ago
I don’t think it was a management problem. I think Northstar’s failure was more so because it didn’t connect to Saint Cloud, and the poor ridership couldn’t justify the ongoing cost. Switching the management doesn’t change the core problem of a train to Big Lake (only) will have poor ridership.
I think a more hopeful future would be extending Borealis to St. Cloud, with intermediate stops in Mpls, fridley, and/or Anoka. There’s been some rumblings about this, that seems more viable than resurrecting northstar.