Study says second train between St. Paul and Chicago would work

Written by Mischa Wanek-Libman, editor
image description
Jerry Huddleston

A study looking at the feasibility of an additional daily passenger train between Minneapolis, St. Paul or St. Cloud to Chicago produced promising results.

 

The study concluded that the route between St. Paul and Chicago is the most feasible for initial service with potential extensions to Minneapolis and St. Cloud. It recommends an environmental review of the project, which would have a robust public involvement component and provide eligibility for federal funding. The study’s sponsors are determining how to fund this step.

The study was conducted by Amtrak on behalf of the Minnesota and Wisconsin departments of transportation (MnDOT and WisDOT) and La Crosse County, Wis.

The purpose of the second daily train is to provide improved eastbound reliability and increased train frequency. The study includes an assessment of schedules, ridership, revenue, infrastructure investments, operating costs and equipment needs associated with adding a second daily train between Minnesota and Chicago. The study assumes the second round trip train would use the same route as the current Empire Builder service between Chicago and St. Paul with the addition of a Milwaukee Airport Rail Station stop.

Annual ridership on the additional daily train, with a morning departure from Chicago and a mid-day departure from St. Paul, is estimated at about 155,000 passengers. This is an increase over the current Empire Builder ridership of approximately 104,000 between St. Paul and Chicago, with departures from St. Paul in the morning and Chicago in the afternoon. The top speed for passenger trains in this corridor is 79 mph.

There are anticipated capital investment costs for infrastructure capacity improvements, with a planning level cost estimate of approximately $95 million for the Chicago to St. Paul scenario. The St. Cloud and Minneapolis scenarios had higher infrastructure costs. There would be an additional $46.4 million in cost if new equipment were to be used.

Tags: