Secrets of the City

The feds just dropped another type of green on Minnesota, for shiney new choo-choo trains!

Wow. Wisconsin wins big in the high-speed rail sweepstakes.

Even if it’s only a $1 million of a feasibility study it’s a waste of money. At least six airlines fly multiple routes per day to ORD, others to MDW. Waste. Of. Money. 

I’m not so sure. I might use the not-so-high-speed rail for a trip or two to Chicago. What do the others think? We have discussed this before.

Here’s what you’ll learn after spending $1 million: ”Fifteen cars and Fifteen restless riders/Three Conducters/Twenty-five sacks of mail.”

Hello, America. How are you?

I would a subsidized sinkhole that competes with legitmate, for-profit businesses. Business travelers don’t want to take a 4 to 5 hour trip when they can get here in 45 minutes to an hour and come back, maybe on the same day. You think a market can be built around a small group of people who want to boast about their trip — clickety-clacking down the tracks —  at the next cocktail party?

Ugh…I wished I hadn’t even looked at the PiPress comment section on this. How can so many people be both racist and homophobic on a subject like trains?!?

who can fly anywhere theses days in 45 minutes (except for the CEO with the corporate jet)? Travel time to and from the airport at both ends, arriving an hour or more before departure to get through security, delays on the tarmac, your still looking at 4-5 hours or more. At least with a train, you could spend most of that time working if you want.

Oh Bob, I never read PiPr or Strib comments. They just anger up my blood. Blech.

Tru dat, Jane. We MNSpeakers are a smart and friendly bunch of commentors, for the most part. It spoils you when you compare comments on other sites.

Wouldn’t “high speed” train mean high speed?  Wouldn’t this equal less traveling time?The train is more efficient way to transporting people.  It takes less energy per person when comparable numbers are involved.  It is more flexible in terms of fuel use.  They don’t fall out of the sky.  Thus, the train is the transportation method of the future.  Thus, it is worth exploration.  We cannot wait until the future falls upon us and say, “OH Crap!  We should have planned for this…”

According to Bob Collins at MPR, Minnesota missed the train on this one.

Thus, the train is the transportation method of the future.  Do you know of anyplace it’s being done on a breakeven or profitable basis aside from excursion trains or trains for the luxury market? Does it even deserve a future if it can’t? There are companies that move people, working like dogs to try and clear a profit. 

Do Interstate highways make a profit, Rat?

No they don’t. But that’s just a deflection. Nine billion we’re talking about on a line the Twin Cities and Chicago, and now way to make it profitably work. That’s what we’re talking about. 

I don’t think it’s a deflection at all. Why would you expect passenger rail to make a profit or break even if the most commonly-used form of transporation between Minneapolis and Chicago, the Interstate highway system, does not, and never has? Are you concerned that the new rail line could lure away air passengers, thus pitting a new, heavily subsidized, government-paid train against the privately owned airlines? Well, that doesn’t work very well, either. Who built that airport? Who runs the FAA? The Weather Service that the airports use? The TSA? Taxpayer money is in all forms of transportation, in the air, on the ground. Rail is no different.

 Are you concerned that the new rail line could lure away air passengers, thus pitting a new, heavily subsidized, government-paid train against the privately owned airlines? Yes. You should be, too. Who built that airport? There are some privately owned airports. And I wouldn’t call any of the things you mention a direct subsidy.  And yes, airlines are heavily regulated, which probably doesn’t do much for profit. But I wouldn’t call any of that a subsidy. 

Keep in mind bob the amount of goods moving on the interstates–that counts for something eh?. Damn semis in the left lane…grumble grumble…

I’ve heard people float the idea that the airlines would do well to hire their own security. They could screen by any policy they like, and you could pick an airline that boasts the best security. They hire private security companies to tag and seal items that are brought onboard aircraft. Not a silly notion by any means. 

You need not loose sleep over the profitablity of the airlines, Rat. Via USA Today: “Those who have suggested airline deregulation has failed should note that Secretary LaHood’s blog also states the following: “But let’s be clear about this: I have not heard one word in this Administration about re-regulating the industry.”  Of course you are correct, baker. Also consider that a single freight train can carry 280 semi-loads of cargo, using much less diesel fuel in the process. While these rails are being upgraded for passenger rail, consider the increased freight load improved rails might carry in the near future.

People can float all the ideas they want, but Congress and the President will sink them. No way will TSA be turned over to Blackwater. Not on his watch.

Been watching 24, Bob?

How profitable would the airlines be if they had to build their own airports in every city that they wanted to fly? How accessible would air travel be if the airlines had to build their own airports? Need to go to Milwaukee, Madison, Indianapolis? you would have to fly into Chicago, and then have to drive or bus the remaining distance.

@Rat: The airlines “heavily regulated?” Nuh-uh. If that’s what you think, you didn’t live back when the airlines were, indeed, heavily regulated. @mnblrmkr: How inconvenient would it be to require each airline to build their own airport? About as inconvenient as the days when each railroad has its own terminal. In Minneapolis, the Milwaukee Road and the Great Northern terminals were a couple of miles apart downtown. On the other hand, there was a time when airlines did build their own airport terminals.

@Rat: The airlines “heavily regulated?” Nuh-uh.  No, they are. The pricing policies probably aren’t, and the deregulation opened up travel to everyone and made them competitive, but you don’t see what goes into aircraft certification. Maintenance logs, flight plans,  the number of flight attendants they have to have….everything is regulated. Little men with big rule books. 

“deregulation opened up travel to everyone and made them competitive…” Not quite everyone, Rat, as this NYT article points out. In any case, people haven’t exactly been flocking to air travel of late, especially at the MSP airport.

So, what’s your point? The economy has cut into travel everywhere. That has nothing to do with deregulation. 

The recession began in Dec. 2007, so you really can’t explain four consecutive years of declining use of the MSP airport strictly on that. Also, a number of studies have shown that cities that have a 10,000 lb. gorilla airline like Northwest/Delta at their airport don’t see the kind of airfare deals peopl in other can get. On the plus side, you have more direct flights to more places.

“who can fly anywhere theses days in 45 minutes (except for the CEO with
the corporate jet)? Travel time to and from the airport at both ends,
arriving an hour or more before departure to get through security,
delays on the tarmac, your still looking at 4-5 hours or more.”i can.  i do it every week.  leave my house in northeast at 6:20am every monday, at my gate by 7:00am for my 7:30 flight.   i’ve flown almost every week for the past 4 years and can count the number of serious delays on one hand.  and have never, ever missed a flight.  but THAT doesn’t make good news copy.i’d be thrilled to take the train to chicago for vacation, and have done it before.  but for business?  that’s silly.  waste of time.

Have a large carrier is a little like having a convenience store walking distance from where you live. You might pay a little more for the stuff, but you’ll get the convenience in return. That being more scheduled flights to more destinations. 

@Rat: OMG. You want the airline deregulated to the point where there is no safety oversight by the FAA?

Exactly what I want, Nood. ::::rolls eyes::::

Speaking of planes, here’s a post on the Honeywell biodiesel aviation fuel project Geithner mentioned.

@Rat: I wasn’t sure if you were complaining in your comment about regulation or what because a number of other businesses also need similar regulation, e.g. medicine, pharmaceuticals, attorneys, food processors, trucking, rail transport, etc. to safeguard consumers or the environment.

this ethanol plant could have used a bit more regulation.

Follow the money: Think, Tim Penny or Gil Gutknecht