Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
I applaud Rick Harnish et al for dreaming big and sharing responsibility for the relatively advanced state of midwest interstate rail, but at some point the plan would have to get a bit more plausible. The notion that there is demand to support both a 90-110mph corridor and a parallel 150-220mph route between LaCrosse and MSP, for example, is ludicrous. No - there will be one route between Madison and MSP, not 3.
|
As it looks now, there will be at least two routes, and with interstate bureaucracy I wouldn't be surprised at 3. The current, existing route between La Cross and MSP meanders along the river; and I don't expect it to upgraded to 110 unless it's an intermediary step while a 220 ROW is built. Both Eau Claire and Rochester (and Wisconsin and Minnesota, respectively) are lobbying to be the last node before MSP. If fed funding and state support picks up in the next 10-20 years, the "compromise" could be new ROWs to each city with departures between Madison and MSP split between them. It wouldn't be the most efficient use of funds, but that's politics.
As and aside, I do hope that Rochester ends up with a 220 HSR stop. Besides having the Mayo Clinic, which one could argue is a societal asset worthy of subsidized transportation, the city has a really sizable tech industry. Aggregately, I would think Rochester would see as much rail use as a typical Midwestern city several times its size.