What is 'viable?'

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported today that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has studied the possibility of a second passenger train between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin Cities) and found the concept to be "viable."

Anyone with a whit of historical perspective on passenger rail between those two endpoints would not be surprised. Chicago - Twin Cities was once the proving ground for a new post-WWII generation of streamliners that made the trip in 400 minutes. At least two major railroads competed for this business, and thought, at the time, it was a money-maker. Milwaukee Road and Chicago Northwestern both fielded trains that served only these end points and intermediate stops.

Amtrak's Empire Builder (EB), a disgraceful insult to the name of the real Empire Builder, James J. Hill, is the "first" train referred to in the report. A second train would run between the end points and not continue west, as does the EB. In the days of the 400s and the "real" Empire Builder, viability of a route would be based on how many people would ride the train, what they would be willing to pay for the privilege, and whether or not the net after factoring the cost would bring a profit for the railroad.

Today, "viable" appears to mean whether Amtrak, Congress, and/or a state legislature in any or all of three state (Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota) could be threatened, bribed or cajoled into coughing up somewhere in the neighborhood of $169 million (certainly more than that by first train time) to make it happen, and then suddenly budget God knows what amount on a yearly basis to cover losses.

Somebody in Minnesota DOT should call BrightLine down in Florida and see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps BrightLine, now that they have purchased the Los Angeles - Las Vegas concept, will be willing to start up another 400 for them, without public money.