WASHINGTON — Minnesota Republicans in the House of Representatives on Friday (May 23) announced an effort to eliminate federal funding for three rail programs: the Northstar commuter service; Blue Line light rail extension in the Twin Cities, and the proposed Northern Light Express between the Twin Cities and Duluth.
The four legislators — Tom Emmer (Blaine, Minn.), Brad Finstad (Rochester, Minn), Michelle Fischbach (Moorhead) and Pete Stauber (Duluth) — said in a letter to leadership of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development that the projects “pose significant concerns for taxpayers” and that continued funding would be “financially irresponsible.”
The letter calls the Northstar service a “$320 million field experiment in transit,” noting its steep decline in ridership. The state has already said it is considering replacing the trains with bus service, while a bill in the state legislature seeks to defund it [see “State legislator seeks to kill …,” Trains News Wire, Feb. 24, 2025]. It characterizes the 13.5-mile Blue Line extension — delayed and eventually rerouted because of issues with BNSF Railway over the original plan to run adjacent to its main line — as “wasteful.” The letter says federal funding would “continue a cycle of reckless spending by the Metropolitan Council” — the Twin Cities governing body that oversees the Metro Transit system.
The letter, which characterizes the Northern Lights Express intercity operation as “commuter rail,” notes that the state has already allocated $194.7 million to match possible federal funds. But they say that taxpayer are “liable for a $400 million loan [for construction] and another potentially mismanaged commuter line]. At the state level, legislators have passed a bill to reallocate some of the $194.7 million, which would likely kill the project’s ability to attract federal funds [see “Minnesota legislature withdraws funding …,” News Wire, May 19, 2025].
Mid-terms can’t come soon enough, likely many GOP members going to be surprised.
Interesting intercourse,
With respect to the question of “1 powered locomotive-set of rebuilt Superliner (or new) passenger cars with full pass thru MU cabling-1 unpowered cabbage car” versus “1 powered locomotive-set of STANDARD Superliner (already extant) passenger cars-1 unpowered cabbage car:
ZOD acknowledges that reequipping the extant Superliner passenger car fleet with “full pass thru MU cabling” is likely prohibitively expensive. A likely “cheaper” (i.e., less expensive alternative [secundum id est; Saving taxpayer dollars!!! [What a concept!!!]) alternative may be to equip a much fewer # of powered locomotives and unpowered cabbage cars with DPU equipment (a.k.a. “Locotrol” back in the 70’s). Fully used these days, proven capability.
Why can’t we all just get along?
Preferred pronoun: General Zod, Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy
No surprise there, the House & these idiots are like the Senates embarrassing, dimwitted brother. These are the same people who just screwed over their rural constituents with their Medicaid cuts for their wealthy Masters. The U.S. is bankrupt? So where’s the $$$ (WHICH WE DON’T HAVE) going to come from for the tens of billions of dollars for the proposed aviation upgrades? Where’s the $$$ (WHICH WE DON’T HAVE) going to come from to fund the yearly billions of dollars bailout for the HTF? Or is that different because YOU use that? Passenger rail & transit are always on the R’s hit list no matter how deserving or beneficial the project may be because they reap no political financial gain from them!
The other minor consideration is that the US government is basically bankrupt. It looks like the government is going to have to start paying much higher interest costs on its ever expanding debt in order to get people to buy that debt. When running deficits of over 5 % of GNP at basically full employment what happens when we have the inevitable recession? In addition the ‘untouchable’ costs of social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are continually rising between inflation and an ageing population while the US military needs substantial investment to stand off China, Russia, and Iran. The government shouldn’t be spending any money without a very good reason, certainly not for things that will require continued future spending (transit for example).
taxpayer first if you cannot afford wait untill you can or better management buy america better marketing
The canary in the coal mine. Like it or not, the right side of the political aisle is starting to question money-losing trains.
This is a question that has no answer. Of course I like the money-losing trains that I myself ride (one of which serves Minnesota, coming from Illinois and Wisconsin), while questioning someone else’s money-losing trains.
Oh, while I’m at it, off-topic, I realized something while watching Boring Alice, three Superliners and two locos, going through Wauwatosa (Wisconsin) while I was riding my bike yesterday. Someone posted recently the Ms. Alice has two locos (not loco plus cab car). Makes unfortunate sense. I don’t believe Superliners have train lines, as Amfleet and Horizon have. Therefore Superliners can’t run with a cab car (derated locomotive), needs an actual, functioning locomotive at each end.
I can’t be the only person who thinks a three-car train with a loco (or cab car) at each end looks grotesque and ugly, as well as grossly inefficient. Amtrak needs cab cars with passenger seating.
IIRC the upcoming Airo sets will have cab cars with passenger seating, though those won’t be assigned to the Borealis. That said I don’t mind having a cab car that doubles as a baggage car instead, like the current cabbages. It’s also my one gripe with turning P42’s into cab cars, their monocoque design means they can’t double as baggage or passenger space without compromising the integrity of the locomotive.
“This is a question that has no answer. Of course I like the money-losing trains that I myself ride (one of which serves Minnesota, coming from Illinois and Wisconsin), while questioning someone else’s money-losing trains.”
Well Charles while that thinking is typical Republican thinking, especially this day in time, at least you’re honest about it. Thats more than I can say for most Republicans.
I do agree with you that cab cars would seem to be a better, less expensive and definitely better looking option than a locomotive on both ends of a passenger train.
Superliners can operate with cab cars. Before the new Midwest fleet entered service they used Superliners and before the new station in Grand Rapids was built the Pere Marquette routinely ran with an NPCU. And the Surfliner has Superliners on lease to the state painted to match the regular equipment.
CHRIS (and others) — here’s the question, though, the question that’s difficult to answer: Choosing among rail passenger proposals, at what point do you say, “This one is a good train and we can afford the subsidy and should pay the subsidy”, as opposed to: “This rail proposal is a total loser and we need to 86-it” before we get involved.
Really, I’m asking a serious question. Whether you’re in Minnesota or California or South Africa or New Jersey or Germany or Oregon, how do you decide which train proposals to support with a subsidy and which trains to walk away from.
BEN— Thanks for the update. Much appreciated
Charles I believe you’ve asked a very valid question. Outside of spending millions on consultants that usually tell you what you want to hear and are wrong as much as they’re right, the only real way to gauge if a train is viable is to give it a try. But this involves spending millions of dollars that could be spent on say widening existing or building new highways and airports.
But how wide or long can you build a highway that won’t eventually fill up with bumper to bumper traffic. I’ve not seen one yet.
And how many airplanes can we safely and efficiently fly in the U.S. If you follow the recent news not too many more. And don’t get me started on how much fun it is to be in an airport, any airport no matter how new.
I believe we need to follow the lead of other countries that have e embraced passenger rail as a viable and beneficial part of their transportation system. For to long rail travel has been a political football for no good reason except convenience. Both Democrats and Republicans have failed us miserably on this subject. As I’m sure you know the vast majority of voters and government legislators have never ridden on a train. So they don’t really have an informed opinion one way or the other. But I believe if the U.S. would take passenger rail service seriously in and invest in it as such then we would see it as it should be. A valuable alternative to driving or flying.
But in reality I’m hoping for the best and expecting the worst. It’s incredibly hard for me to be optimistic these days.