New Study: Rochester High-Speed Rail Route Delivers Greatest Benefits

A Twin Cities to Chicago high-speed passenger rail route serving Rochester will perform better than a route along the Mississippi River on nearly every competitive factor, according to a report relesed today. Read more in the following news release and at http://www.semnrail.org/studies.html.

Contact: Bryan Anderson
507-284-5005 (day)
507-319-2400 (cell)
e-mail: anderson.bryan@mayo.edu

September 30, 2009
For Immediate Release

New Study: Rochester High-Speed Rail Route Delivers Greatest Benefits
Technical analysis reveals stronger performance on speed, ridership and economic return

ROCHESTER, Minn. — A Twin Cities to Chicago high-speed passenger rail route serving Rochester will perform better than a route along the Mississippi River (River Route) on nearly every critical competitive factor including speed, ridership and economic return, according to a recent study conducted by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. (TEMS), a national transportation analysis firm based in Frederick, Maryland. The technical analysis – based on a direct comparison of the proposed River Route along existing track and a Rochester Route – showed the following advantages to a Rochester route:

• Higher speeds – A Rochester Route can initially provide 110 mph service with the ability to achieve 220 mph service in the future; whereas the River Route is limited to 90 mph for much of its length with no opportunity to achieve higher speeds due to the geographic constraints imposed by the River Route. Higher speeds reduce travel time, which attracts greater ridership.
• Faster travel times – While the Rochester Route provides an incremental 30-minute advantage in travel time between St. Paul and Chicago at 110 mph over the MWRRI River Route, the ultimate benefit of the Rochester Route is its ability to be upgraded to 220 mph service, which would provide an ultimate travel time advantage of two hours over the River Route for a trip from St. Paul to Chicago.
• Higher ridership – The Rochester Route would attract 4.7 million passengers at 110 mph service and 7.7 million at 220 mph service compared to 4.3 million passengers on the River Route.
• Higher financial return – While the Rochester Route will require $139 million more in capital costs than the River Route, a Rochester Route delivers an annual net operating margin nearly 25 percent higher than the River Route at 110 mph. In addition, the Rochester Route delivers a higher cost-benefit, meaning it creates more economic benefit for Minnesota and makes the route more competitive in securing federal approval and funding.

“As Minnesota evaluates its options for high-speed passenger rail service, the ultimate question for policymakers and others influencing these decisions should be: Which route maximizes the benefits for the State of Minnesota?” said Rep. Kim Norton (DFL-Rochester). “The answer is a Rochester Route – the data shows that only the Rochester Route can achieve true high-speed passenger rail service for Minnesota and also deliver the greatest long-term economic benefits.”  

“We have always argued that Minnesota’s long-term rail vision should be based on a data-driven process,” added Sen. Ann Lynch (DFL-Rochester). “When a study shows that a Rochester Route can perform better on critical factors of speed, ridership and economic return, we cannot ignore that data. Similar to the siting of the Interstate highway system 50 years ago, a high-speed passenger rail investment is a multi-generational decision, and we have the opportunity to get it right from the beginning by investing in the route that offers the best return on investment over the long-term.”

“Our technical team went to great lengths to accurately model a true ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison of the proposed routes,” said Alexander Metcalf, Ph.D., President of TEMS and the project manager for the Tri-State III High-Speed Rail Study. “The resulting data offer solid and clear direction for Minnesota if your goal is to achieve true high-speed passenger rail service for the state. The Rochester alignment offers a superior option not only for Minnesota but the entire Upper Midwest.” 

“In addition to attracting nearly half a million patients every year along with family members and a multitude of medical professionals who travel to our city, Mayo Clinic is the state’s largest private employer,” said Glenn Forbes, M.D., Medical Director, State Government and Local Affairs for Mayo Clinic. “Mayo’s employment base of more than 37,000 Minnesota employees, coupled with the emerging bio-tech corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities, make Rochester the largest economic center between Madison, WI and the Twin Cities. It only makes sense that a major infrastructure investment would include major economic centers to ensure the economic success of a high-speed passenger rail service for Minnesota.”

The Tri-State III study is the most recent analysis of the Minnesota segment of the Midwest corridor between Chicago and the Twin Cities and included a detailed review and comparison of both the Rochester and River routes. The study was commissioned by the Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance and provides an update of previous 1991 and 1998 Tri-State studies with more recent economic, socio-economic and technical data. The study uses similar methodologies as used in not only the previous Tri-State studies but also the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative study of the entire Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor. TEMS’ methodology is the same used by the USDOT FRA for intercity passenger rail analysis. 

Dr. Metcalf is an internationally renowned expert in transportation economics, demand forecasting, transportation modeling and systems development. Dr. Metcalf was Chief Economist with British Rail and lead economist on the Mainline Electrification Study, Cross Country Services Study, and Channel Tunnel.

For more information on the study, go to www.SEMNRail.org.