Ardell Brede and Glenn Forbes: High-speed rail via Rochester would benefit all of Minnesota

Which route for a high-speed passenger rail line from the Twin Cities to Chicago offers the greatest public benefit to Minnesota? With a singular focus on answering this question, the Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance commissioned a study to provide state policymakers with a current, apples-to-apples comparison of the proposed River Route (Winona-Red Wing-Hastings-St. Paul) and a Rochester Route (Winona-Rochester-Apple Valley/Rosemount-St. Paul). The analysis concluded that a Rochester Route would perform better on nearly every competitive factor evaluated by federal agencies when awarding funding, including speed, ridership and economic return.

Many may be surprised to find out that two previous studies of the two routes reached the same conclusion. The study released last week -- the Tri-State III High-Speed Rail Study conducted by Transportation Economics & Management Systems Inc. -- is an update of studies released in 1991 and in 2000, which found that while the River Route may be a more expedient option, a Rochester Route's superior performance makes it the better choice.

There is one simple reason: speed. While trains traveling along the Mississippi River would be limited to a maximum speed of 90 miles per hour most of the way because of topography, with no opportunity to ever achieve true high-speed service, a Rochester Route could be constructed for 110-mph service initially with the capability to upgrade to 220 mph in the future. Speeds of 110 mph and above are standard for high-speed passenger rail transport in other countries and are critical to attracting passengers and maximizing revenue.

•Higher ridership: By 2030, it would attract 4.7 million passengers with 110-mph service and 7.7 million with 220-mph service, compared with 4.3 million passengers for the River Route. This higher ridership is generated by the larger population along the Rochester Route and the greater number of visitors already traveling through Rochester.

•Higher financial return: While the Rochester Route would require $139 million more in initial capital costs than the River Route, it would deliver an annual net operating margin nearly 25 percent higher with the 110-mph standard. This operating margin would increase significantly with higher speeds. In addition, the Rochester Route delivers a higher cost-benefit ratio, which makes it more competitive in securing federal approval and funding.

Many state leaders, including Gov. Tim Pawlenty, First District U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, legislative leaders and officials at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, have called for a data-driven process to guide high-speed rail investment decisions. This new analysis is intended to bring current, Minnesota-specific data to the table. We understand that this study will not be the final authority, but it absolutely should be factored into any decision about a multimillion-dollar investment of Minnesota resources.

Minnesota has said that it wants to be part of a Midwest high-speed passenger rail system. So the question is not whether we spend millions of dollars on rail infrastructure but whether we choose to invest in a route that best serves the long-term economic needs of the entire state. Similar to the siting of the interstate highway system 50 years ago, a high-speed passenger rail investment is a multigenerational decision. We have the opportunity to get it right from the beginning by investing in a route that offers the best return on investment for all Minnesotans over the long term.

We acknowledge that Rochester and southeastern Minnesota will benefit from a route serving our area. However, we urge others involved in this discussion to take an objective look at what a route through Rochester, Minnesota's third-largest city, offers the entire state. Rochester is home to the Mayo Clinic, the state's largest private employer with a workforce of more than 37,000 Minnesotans. Rochester is also at the southern end of an emerging biotech corridor. These factors make Rochester the largest economic hub between Madison, Wis., and the Twin Cities. Rochester offers not just community assets but significant statewide assets that can help create a successful high-speed passenger rail line to serve Minnesota. These same assets provide support for regional success of the Chicago-to-Twin Cities line.

Data, long-term opportunity and objectivity need to drive Minnesota's passenger rail investment decisions. We cannot sacrifice long-term benefits for perceived short-term expediency. The race for highly competitive federal funding is fierce. Minnesota must put its best option forward if it is to be successful.

Ardell Brede is the mayor of Rochester. Dr. Glenn Forbes is medical director, state government and local affairs, at the Mayo Clinic.