> ... build it and they will come ...

That's essentially what happened with Caltrain: ridership is way up (by now even more than was quoted in the old article. But as with the old Wall Street caution that past performance doesn't guarantee the future, situations differ and relatively (or obviously, so it can be discounted) biased studies don't help.

Then, from the old article quoted: "Why isn’t this being immediately replicated everywhere? If these electric trains are vastly superior by all performance metrics, how hard can it be to put up catenary poles on every commuter line in the U.S.?"

$$$$$$$??

If you look at the history of Caltrain and its electrification studies, you'll find that, as with most limited-scale diesel-powered commute lines, it was always just too expensive up front; job #1 was always to keep the trains running, and there was no spare cash left after that. In fact, it *is* hard to "just" put up catenary poles and do it right. Then, electrification is usually (as at Caltrain) part of a bigger reconstruction (and re-equipping the rolling stock fleet) project to actually take advantage of those poles and wires. So the bill is much bigger than for "just putting up poles."

Frankly, Caltrain from San Jose to SF wouldn't be electric now if a large chunk of money had not become available from CAHSR at the right time. Most diesel commuter lines don't 1) own and dispatch most of their own tracks with little freight interference (as Caltrain does and Twin Cities doesn't); and 2) have a sugar daddy to make a large cash investment (as Caltrain did with CAHSR and Twin Cities *certainly* doesn't).

The Details Matter.