Prospects for a passenger rail connection between Chicago and Iowa City do not look good as state budget negotiations continue between Governor Terry Branstad and legislative leaders. Last October, the federal government awarded $230 million toward a rail line from Chicago to Iowa City. The Chicago to Quad Cities portion of the project will go ahead, because the state of Illinois has approved matching funds. However, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen says House Republicans are still dead-set against allocating state funds in fiscal year 2012 to match the federal grant. Iowa would need to appropriate $10 million, plus approximately $3 million in annual operating subsidies, although local officials in communities that would benefit from the rail link have offered to cover some of the operating funding.
Earlier this month, Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) urged state legislators not to pass up the chance “to stimulate Iowa’s economy and create jobs by funding the high-speed passenger rail line.” Braley serves on the House Transportation Committee and has long advocated passenger rail between Chicago and Dubuque as well as to the Quad Cities and Iowa City. With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, the federal government is unlikely to make further large investments in passenger rail as part of a transportation bill or an economic stimulus package.
Central Iowa elected officials and business leaders also support the planned line to Iowa City, with the hope that rail would eventually be extended through Des Moines to Council Bluffs/Omaha. This week Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy, who represents part of Des Moines, urged Governor Terry Branstad to get involved and advocate for the passenger rail funds. McCoy argued that the project has economic benefits, is cost-effective and would reduce oil consumption. I’ve posted an excerpt from his editorial after the jump.
Branstad has been saying for months that he opposes state subsidies for rail. (Never mind that roads receive far larger subsidies than train travel.) I had hoped that Chamber of Commerce and Greater Des Moines Partnership types would be able to change Branstad’s mind on this issue. However, the governor told EasternIowaGovernment.com last week that he was “letting them sort that [rail funding] out between the House and Senate.”
Excerpt from op-ed by State Senator Matt McCoy, Branstad should lead on passenger rail:
If we’re serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the choice is obvious. The Iowa City-Des Moines passenger rail route is projected to result in 900,000,000 fewer vehicle miles traveled and about 11 million fewer gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel consumed. Those are long-term benefits to the Iowa economy and Iowa travelers.
If we’re serious about job creation, the choice is still obvious. According to the DOT, Iowa will receive $2.77 in economic benefits for every federal dollar. Passenger rail increases tourism and business opportunities. That’s why chambers of commerce across the state enthusiastically support this plan.
This is a one-time offer. Federal funds would cover about 80% of the start-up costs, and if we turn them down they are gone forever.
House Republicans claim that the estimated $3 million in annual operating costs is an expensive “subsidy,” while what they fail to acknowledge is that we “subsidize” all forms of transportation.
We spend hundreds of millions each year to build and repair roads, bridges, airports and bus stations. When you get serious about the dollars-and-cents, passenger rail is actually a more cost-efficient investment for the state.
Governor Branstad, you have yet to speak up on this issue and time is running out. Why not listen to your own transportation experts? Your choice to lead the Iowa Department of Transportation, Paul Trombino, believes that passenger rail is “a robust, diverse transportation system that meets the public need.” Former DOT Director Nancy Richardson also supports passenger rail.