Some local elected officials are criticizing Gov. Terry Branstad's decision not to renew Iowa's membership to a federal passenger rail advocacy group for next year despite the commitment by local entities to pay the membership fee.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110819/NEWS09/110819010/Branstad-turns-down-cities-rail-funding-
Unfortunate, indeed. Almost embarrassed to admit that I'm an Iowa native.
Somehow, somewhere down the road this will become reality but this is a big (and unnecessary) step backward.
I don't know what amazes me more, the fact Branstad is back in office again or the fact he did not renew the federal passenger group.
Holy cow, I was kid in elementary school when he was in office last time. How did that happen!
One thing Iowan's like is "NO-CHANGE". Being born there and living 30 years of my 35 there I can tell you these folks do not like change. I guess I am a native of Iowa dating to my ancestors from Sweden homesteading in Forest City. Right now change would be a passenger train that runs in Iowa other than the convenient location of the old ATSF and CB&Q mainlines. If Iowa had its choice it likely would be like South Dakota.. no Amtrak period. Come on who needs trains!?, when we all have SUVs!
What is really a hoot is highway 63 from Waterloo to the Minnesota border for Pete's sake... !! It has taken them what 30 years to finish this BADLY needed 4 lane improvement.. AND IT IS STILL NOT DONE! Honestly how long does it take to make a 4 lane highway in a field? In Denver in the past year they have managed to finish the I-25/Alameda/Santa Fe intersection with nearly a half a million vehicles passing every day! Yes I know, $$$$$$$.. excuses, excuses.. it has been over 30 YEARS!
I am not surprised.
Sorry guys, I spend a great deal of time on this road and it is nothing short of a dangerous deal.. all the local law enforcement is doing is siting at the end of the 4 lane 65 speed limit zones collecting speeding fine revenue for the little bergs. Never mind the graded and poorly lit intersections and death rate. A train from Rochester, Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, or a train from Clinton to Omaha.. HA! Not in my lifetime..
http://erikclindgren.com
Erik C. Lindgren . If Iowa had its choice it likely would be like South Dakota.. no Amtrak period.
. If Iowa had its choice it likely would be like South Dakota.. no Amtrak period.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
SO-Sorry Murphy Siding... I was only meaning that by a choice Iowa would just assume be like South Dakota and Hawaii.. even thought it is not South Dakota's fault!
Iowa already enjoys Amtrak service by hosting the California Zephyr. Unfortunately, the CB&Q's Chicago/Denver route managed to miss every significant population center within the State of Iowa. Iowa is a very closely divided politically, and a pet project of a former Governor is going to be very closely examined by his successor.
Dakguy201 Iowa already enjoys Amtrak service by hosting the California Zephyr. Unfortunately, the CB&Q's Chicago/Denver route managed to miss every significant population center within the State of Iowa. Iowa is a very closely divided politically, and a pet project of a former Governor is going to be very closely examined by his successor.
Good point. I often wonder if the MILW or even CNW mainlines at the time had been in better shape back in 1971 if things might be a little different today.
Not too likely. There wasn't any passenger service on C&NW west of Clinton in 1971 and the MILW main was like the Erie, it missed just about everything between Chicago and Omaha. MILW trains were dependent on bus connections to get to Iowa's population centers.
Murphy Siding Erik C. Lindgren: . If Iowa had its choice it likely would be like South Dakota.. no Amtrak period. Hey now! We didn't make that decision. Uncle Sam made it for us. We have exactly as many Amtrak route miles as Hawaii.
Erik C. Lindgren: . If Iowa had its choice it likely would be like South Dakota.. no Amtrak period.
and Alaska. ARR isn't part of Amtrak as far as I know.
Preparations to bring passenger trains back to the Quad Cities are still on schedule, and there remains no immediate prospect to extend service across Iowa. But planners know which route to take if Iowa’s prospects improve.
“This helps us show that it’s feasible all the way across the state on that route,” said Tammy Nicholson, director of the Iowa Department of Transportation’s office of rail transportation.
A feasibility study nearing completion is likely to settle on the Iowa Interstate route through Iowa City and Des Moines to Council Bluffs and Omaha. That’s the same line chosen three years ago to extend Chicago-Moline service to Iowa City – a plan stalled by opposition from Gov. Terry Branstad and state House Republicans..........
http://thegazette.com/2012/11/01/iowa-city-favored-for-proposed-new-amtrak-route/
Talk, talk and more talk.
The Iowa Interstate Railroad remains willing to host new passenger rail service across Iowa if the state and Amtrak can reach an agreement to develop and fund it, a top executive of the Cedar Rapids-based railroad said today.
“The railroad is more than willing to work with Amtrak, the states, or anybody else that’s involved in passenger service,” said Henry Posner III, chairman of the Iowa Interstate’s board and of its parent company Railroad Development Corp. “Our main business is freight, but one of the benefits of being a railroad is you can do more than one thing at once.”
http://thegazette.com/2012/11/18/iowa-interstate-willing-to-host-passenger-trains-its-chairman-says/
Governor Terry Branstad says he’s not ready to reject a $53 million federal grant to extend passenger rail service from Davenport to Iowa City. The state got the grant in October of 2010, when Democrat Chet Culver was governor and Culver championed the project, however current Republican Governor Terry Branstad has never been a cheerleader for it..........
Never say never?
I would guess that Iowa didn't get a grant, but rather an earmark- promised funds, but no funds were allocated. If that's the case, it's probably DOA.
Murphy Siding I would guess that Iowa didn't get a grant, but rather an earmark- promised funds, but no funds were allocated. If that's the case, it's probably DOA.
My understanding is that the funds were there, the good folks in Eastern Iowa want passenger service to Iowa City ASAP, and Governor-for-life Branstad vetoed because he won't commit the state to an annual subsidy, even though the business community in Eastern Iowa (who should be his party buddies) believe passenger service would bring economic benefit to the community greater than the subsidy. This decision from Branstad came about the time other Repub governors took dramatic stands against passenger rail (presumably because the incumbent in the White House was in favor of passenger rail). However, Branstad won't be in office forever…
I predict passenger service will come to Iowa City, Des Moines and eventually Omaha along the old Rock Island route (now IAIS).
If Iowa's budget balance sheet is in better shape than 2010, there maybe enough "walkin' around money" to fund the start up. The initial outlay is a greater cost than the operating subsidy.
Iowa is in better fiscal shape than Illinois. When it comes to such projects, Iowa is seldom quick to commit. If the Iowa D. O. T. study is not all roses, this project may well go nowhere in the near future.
"High speed" on this project will not include crawling through the Quad-Cities. If extended beyond Iowa City, the duck walk through Des Moines to reach Omaha is another delay. A schedule longer than driving or current express bus service will provide fodder for critics.
Victrola1 If Iowa's budget balance sheet is in better shape than 2010, there maybe enough "walkin' around money" to fund the start up. The initial outlay is a greater cost than the operating subsidy.
I will go on record to say that it really doesn't have anything to do with finances. The money could be found. The Gov doesn't want to support passenger rail for ideological reasons. I've met him several times and he generally seemed a reasonable man, but that was during the first round at Terrace Hill.
If the issue was truly to support economic growth in Iowa, then getting passenger rail going should be a no brainer.
CJtrainguy I will go on record to say that it really doesn't have anything to do with finances. The money could be found. The Gov doesn't want to support passenger rail for ideological reasons. I've met him several times and he generally seemed a reasonable man, but that was during the first round at Terrace Hill. If the issue was truly to support economic growth in Iowa, then getting passenger rail going should be a no brainer.
Tea party stand
Victrola1 Some local elected officials are criticizing Gov. Terry Branstad's decision not to renew Iowa's membership to a federal passenger rail advocacy group for next year despite the commitment by local entities to pay the membership fee. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110819/NEWS09/110819010/Branstad-turns-down-cities-rail-funding-
The Headline here might read: "The Iowa Gov. turns the Corn Belt Rocket into a Corn Dodger"
CJtrainguy Tea party stand
Please leave partisan politics out of the discussion.
Norm
People who think Terry Branstad is a bum because he hasn't sprung for this loser should read the appreciation of his long stewardship as governor in The Economist magazine for Oct. 19-25.
Iowa -- not exactly a Republican stronghold, otherwise -- likes him well.
dakotafred People who think Terry Branstad is a bum because he hasn't sprung for this loser should read the appreciation of his long stewardship as governor in The Economist magazine for Oct. 19-25. Iowa -- not exactly a Republican stronghold, otherwise -- likes him well.
Maybe the larger urban/industrialized areas aren't Republican strongholds, but the rest of Iowa is.
Just because he won't spring for this doesn't make me think he's a bum, I've thought of him as bum way before this. Since towards the end of his first go around way before this ever came up.
Jeff
dakotafred People who think Terry Branstad is a bum because he hasn't sprung for this loser should read the appreciation of his long stewardship as governor in The Economist magazine for Oct. 19-25.
For the record, I don't think of Terry Branstad as a bum. I've met him many times and I lived in Iowa during his previous tenure in the Gov's Mansion and as I said before in this forum, he seemed a reasonable man.
His decision to not pursue bringing passenger rail to Iowa though goes against bi-partisan and business community support for passenger rail certainly in Eastern Iowa (service to Iowa City) and also in Des Moines. It's hard to interpret his actions other than as a result certain political trends.
Long term I am confident that passenger rail will return to Iowa. Once Amtrak gets to the Quad Cities, the pressure will increase and I don't see the folks in Eastern Iowa giving up until its coming to Iowa City. In the meantime, I-80 won't get any less congested…
CJtrainguy dakotafred People who think Terry Branstad is a bum because he hasn't sprung for this loser should read the appreciation of his long stewardship as governor in The Economist magazine for Oct. 19-25. For the record, I don't think of Terry Branstad as a bum. I've met him many times and I lived in Iowa during his previous tenure in the Gov's Mansion and as I said before in this forum, he seemed a reasonable man. His decision to not pursue bringing passenger rail to Iowa though goes against bi-partisan and business community support for passenger rail certainly in Eastern Iowa (service to Iowa City) and also in Des Moines. It's hard to interpret his actions other than as a result certain political trends.
But CJ, what if his opposition to signing up for endless years of subsidies for passenger rail is also "reasonable" -- never mind "bipartisan and business community support" for state support of essentially local service?
Branstad is governor of the whole state, not just of Iowa City and Des Moines. It would be plain dereliction of duty for him to consult less than the interest of the state when it comes to expenditure of state money.
The IAIS corridor is presently well-served by I-80, buses and airplanes. The rail service contemplated would amount to slow, duplicative and very expensive surface transit for the "leavings" of places like Atlantic and Grinnell. Would you invest any of your money in that? If not, why should Branstad, on behalf of the taxpayers of Iowa?
Dakotafred: WIth all due respect, I think you have made up your mind that passenger rail in Iowa is a loser proposition. At least that's how you stated it earlier in this thread. So not sure what arguments will convince you that passenger rail across Iowa is a good idea and worth the investment.
As to Mr. Branstad, everything I've heard and read indicates the decision to block passenger rail was motivated by concerns other than what's in the best interest of the state of Iowa. Your opinion obviously differs.
As to the I-80 corridor, it is congested in places and well on its way in other. It's not going to handle much more traffic. Buses: if you refer to Megabus, they came on the scene quickly, are cherry picking their routes and will be gone the moment they don't feel they are making the profits they want. There is no investment in the community on their part. Planes: Des Moines to Chicago? Cedar Rapids to Chicago? Not really worth it, unless you are going someplace else from Chicago.
I do consider passenger rail across Iowa worth the investment and believe that once it's there, ridership will prove it, just like it has in many other corridors. For the sake of those who don't believe, I am all for an incremental approach: Quad Cities is coming soon. Iowa City next. Then Des Moines. Then Omaha. It will happen eventually. I'm fine with 79mph service to start with. Then upgrade incrementally to 110mph. Travel times will be competitive.
Have to disagree with DakotaFred as well. Remember, you're not just drawing from online communites such as Quad Cities, Iowa City, Grinnell and the like. You're also drawing from Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Anamosa/Monticello, and Marshalltown just to name a few.
Anyone have figures for the startup cost and yearly operating costs? We seem to have lots of input here on why this route should go into operation, but as they say - 'Talk is cheap'. The current Powerball Lottery tonight is $216 million dollars($125 million cash out). Lets say after taxes that is about $78 million. If that was enough to fund this project, and if you were the winner - Would you invest you winnings in this train service?
Based on past Amtrak performance, I have not seen any profit in the operation of these state sponsored trains. I really like the concept of rail passenger, but the reality is that my $78 million may just be more sand down a rat hole.
In Minnesota, there has been some interest in 'high speed' rail between Rochester and the Twin Cities. The proponents cannot agree on the route, or if it should go to the MSP airport or Mpls or St Paul. Some want it to start at the RCH airport. In the meantime, we have two competing shuttle van companies providing direct service multiple times per day. They have been in business for several years, so they must be making money.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
jrbernier Anyone have figures for the startup cost and yearly operating costs? We seem to have lots of input here on why this route should go into operation, but as they say - 'Talk is cheap'. The current Powerball Lottery tonight is $216 million dollars($125 million cash out). Lets say after taxes that is about $78 million. If that was enough to fund this project, and if you were the winner - Would you invest you winnings in this train service?
First off, if that 78 million landed in my pocket, I'd be happy to pay for getting passenger service extended from the Quad Cities to Iowa City. I always wanted a 1:1 scale train layout
For numbers, here are a few numbers and details about the Iowa City extension. The price tag appears to be about $33 million for upgrading the track to 79mph.
http://www.qcrail.com/Amtrak%20Feasibility%20Studies.htm
pdf feasibility study
It looks like the Corn Belt Rocket will not reach the tall corn state.
This latest analysis not only pushes the overall cost up, but the state’s (Iowa’s) share would now be $72 million. That’s triple what the state projected its part of the cost would be three years ago.
That increase is in large part because of the diversion of $34 million in federal money from Iowa to Illinois to help pay the costs of the Chicago-to-Quad-Cities link, according to the Iowa DOT.
Now, even one of the chief legislative advocates says there’s no reason to keep pushing for the Iowa portion.
“Ultimately, as I view things, I think it’s an insurmountable lift for passenger rail,” said Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines. “It’s time to cut our losses and move on.”
http://thegazette.com/2013/12/19/iowa-rail-project-costs-balloon-lead-advocate-throws-in-towel/
This latest analysis not only pushes the overall cost up, but the state’s share would now be $72 million. That’s triple what the state projected its part of the cost would be three years ago.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.