The paper out in Sioux City, Iowa takes a contrary view on improving rail service in Iowa. They make a good argument and some of the facts are right. The problem is with correct analysis. The editors were kind enough to list their objections. You can read the entire editorial here.
Here are a few reasons why:
· Unless the tracks in that portion of the state are upgraded, trains would have to travel at about 45 mph. That means two and a half hours more in transit for the few that would even think about opting for train travel.
· There are not cost estimates available for such a route, with or without the needed upgrades. Iowa officials also say they may move forward even without a big federal investment.
· Contrary to statements made by the Iowa Department of Transportation’s Neil Volmer, we don’t see anyone clamoring for such service. Volmer wants to get Iowans thinking about rail travel. We don’t believe Iowans want to think about it.
· The federally run passenger train service Amtrak would be the provider of the trains. Those who live in Illinois or use the two Iowa routes in place now know their service record is spotty. If it weren’t for its federal subsidies, Amtrak would have gone out of business long ago.
· Finally, if the state wants to throw some money around, how about improving the quality of the infrastructure we already have? Or better yet, we think Siouxlanders would much prefer a four-lane Highway 20 that could be traveled at 65 mph.
It appears as if some of our state leaders n especially those in the eastern portion n have a one-track mind on this issue. We hope their constituents will implore them to derail this plan before it picks up any more steam.
They are correct about the speed limitations. So what exactly does the writer think the $7 Billion is going to be used for anyway? (That number is the ENTIRE project from east coast to Iowa.) The editor is absolutely right on this one. Nobody will ride a 45 mph train. In fact, had they researched the Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s site, they would know that there is an enormous difference between 79 mph and 110 mph. The transportation professionals have already figured that one out.There are two links in the right hand column, guys, one is for the “Ohio Hub.”
The point of the proposal is to upgrade the EXISTING railroad and provide passenger equipment to make the service viable.
Then they get down to the fear tactics. Of course, we do the study to find out what it will cost and how many passengers are available. That ought to be obvious. The latest Senate Amtrak bill will make money available to Iowa as well. It is my opinion that the state should not subsidize a 45 mph passenger railroad.
I am, however, darned impressed with the enormous, almost magical, cognitive abilities of this editorial board. They already know what Iowans think, and the best part is that Iowans agree with them. So, guess what, there’s no need to think about it any more. One sure way to win an argument is to end it.
Oh, omniscient all-wise, wizards of the printed word, may I draw near your temple of journalistic holiness? Please do not smite me down, but I would like to humbly suggest that, without Federal subsidies, the highway system would have shut down years ago.
It was very foolish for them to argue against Amtrak’s Illinois operation. Sorry, editorial deities, but passenger growth in the Land of Lincoln is off the charts. Just scroll around the blog for a while and you will see that.
And they are well-informed on one thing, throwing money around at another highway is questionable. TFA does not oppose necessary transportation projects.
Unfortunately, this expression of editorial opinion seems to be based more on sentiment and prejudice than objective analysis or any consideration of the public good.
Filed under: Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, Regional USA Passenger Rail
Your comments and opinions on the latest passenger rail happenings