More anti-Amtrak from the heartland

Well, the House and the Senate have different ideas on the air travel subsidy.
The House has cut the subsidy.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles ... News_links

sipes23 wrote:There's work on bringing Amtrak to Iowa's doorstep in the Quad Cities (2013/14 is what I hear) with an extension to Iowa City (2015 is what I hear) and far future extensions through Des Moines to Omaha.

I've also read news that Gov. Branstad is open to spending the allocated money on upgrading the rails to Iowa City, but isn't so keen on the obligation to subsidize the train's operation after the initial construction.

Sounds like the same issue that caused the rejection of HSR grant money in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. There isn't a state or local funding base to pay for operating subsidies. It goes to show that it's neccessary to consider the thorny topic of operating subsidies before the grant application, not after the grant is awarded.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Sounds like the same issue that caused the rejection of HSR grant money in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.

Without a doubt. Operating subsidies don't come from out of thin air.

Gov. Branstad, based on what I've read, doesn't seem to be so doctrinaire about it, whereas in Wisconsin and Ohio this seemed like some sort of partisan/ideology/who-knows-what ax that was being ground. They were going to pull the plug on those rail lines if they needed even one dollar of operating subsidy. In fact, they managed to pull the plug on those projects before even commencing their terms in office.

I've not bothered reading up on the lead up to the Florida governor's rejection of HSR, so I can't comment. Personally, Tampa to Orlando HSR seemed like a poor project. Detroit to Chicago may have been a better test route, but I digress.

Iowa does seem to be a somewhat different beast, based on what I've read. It seems that the governor is going into this with an open mind. Maybe the operating subsidy will be too much to be added to the state budget, maybe not. While I'm not going to hold my breath that Iowa will be on board, I don't think this is a done deal either.

If Iowa City (a University town) doesn't get its train, the Governor will probably hear about it until "who laid the rails".

Iowa's Gov. Terry Branstad has decided to end the state's participation in the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Coalition.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/08/22/Metro/24459.html

2nd trick op wrote: Most rural areas no longer have the popuation to sustain even a highway bus service on a private basis.

In which case, they don't have enough population to swing any significant votes in a democracy. The malapportioned nature of the US Senate is a problem here, as are certain malapportioned and gerrymandered state legislative houses. Should be interesting to see what changes after the 2012 census numbers are used for redistricting; the depletion of rural areas is finally getting to the point that continuous gerrymandering can't always disguise it. Pro-rural, anti-urban bias in the upper house of legislatures is long-lasting, entrenched before Baker v. Carr, and now maintained by gerrymandering dating from just after Baker v. Carr; though I know the infamous one in the New York State Senate best, and don't know much about other states' legislatures.

It's worth noting that Sioux City's hostility is threatening service not to Sioux City, but to *Iowa City*, which actually needs it, making this a case of the "We rural bumpkins know best what you urbanites need" attitude. Do they have a claim based on paying taxes? Probably not. Look at where the taxes come from in Iowa. If it's like most states, the urban areas are paying most of the taxes, and the agricultural areas are getting subsidies.

But the bigger problem is not these rural areas, whose population is simply getting too small to matter; the bigger problem is suburban areas which, frankly, do need rail service and are voting against their best interests. I don't really blame the voters. Some of them are a bit surprised when they discover what the politicians they voted for are actually doing, and that's certainly been the case in Wisconsin. I don't think Iowa City is going to be at all happy with Gov. Branstad, and we'll see about the rest of the cities on the eastern side of the state.

neroden wrote:If it's like most states, the urban areas are paying most of the taxes, and the agricultural areas are getting subsidies.

Thanks for generalizing that as "most states" ... There are plenty of subsidies going TO the urban areas. There are plenty of transit and road related projects in urban areas that do nothing for the agricultural areas. (And yet everybody eats.) Are, as you claim, urban areas paying more taxes as a whole or per person? Urban areas tend to have more poor people relying on public services. Begging for someone to buy them a bus or other urban transit feature so they don't have to pay their own way in a car. Yeah, farmers get subsidies ... but I bet if one did an honest report there would be plenty of subsidies headed to urban areas.

As for this thread, based on a lone voice in a letter to the editor - yeah, they speak for everyone in Iowa and the heartland.

jstolberg wrote:Iowa's Gov. Terry Branstad has decided to end the state's participation in the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Coalition.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/08/22/Metro/24459.html

Does this mean that the Iowa City service extension project is officially dead? I don't see a clear declaration from the Governor on it, but pulling out of the Midwest rail coalition is a signal that it is not going to happen. Unfortunate for the citizens in Iowa City who were looking forward to convenient rail service to Chicago. Iowa received a $230 million FY2010 grant for the project. Since most of the route is in Illinois, is IL getting a part of those funds to pay for the track work to Moline IL or the Quad Cities? I expect IL will go ahead with their portion of the route.

If the Iowa City project is dead beyond the IL state line, I would expect the FRA and LaHood will move quickly to re-allocate the remaining Iowa portion of the $230 million. The applications submitted for the Florida HSR fund re-allocation are recent, so the FRA would likely use the applications with 20% state matching to award more grant funding.

justalurker66 wrote:

neroden wrote:If it's like most states, the urban areas are paying most of the taxes, and the agricultural areas are getting subsidies.

Thanks for generalizing that as "most states" ... There are plenty of subsidies going TO the urban areas. There are plenty of transit and road related projects in urban areas that do nothing for the agricultural areas. (And yet everybody eats.) Are, as you claim, urban areas paying more taxes as a whole or per person? Urban areas tend to have more poor people relying on public services. Begging for someone to buy them a bus or other urban transit feature so they don't have to pay their own way in a car. Yeah, farmers get subsidies ... but I bet if one did an honest report there would be plenty of subsidies headed to urban areas.

As for this thread, based on a lone voice in a letter to the editor - yeah, they speak for everyone in Iowa and the heartland.

You are right now exemplifying the biggest flaw in American thinking regarding transportation, that "public transit is for poor people only". The goal of public transportation is not to engineer any form of transportation "socialism", but to create more efficient growth patterns in the city in question. In our most public transit friendly cities, it is used by a large cross section of the population, from the minimum wage worker to the Wall St. broker. Those efficient growth patterns help keep the air clean for all of us and keeps development compact, preserving the quality and quantity of our agricultural lands. BTW, you are not completely "paying your own way" in your car that you drive on government-funded and maintained roads. If you were truly paying your own way, you would pay a toll on every single road you drive on.