Maps look cool with future potential train corridors marked on the map with different colors.
The what ifs look promising.
But implementation woes from the final 3rd meeting with the various States are listed starting on page 19.
"Step 4: Develop Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations
The governance task for the MWRRP focused on verifying what’s working in terms of the existing governance structure, identifying any existing gaps, and understanding the state’s priorities in terms of advancing and elevating its existing governance structure. This section summarizes the FRA’s findings and makes recommendations on how to advance projects in the Midwest in a manner that is consistent with the outcomes of the MWRRP.
Finding #1: The Midwest is unique in that it already has an established governance structure, MIPRC. Unlike other regions where FRA is conducting similar studies, the Midwest is unique in that it has an established governance structure, which required a different focus than other, similar studies.
Finding #2: MIPRC is an effective organization and there is strong support among the Midwest states for the continuation of this governing body. MIPRC will be used as a governance structure to advance the outcomes of the MWRRP and other regional-level planning studies. It is a priority of the Midwest states to expand MIPRC’s relevancy, but doing so must be balanced with protecting the sovereignty and individual interests of the states.
There is also a clear desire from the Midwest states to increase federal support of MIPRC, and the Midwest states requested FRA to work closely with MIPRC in the future to identify ways to include MIPRC at the federal level and to elevate MIPRC’s profile. MIPRC will play a role the phased network development that is an outcome of the MWRRP, and MIPRC will continue to examine ways to expand its ability to represent nonmember interests.
Finding #3: The lack of a predictable funding stream results in reduced incentives for states to work together beyond the existing governance framework. However if funding does become available, the states will need to be prepared immediately. This necessitates a need for them to address the many governance issues related to developing and delivering a complex rail program across state lines now.
Finding #4: Additional governance frameworks beyond MIPRC will be required to address the complex issues of delivering a major corridor improvement program, and the more robust the governance structure, the more competitive the program of projects will be. Future governance structures will need to address complex issues such as assignments of roles and responsibilities, approaches to complex cost allocation issues, particularly in situations where the benefits of investment are disproportionately distributed across a corridor, and a number of other issues.
In conclusion, the implementation of a regional rail plan requires extensive coordination among the participating states and various other involved stakeholders. While MIPRC has served and will continue to serve the Midwest states as a means to advocate for and advance passenger rail programs that are the outcome of the MWRRP, future governance bodies in the Midwest will be required to address a myriad of highly complex issues related to planning and implementation efforts, costs, benefits, funding, prioritized infrastructure investments, service operations, and system maintenance, while taking into consideration each state’s regulatory, financial, political, and institutional requirements as well as host and operating railroads’ policies and perspectives.
FRA will continue to work closely with MIPRC and the Midwest states to advance and elevate MIPRC as a governance structure with the clear authority, responsibility, and mandate for overseeing and implementing the outcomes of the Midwest’s regional planning initiative in order to facilitate the coordination and implementation of rail improvement projects across multiple jurisdictions."
What that means>>>The proposed future rail map can not be built without a future, unknown regulating body with $Billions in its pocketbook, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, Panama Canal Commission, etc.
Good luck finding it.
And as usual with other passenger railroad studies; individual, regional, or national, people initially look at the maps of what the study suggests could be, and start dreaming what they would build instead. Like spoiled brats in a toy or candy store, wanting everything without a care in the world. No one actually takes the time to read the study to its conclusion, and no one reacts to the roadblocks and difficulties that need to be overcome. Why even the FRA called this plan ambitious? What a shame.