Additional CHI-DEN Frequency

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Seaboard92

Seaboard92

Engineer
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
4,698
Location
South Carolina
I know this has been talked about on several other discussions quite often so I'm going to open a thread up for it. Just for this section. As one thing we can all seem to agree on is that there should be an extra service on this part of the California Zephyr's route. My question is which time slot should run. A day train, or a night train? I'm thinking a day train would probably be the best possible option. But it's a long run for a day with the current CZ taking about 18 hours, which is three hours longer then the Palmetto. Which correct me if I'm wrong but the longest of the day trains. It's getting questionable if one could run it and arrive at a decent hour, or depart at a decent hour. The time change going west helps the train, but going east hurts it. A train that would leave DEN at six MT would arrive in CHI at one CT. Which I don't think would be a popular arrival time. But if the Hawkeye Corridor ever gets built across Iowa at the 110 Miles speed that Iowa would like to attain that would cut about five hours off the time card. Which makes the run much more bearable.

The schedule I've worked out isn't the most horrible timing in the world. But what this train really needs to be successful is for that high speed line across Iowa on the old Rock Island to open. If it opens this is a very doable train. And the times could easily be put to use going for a night train that caters to business travelers. But I'm not so sure how that would go. I would leave the current CZ on it's current route. Bold times are in the afternoon

Denver Zephyr

Train 23

DP Chicago 0800

DP Naperville 0820

DP Princeton 0900

DP Moline 0935

DP Iowa City 1010

DP Grinnel Unknown Millage

AR Des Moines 1120

DP Des Moines 1125

DP Atlantic Unknown Millage

DP Council Bluffs 1250

AR Omaha 0100

DP Omaha 0115

DP Lincoln 0218

DP Hastings 0351

DP Holdrege 0438

DP McCook 0547

DP Fort Morgan 0709 MT

AR Denver 0919 MT

Train 24

DP Denver 0616

DP Fort Morgan 0721 MT

DP McCook 1051

DP Holdrege 1201

DP Hastings 1248

DP Lincoln 0217

AR Omaha 0320

DP Omaha 0335

DP Council Bluffs 0345

DP Atlantic Unknown Millage

AR Des Moines 0510

DP Des Moines 0520

DP Grinnel Unknown Millage

DP Iowa City 0630

DP Moline 0705

DP Princeton 0740

DP Naperville 0830

AR Chicago 0900

I'm open to any comments.
 
A couple of thoughts come to mind:
(1) I think you're being a hair aggressive with times, though I know that presumes the full implementation of Alternative 4-A at 110 MPH...but I'm having trouble finding exactly what the timings are there in any but vague terms.

(2) I know I argued the other way a few years back, but...I'd seriously ponder whether or not to keep the CZ on the other route or not. If one train is taking 9:00 and the other is taking 5:00, the CZ is likely to have east-end traffic (e.g. OMA-CHI) get seriously gutted by the better runtime alongside direct service to DSM and other cities. If IA and IL were willing to subsidize it, I'd suggest running some sort of coordinated service (perhaps run a train which enables transfers at OMA with a set akin to the Heartland Flyer...a few coaches and a snack-coach...to keep service intact on the route and allow folks to connect), but I'm not sure you'll have more than 30-50k riders left for such a train once you control for traffic on the IL segment. Moving the Zephyr over would give you a few advantages (multiple trains making the same stops, for example). I can work out some options there in the context of an overarching IL/IA.
 
Well this corridor, if it had full HSR, could in theory be done on a 4 - 5 hour journey. Probably ZERO chance but it would be fairly easy I would think through such flat lands. No mountains to cut through.
 
Where's Atlantic?

Never mind; I found it. Small burg. I can see Grinnell because it's a college town. I don't see the rationale for a stop in Atlantic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative had proposed something like a 7-hour CHI-OMA timing (compared to 9-10ish on the California Zephyr today), so 5 hours seems really aggressive there. Now, I don't believe it assumed 110mph the entire way, I think it was either 79mph or 90mph through Iowa. Still, I don't know that we should assume best-cast-scenario if we're trying to develop schedules.
 
I did my schedule based on the assumption that Iowa and Illinois fund the service on the route and upgrade the track to 110. The route itself is fairly flat that I don't see it as an issue. I think the route has potential. I would love to see the Hawkeye Corridor take off. And but in most cases it would be a much slower carding.
 
I've been working with timetables; the irony is that the timing is just off enough that it makes getting two trains to work a little bit tricky. Here's what I worked up:

| AMTK | AMTK || AMTK | AMTK |
| 5 | 25 || 26 | 6 |
CHI | 1730 | 2000 || 0830 | 1200 |
MOL | 1905 | 2135 || 0635 | 1005 |
DSM | 2100 | 2320 || 0450 | 0820 |
DSM | 2105 | 2325 || 0440 | 0810 |
OMA | 2230 | 0100 || 0315 | 0645 |
OMA | 2245 | 0115 || 0305 | 0635 |
LNK | 2348 | 0218 || 0147 | 0517 |
DEN | 0649 | 0919 || 1746 | 2116 |
-----------------------------------
DEN | 0730 | 1000 || 1710 | 2040 |
WIP | 0930 | 1200 || 1500 | 1830 |
GSC | 1320 | 1550 || 1110 | 1440 |
GJT | 1540 | 1810 || 0850 | 1120 |
SLC | 2235 | 0105 || 0410 | 0640 |
SLC | 2300 | 0130 || 0350 | 0620 |
RNO | 0806 | 1036 || 1840 | 2110 |
SAC | 1343 | 1613 || 1300 | 1530 |
EMY | 1540 | 1810 || 1110 | 1340 |
| EITHER/OR || EITHER/OR |
I've massaged things a bit, and I think I might have managed the impossible: Getting good times in Denver and Salt Lake both ways. The schedule for 5/6 on there gives you a reasonable time each way between the two cities (someone please check my timekeeping there, but I think it works). There's probably enough time to actually run 25/26 as a "ski train" in-season to Winter Park...you've got three hours of space to turn the train arond; I'd probably move that in by half an hour on each side to facilitate some modicum of re-stocking in Denver. Both 5 and 25 actually work for business traffic (they leave after 5 and get in by around 9). The same isn't true of 6/26 (26 works well; 6...not as much) due to the time swing.

The truth is that I wish I could turn 25 as 6: The timings there are such that you could eschew a "full" dining car (you'd only serve breakfast and lunch on such a train, really) which would save a chunk on food service. A CCC would seem to be fine for that train, but I think a CCC would get a little stretched on the other two timetables because of dinner needs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The much-needed track upgrades thru Iowa should continue past Omaha to Lincoln, Nebraska. The state's capital and home of the Univ of Nebraska, the 332,000 metro area is bigger than Springfield IL, Roanoke, Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, and Amarillo, to cite a few places favorably mentioned for new or improved Amtrak service. And it's dense, with the city accounting for 273,000.

But it's the growth rate! For the decades starting 1940: 20.6%. 30.0%, 16.3%, 15.0, 11.7%, 17.5%, 14.5%, and for the four year estimate since 2010, another 5.7%. So yeah, growth may be 'slowing' to 12% to 14%, as the base grows ever larger, but it's still double-digit growth.

Add more than 30,000 to the pop every decade, and by the time Amtrak could get another train out there, Lincoln will be a Big City. LOL.

Srsly, while Iowa seems blocked for a while, upgrading Omaha-Lincoln to the maximum speed for the current equipment looks worthwhile.

The current timetable has the westbound Zephyr arriving in Omaha at a tolerable hour, 10:55 p.m. Then another 1:03, or 63 minutes, gets the train to Lincoln at 12:08 a.m., that's 8 minutes after midnight. That hour won't scare the college students, but for my generation ... Anyway, taking 10 minutes out of the 63 minute schedule would allow a much 'better looking' arrival of 11:58 p.m., on the more attractive side of midnight.

Of course, having the CZ moving at 79 mph, or better 89 mph, or best 110 mph, in this stretch in Nebraska could encourage Iowa to develop envy and become more likely to support upgrades across the state.

Politics is never easy. In Nebraska the rest of the state is suspicious of the cities. Omaha (those deviates) even elected a Democrat to Congress. So there's often a sharp division. Could a short upgraded train route -- with potential to become a shuttle corridor with multiple frequencies, which could appeal to many state officials -- pass the unicameral legislature?

In any case, 79 mph or 110 mph here could shave good minutes from that long long trip CHI-Denver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Woody, absolutely!

If (hopefully when) we get an upgraded corridor service CHI-OMA (via Quad Cities and Des Moines), an further extension to LNK definitely seems to make sense. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative called for a bus connection OMA-LNK, I believe meeting every train at OMA. And, if Nebraska isn't so gung-ho initially on rail, buses running OMA-LNK would be a good way to build ridership and demonstrate the demand.

Similarly, an extension of a future, beefed-up STL-KCY corridor service from KCY on to Lawrence (metro 117,000 and home to the University of Kansas) and Topeka (metro 234,000) would be worth looking at. Perhaps send some trains to TOP and some trains up to OMA - providing connections from KCY to DEN, etc.
 
Excellent idea Woody! One word of caution, Nebraska has an "open range" policy/law whereby livestock can roam around including eating on the tracks.

Two years ago the Zephyr hit a herd of cattle by McCook while running 79mph resulting in 45 slaughtered beeves, and a 12 hour delay, so 110 or even 90 might be too fast for the Zephyr!
 
That is why overpasses or duck unders were invented. they help in avoiding both road traffic and also for providing safe passage for cattle and other animals across tracks. The Europeans seem to include such structures in their plans for upgrading existing lines and building new ones.
 
Eric S said:
Woody, absolutely!

If (hopefully when) we get an upgraded corridor service CHI-OMA (via Quad Cities and Des Moines), an further extension to LNK definitely seems to make sense. ...
Click to expand...
Well, I'm saying let's start by upgrading the 55 miles Omaha-Lincoln on the current (and future) route. LOL. Start by bringing Lincoln 10 or 15 minutes closer to CHI. Get that fast-growing city on the right side of midnight.

btw I should have noted that eastbound on the CZ, Lincoln has a stopping time like Cleveland or Cincinnati. It needs a second frequency, corridor shuttle trains really, to make significant improvement there. But nobody will pay for the upgrades for one or two trains a day at 110 mph. Go for that and you have to go for it!

Maybe that's just too difficult as well. Bridges? Curves? Stray cows? But surely mostly flat.

+++++

Actually, the Iowa mess gets very, very complicated. The haters are joined by the pragmatists who point out that Iowa doesn't have enuff money set aside to even keep up its highways. LOL. The state would need to grow up and raise taxes. Then it could repair the roads and put in the puny matching funds to build a faster train route and cover the very modest operating subsidy. But even getting 90% of the money from the feds, IIRC the Stimulus offer, isn't good enuff.

Iowa is the case study in why passenger rail should not be up to the states. It's a national responsibility. But now, any one hater governor, one crazy legislature, one wacky set of laws and taxes or lack thereof can veto a nationally important route. That CHI-DEN corridor could serve four states --Ill., Iowa, Neb., and Colo. But it takes unanimous consent or nothing doing. Wacky.

Of course, a better California Zephyr route -- two or more frequencies for better convenience, faster trip times, shared costs at stations and advertising and marketing, more onward connections at Union Station, etc. -- would cut Amtrak's LD losses and improve the national system. But unanimous consent by states or nothing doing. Wacky.

The Midwest Regional Initiative had various edits. So one or two more trains CHI-DEN, the new route with two more going CHI-Omaha. That's where extending to Lincoln seems to make good sense (but was never mentioned, ever, that I saw.) Then a couple more from Des Moines-CHI. Finally, a couple more Quad Cities-CHI; that's where you'd get almost hourly corridor service. But the Iowa secession blocks all of that. Iowa hurts all it's neighbors and the national system, but that's the American way or something. Wacky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I actually see several small service enhancements that would well in the Midwest now that we're looking at it. CHI-MSP, CHI-OMA, CHI-STL-TOP, CHI-Fort Wayne, CHI-Madison, CHI-Peoria. I think if that regional service was increased. We would see LD gains as well
 
The issue with Lincoln is two-fold: First, IA isn't going to pay for it (I can't blame them...the odds of it paying off for them seem pretty remote) and post-PRIIA 209, Amtrak can't work out a deal to get a train extended. Second, Lincoln is the last logical terminus for a train heading west until you get to Denver...so in theory you could run a train all the way to Denver, but with a lot of frequencies you'd be looking at some awful times to/from Denver (and with that, the train being a major financial hole west of Omaha/Lincoln).

As to timing Lincoln-Omaha, I'm not sure how much you'd have to spend to upgrade to 110 MPH. In theory (and depending on track condition) 90 MPH should be easy enough if PTC goes in, but getting that next 20 MPH may not be worth the cost. The big question is if there's some lousy track in Omaha which can't be easily fixed if it can be fixed at all (I'm thinking of the Chicago approaches and some of the other infamous track configurations out there; there seem to be a lot of switches in the downtown area). If the track is Class 5 and you can get 90 out of it, that might be enough right there.

It's really a shame that Omaha-Lincoln isn't a consideration for some sort of rail "shuttle" service. The distance is pretty good, the track looks alright, the markets are of a reasonable size, and doing that with some sort of commuter car/DMU service would seem viable on a casual glance.
 
WoodyinNYC said:
Iowa is the case study in why passenger rail should not be up to the states. It's a national responsibility. But now, any one hater governor, one crazy legislature, one wacky set of laws and taxes or lack thereof can veto a nationally important route. That CHI-DEN corridor could serve four states --Ill., Iowa, Neb., and Colo. But it takes unanimous consent or nothing doing. Wacky.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
Eric S said:
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative had proposed something like a 7-hour CHI-OMA timing (compared to 9-10ish on the California Zephyr today), so 5 hours seems really aggressive there. Now, I don't believe it assumed 110mph the entire way, I think it was either 79mph or 90mph through Iowa. Still, I don't know that we should assume best-cast-scenario if we're trying to develop schedules.
Click to expand...
I was going by fantasy of a dedicated LGV with average speeds of 180+. I can dream can't I. :) Then you can zip from CHI -> DEN in about 5 hours.
 
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
WoodyinNYC said:
Iowa is the case study in why passenger rail should not be up to the states. It's a national responsibility. But now, any one hater governor, one crazy legislature, one wacky set of laws and taxes or lack thereof can veto a nationally important route. That CHI-DEN corridor could serve four states --Ill., Iowa, Neb., and Colo. But it takes unanimous consent or nothing doing. Wacky.
Click to expand...
Amen!
Click to expand...
Well, or one state being willing to shoulder everything. I suspect in a few cases you might be able to get states (MN, IL, etc.) to cough up for the operating expenses for a train that another state was reticent to cover (for precedent, look at VT covering their trains...as far as I can tell, all the way down to the NEC in the case of the second Vermonter they want)...the issue is the capital expenses. Put another way, I think some legislators would be willing to find $10m/yr...it's the $600m startup bill that's a problem.
 
Anderson said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
WoodyinNYC said:
Iowa is the case study in why passenger rail should not be up to the states. It's a national responsibility. But now, any one hater governor, one crazy legislature, one wacky set of laws and taxes or lack thereof can veto a nationally important route. That CHI-DEN corridor could serve four states --Ill., Iowa, Neb., and Colo. But it takes unanimous consent or nothing doing. Wacky.
Click to expand...
Amen!
Click to expand...
Well, or one state being willing to shoulder everything. I suspect in a few cases you might be able to get states (MN, IL, etc.) to cough up for the operating expenses for a train that another state was reticent to cover ...the issue is the capital expenses. ... some legislators would be willing to find $10m/yr...it's the $600m startup bill that's a problem.
Click to expand...
Isn't this whole discussion premised on a sort of Stimulus Two? The Republicans are going to run saying that the economy is lousy, and I agree with them about that. Isn't there another thread where were allowed to day dream about another $10 Billion for capital investment and maybe $100 million more to Amtrak for added operating losses on new or improved routes?

Day dreaming on this CHI-DEN segment, we might learn again, as in Stimulus One, that $10 Billion ain't enuff to go around!

But OK, to take your challenge, if the Feds will pay for all $600 million of serious track upgrades CHI-Omaha-Lincoln, who would pay the lousy $10 or $20 million annual operating subsidy?

Illinois is the big friendly gorilla in the room, albeit currently infested with some sort of dementia-inducing parasite. When healthy, the big guy pays for all of the Lincoln Service, making a nice gift to the St Louis metro area and Missouri as a whole. The gorilla will be paying for CHI-Quad Cities service and gifting Iowa that way.

The South of the Lake project, to improve the times of the Wolverine and other CHI-Michigan services (as well as the Capitol Ltd. and the Lake Shore), is likely to cost $1.5 to $2 Billion. Where to get the needed $1 or $2 Billion, I don't know. But the little gorilla, Michigan, will continue to absorb those operating losses Detroit-CHI, etc, which will be greatly reduced when the trains can go much faster with more frequencies.

But back to the big gorilla. So many opportunities to spend its money! What are the priorities? Milwaukee-CHI? Twin Cities-CHI? Memphis-CHI? DEN-CHI? Omaha-CHI? Des Moines-CHI? Quad Cities-CHI? Indy-CHI? Cincy-CHI?

Nah, priority #1 will be more investment to get more and faster trains St Louis-CHI. There Missouri could help out with further upgrades to the River Runner service Kansas City-Jefferson-St Louis, which can feed traffic onto the Lincoln Service trains, and beyond.

Meanwhile Iowa will be doing nothing at all, nothing at all, but will get help from the big gorilla? Yeah, sure, after Big Daddy has done all the other stuff into CHI.

Hey, if big gorilla has imperial ambitions, spending its way to Toledo and Cleveland with a new corridor service (and CHI-Ft Wayne-Columbus too) would be much more productive to Illinois -- and to the national system -- than a few trains thru ungrateful Iowa.

Give me faster Capitols and Lake Shores on top of corridor service to Cleveland, or fast Zephyrs thru Iowa? Remind me, where's Iowa? And why anybody should care? Use the $600 million there, or go faster thru Indiana and Ohio?

For DEN-CHI we'll just have to wait until the national government takes on responsibility for national transportation needs, or Iowa grows up. Looks like it's gonna be a slow train to Denver.
 
For the record, I wasn't referring to any specific project...I was more referring to the fact that at the state level and without federal support, covering operating costs can be almost a non-issue compared to the sheer cost of starting up a service. You get a one-off charge that is massive and in some cases that's enough to kill a project even if the continuing subsidy would somehow be $0.

As to priorities, that's the point of that "constrained vision plan" I've been referring to with another thread in here. I know we're daydreaming on some level with all of this, and I'd like to come up with a decent priority list that we could (for example) take to NARP as a "first step" towards something akin to their "vision plan" (e.g. a realistic set of projects which could be funded with another stimulus, allowing for political concerns such as the need to spread money around the country).
 
WoodyinNYC said:
Anderson said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
WoodyinNYC said:
Iowa is the case study in why passenger rail should not be up to the states. It's a national responsibility. But now, any one hater governor, one crazy legislature, one wacky set of laws and taxes or lack thereof can veto a nationally important route. That CHI-DEN corridor could serve four states --Ill., Iowa, Neb., and Colo. But it takes unanimous consent or nothing doing. Wacky.
Click to expand...
Amen!
Click to expand...
Well, or one state being willing to shoulder everything. I suspect in a few cases you might be able to get states (MN, IL, etc.) to cough up for the operating expenses for a train that another state was reticent to cover ...the issue is the capital expenses. ... some legislators would be willing to find $10m/yr...it's the $600m startup bill that's a problem.
Click to expand...
Isn't this whole discussion premised on a sort of Stimulus Two? The Republicans are going to run saying that the economy is lousy, and I agree with them about that. Isn't there another thread where were allowed to day dream about another $10 Billion for capital investment and maybe $100 million more to Amtrak for added operating losses on new or improved routes?

Day dreaming on this CHI-DEN segment, we might learn again, as in Stimulus One, that $10 Billion ain't enuff to go around!

But OK, to take your challenge, if the Feds will pay for all $600 million of serious track upgrades CHI-Omaha-Lincoln, who would pay the lousy $10 or $20 million annual operating subsidy?

Illinois is the big friendly gorilla in the room, albeit currently infested with some sort of dementia-inducing parasite. When healthy, the big guy pays for all of the Lincoln Service, making a nice gift to the St Louis metro area and Missouri as a whole. The gorilla will be paying for CHI-Quad Cities service and gifting Iowa that way.

The South of the Lake project, to improve the times of the Wolverine and other CHI-Michigan services (as well as the Capitol Ltd. and the Lake Shore), is likely to cost $1.5 to $2 Billion. Where to get the needed $1 or $2 Billion, I don't know. But the little gorilla, Michigan, will continue to absorb those operating losses Detroit-CHI, etc, which will be greatly reduced when the trains can go much faster with more frequencies.

But back to the big gorilla. So many opportunities to spend its money! What are the priorities? Milwaukee-CHI? Twin Cities-CHI? Memphis-CHI? DEN-CHI? Omaha-CHI? Des Moines-CHI? Quad Cities-CHI? Indy-CHI? Cincy-CHI?

Nah, priority #1 will be more investment to get more and faster trains St Louis-CHI. There Missouri could help out with further upgrades to the River Runner service Kansas City-Jefferson-St Louis, which can feed traffic onto the Lincoln Service trains, and beyond.

Meanwhile Iowa will be doing nothing at all, nothing at all, but will get help from the big gorilla? Yeah, sure, after Big Daddy has done all the other stuff into CHI.

Hey, if big gorilla has imperial ambitions, spending its way to Toledo and Cleveland with a new corridor service (and CHI-Ft Wayne-Columbus too) would be much more productive to Illinois -- and to the national system -- than a few trains thru ungrateful Iowa.

Give me faster Capitols and Lake Shores on top of corridor service to Cleveland, or fast Zephyrs thru Iowa? Remind me, where's Iowa? And why anybody should care? Use the $600 million there, or go faster thru Indiana and Ohio?

For DEN-CHI we'll just have to wait until the national government takes on responsibility for national transportation needs, or Iowa grows up. Looks like it's gonna be a slow train to Denver.
Click to expand...
A lot of people would say "ungrateful Ohio" too though. I'm not one of them. I have never been the kind to say just because you vote an anti-train governor means you don't deserve trains.

It's clear Kasich killed the 3C high speed line in 2010 after he was elected. But then again I can't recall Amtrak ever having a 3C line in almost 40 years before Kasich was elected. Scott Walker rejected money for Wisconsin but he hasn't touched the currently running Hiawatha's. When Amtrak was formed in 1971, were there any other railroads running the 3C route? We know why 3C is ignored by Amtrak since 2010 but what about before then? I believe the last train to run through Columbus was the National Limited which was killed in 1979. I don't recall any other trains through Cleveland or Cincinnati other than the current running ones or their immediate predecessors.
 
The only railroad that I know well enough to comment on for the Three C route would be the New York Central. And I want to say they were the only railroad running that. The PRR might have but it would have been the minority in the market with a roundabout routing and I don't see it listed in the 1956 Guide. The PRR did run Columbus-CIN though. So part of the route was covered.
 
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
WoodyinNYC said:
Anderson said:
Philly Amtrak Fan said:
Amen!

Iowa is the case study in why passenger rail should not be up to the states. ... That CHI-DEN corridor could serve four states --Ill., Iowa, Neb., and Colo. But it takes unanimous consent or nothing doing. Wacky.
Click to expand...
Well, or one state being willing to shoulder everything. ...the issue is the capital expenses. ... the $600m startup bill that's a problem.
Click to expand...
...

Illinois is the big friendly gorilla in the room ...

...

Hey, if it has imperial ambitions, spending its way to Toledo and Cleveland with a new corridor service ... would be much more productive to Illinois -- and to the national system -- than a few trains thru ungrateful Iowa.

Give me faster Capitols and Lake Shores on top of corridor service to Cleveland, or faster Zephyrs thru Iowa? Remind me, where's Iowa? And why should anybody care? Use the $600 million out there, or go faster thru Indiana and Ohio?

...
Click to expand...
... never been the kind to say just because you vote an anti-train governor means you don't deserve trains.
Click to expand...
As that great statesman said, "Elections have consequences."

Maybe I should not have said Iowa was "ungrateful". Perhaps "selfish" would be a better word? Or a more apt phrase might be "Iowa would be free-loading".

I don't get too angry at Kasich for "killing the 3-Cs", or Gov Scott in FL killing Highish Speed Rail Tampa-Orlando. Those action affected those states only.

OTOH, Iowa's steadfast refusal (not just the governor but by the legislature even more so) to pick up an operating subsidy of $10 or $20 million -- after being offered a free $600 million in upgrades toward a new route Illinois-Iowa City-Des Moines-Nebraska-Colorado -- that negativity hurt those neighboring states, and the national system, pretty dayum hard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top