Staff Editorial

By The Gazette Editorial Board

Passenger rail service from Iowa City to Chicago by 2015 - feasible now that $230 million in federal funding for the $315 million project is on the way. Big news indeed. A welcome addition to our region's transportation infrastructure. Yet questions about its long-term financial viability nag us.

Backers are calling it the “Green Line,” Gov. Chet Culver proclaimed Monday, because of anticipated environmental benefits. They tout local economic development and new gateways, including restoration of Iowa City's circa-1989 depot.

And it's fitting that high-speed passenger rail service should be available in one of Iowa's two largest population centers, with anticipation of extending it to the other one - Des Moines - eventually. As of now, only sparsely populated southern Iowa has passenger service.

The Iowa Department of Transportation's fact sheet is chuck full of anticipated benefits from the Green Line, including:

l For every dollar of public investment, $1.70 in reduced costs of transportation, fuel and pollution.

l $7.4 million in highway safety improvements because of reduced congestion - fewer vehicle miles traveled.

l Growth of nearly 600 jobs per year over the four years of design and construction.

l Increased business activity of $25 million a year once rail service is in place.

l Enhanced connectivity with existing bus, rail, air and transit services.

Sounds great. But once the investment of public money is made and the line is operating, what's the outlook?

Well, last year, the financial plan projected an annual operating subsidy of $7.4 million, to be shared by Iowa and Illinois.

Then remember that the “company” running the trains will be the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Subsidiaries - Amtrak - which has a loser's record when it comes to operating costs. An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts last year found that 41 of 44 Amtrak routes lost money in 2008, requiring an average taxpayer subsidy of $32 per passenger.

Of course, other forms of public transportation don't make money either - highways, transit systems and many airports. Generally, we consider those to be infrastructure investments necessary to grow and enhance commerce and our quality of life. It takes tax dollars to maintain them. None of which means that huge operating deficits should be acceptable.

The Pew study did note that subsidies are less for high-speed rail than slower intercity rail - higher speeds attract more passengers. And the Green Line is designated as “high speed,” albeit, at 79 mph and five hours to Chicago, not as fast as some would like.

But sustaining ridership numbers good enough to keep the trains running will depend largely on public perception: Is the service, speed and convenience worth the ticket cost?