It looks like 2016 is emerging as the Minnesota Session of Irony. We're likely to see the supporters of a plan for a private high speed passenger shortline railroad oppose a bill that will assure they're truly privately funded. Meanwhile, the strategic director for the private rail group told an American-Chinese business group that more transportation projects--including roads and bridges--should be privately funded.
Perhaps the legislature should just craft and pass a transportation bill.
Draz bill on keeping private passenger rail private
At the Rochester Post Bulletin, Heather Carlson reports in A 'fast and furious' legislative session:
The battle over a proposed high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities is expected to continue in St. Paul this spring.
Mazeppa GOP Rep. Steve Drazkowski has said he plans to push ahead with a bill that would prohibit public funding for the rail line. It would also prohibit the use of eminent domain to build the line and requires a private rail developer to provide financial assurances before the project can be built.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation and Olmsted County recently announced they were suspending work on the publicly-funded Zip Rail proposal. However, a private company — North American High Speed Rail Group — is studying whether to move ahead with a privately-funded, elevated high-speed rail line linking Rochester to the Twin Cities.
Since the North American High Speed Rail Group touts the private nature of its hypothetical project, we can't see why they'd object to the first two provisions of this legislation. If one's project is private, what's the problem with addressing local concerns?
But there's more.
Meadley: "we’re going to have to privately fund a number of things" for transportation
In Politics in Minnesota/Capitol Report, we read this gem in Janice Bitters' Twin Cities-Rochester rail line proposal nears a decision:
At a talk Wednesday before [U.S.-China Business Connections,] a business group, a company representative offered more clues about the vision and why executives think it’s time for privately funded infrastructure in Minnesota.
“We can’t afford to pay for our roads and bridges,” said Wendy Meadley, the rail group’s chief strategy officer. “This is the moment in time that we’re going to have to privately fund a number of things to really complete the United States’ and Minnesota’s transportation network.”
Privatize roads and bridges? Nothing controversial there (facepalm). We last heard this sort of deep thinking from state representative Glenn Gruenhagen last April.
The article was earlier published in Finance and Commerce.
CCARL shoots back at the zombie ziprail
In an email to Bluestem, Citizens Concerned About Rail Line (CCARL) organizer Nora Felton, who had attended Meadley's talk, responded to the article. A few of the points she raised were that the state should own and maintain roads and bridges and that MNDOT statutes will not allow for the encroachment of its Right of Way (that's why CapX poles are outside it, according to Felton).
Moreover, Felton asserted that Meadley "stated in the Q & A following that NAHSR threw out" that business plan last Fall."
This isn't surprising, given the departure of the group's original CEO and the return from using HB-5 visas some investors would have obtained through from a rather sketchy regional center. We'd want to get that business plan off the table too (it's embedded in a Bluestem post Data practices request document: North American High Speed Rail Group's business plan).
What is surprising is that media operations like KARE report things like "work is being done on a business plan and funding for the privately financed project." If we were an investor, we'd like to know that this plan will be the second try by the NAHSRG (and the circumstances for the abandonment of the first iteration).
Felton also wrote:
. . .Meadley stated 1) "there are no big answers...we imagining technology," 2) the Federal Railroad Administration does NOT consider this project to be true HSR because it's too short (needs to be 150 miles or more---this project is 77 miles), 3) that this project "doesn't cover the last mile" and that Americans needed to get used to the idea of "interoperability/intermodal" forms of transportation that require "more than 1 mode of transportation (READ: at least 1 transfer even on a 77 mile trip) to get to your end destination," that 80% of her presentation talked about HSR in OTHER parts of the world, 4) that Federal FAST ACT funding was "needed to minimize financial risk to investors" (i.e TAXPAYER $$$--despite all the claims that this project would be "privately funded"), and lastly, that a member of UCBC ended the meeting by stating that "the station end-points don't fit user needs;" especially for a 77 mile project.
Heckova a deal, Sparky.
We suggest that the legislature pass a comprehensive transportation package, one that won't write any checks to Ms. Meadley. After all, this is what she wants, no?
Next CCARL meeting is Thursday, April 7
We received this notice from CCARL:
CCARL ZIP RAIL MEETING
Thursday, April 7, 2016
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Kenyon-Wanamingo Elementary School
Media Room (across from Lunch Room)
225 Third Avenue
Wanamingo, MN 55983
Come to Hear the Latest Updates on Zip Rail
Photo: Wendy Meadley, transportation talking points expert and former high stakes poker advocate, speaking to the U.S.-China Business Connections meeting on Wednesday. Staff photo: Bill Klotz via Dolan Media.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original posts and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail dot com as recipient.
Comments