Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Zip Rail: Ban the ban, not the plan

Promotional rendering of a Zip Rail train

Last week, Minnesota House representative Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington) issued a news release touting a compromise between him and supporters of the Zip Rail line being planned between the Twin Cities and Rochester. Oh good! Compromise! Our representatives must have done their job and avoided petty politics! That’s what we always want our representatives to do, isn’t it? logo

Unfortunately, this is no compromise — merely a softening of the harsh and arbitrary position Garofalo set out in a bill he authored in January. The initial bill would ban funding and planning of the Zip Rail line entirely. Now he says he’ll drop the language that bans route planning by the state, Metropolitan Council, and regional rail authorities, but would still prevent those entities from funding any construction.

Right now, our transportation system is like a house where all of the money has been spent on windows and walls, but nothing has been put into adding a roof.  We don’t sit in our houses asking for money to magically print out from the ceiling to pay back its installation cost, but the benefits of having it in place add up: Better health for the people who live there, lower maintenance costs, and the ability to heat and cool the space without spending a fortune, among many other things.

When highways are built, we don’t necessarily expect them to pay back their costs in full. Many of them do, but others don’t. For instance, Minnesota 212 in the southwest suburbsisn’t covering its costs with revenue from the gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax, or license fees. There are some improvements planned for U.S. Highway 14 in southern Minnesota that almost certainly won’t be directly paid off by the automobiles traveling over it.

Benefits from things like improved safety and higher travel speed often covers the financial gap. These are less tangible since they don’t translate to a direct revenue stream, but it still means that projects like these can be worthwhile anyway. This is one of the most important roles of government—running projects that help society at large but are too expensive or complex for individuals or small groups to do themselves. The right projects will reduce overall social costs or boost the economy enough to cover the difference.

The frustrating thing is that rail projects are always put under the microscope and scrutinized to a far higher degree than highway expansion, even when the rail lines are expected to show good benefits. State-sponsored studies have looked at passenger rail to and through Rochester for nearly 25 years and have consistently shown it providing a net benefit to the state and region. For good reasons, it has bubbled up to the top tier of routes to be built under MnDOT’s state rail plan.

Zip Rail planners have often mentioned that the line is attracting interest from companies willing to help pay its construction costs. I’ve always assumed that this would be in the form of a public-private partnership (PPP), where a company or consortium would pay for some of the startup cost and would operate the line in exchange for taking back a chunk of the route’s annual revenue, but the “compromise” from last week suggests that someone is willing to pay the entire cost to build the route.

An organization called North American High Speed Rail Group has come forward as a potential backer of the route. That’s great, if true, but shouldn’t be a reason to restrict the availability of public funds at this point. We don’t really know if they have the resources to pull it off at this time, especially since construction and operational costs haven’t been determined yet.

Garofalo’s bill should just die in committee with no further action taken. Leaving the issue alone will let the Environmental Impact Study phase play out, and the line’s backers will have to come back to request funding anyway, if they need it. The bill does nothing to “protect taxpayers,” and would be likely to do more harm than good.

This post was written by Mike Hicks and originally published on Follow on Twitter: @streetsmn.

If you blog and would like your work considered for Minnesota Blog Cabin, please submit our registration form.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Steve Titterud on 03/24/2015 - 10:50 am.

    Mr. Garofalo might have considered “protecting taxpayers” when..

    ..he cast his vote FOR the Vikings’ stadium.

    Exactly who he is serving here with his ridiculous position remains to be investigated and published – and what he’s getting out of it.

  2. Submitted by Dennis Litfin on 03/24/2015 - 11:49 am.


    the auto manufacturing and petroleum lobbyists out of the equation and it will ‘fly’

  3. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 03/24/2015 - 04:09 pm.

    I’m Reminded of Gov. Scott Walker’s

    cancellation of the Wisconsin leg of high speed rail,…

    which turned out to be just a tiny down payment on his massive project,…

    to make sure Wisconsin has as few jobs as possible,…

    and that those jobs pay as little as possible.

    Maybe Mr. Grofalo is hoping to run for governor,…

    of Wisconsin?

  4. Submitted by Mark Thein on 03/25/2015 - 11:08 am.

    So you’re saying what?!?

    Not sure what your point is…….We (taxpayers) should help fund this because __________(why)?

    • Submitted by Pat McGee on 03/25/2015 - 12:59 pm.

      Because taxpayers will benefit from it

      From the employees in the metro are who take shuttle buses from the airport to Rochester in horrendous weather, to residents who could use a more convenient, comfortable and faster way to get to Mayo than inconveniencing friends and family for rides.

      • Submitted by Marie McNamara on 03/25/2015 - 02:27 pm.

        Do you have any data on the numbers? This does not sound like it will be supportable ridership at $60 or more round trip. Correct my ticket costs if anyone has more known numbers. Of course, if the state subsidizes, this means riders are on everyone else’s tax dollars. How is this socialized transit sustainable? There are so many roads and bridges to repair, too.

  5. Submitted by Marie McNamara on 03/25/2015 - 12:15 pm.

    No to this Private Public Partnership

    Those impacted by the taking of more land by the state, the closing of any roads, and the multiple billions of dollars in cost, make NO BUILD the option of choice. With two end points, no stops, and no benefit for most taxpayers this is not a good idea. Ridership will not happen. Debt will happen. Everyone in Minnesota will be impacted by construction, operating, maintenance, security, and decommissioning. Cost and eminent domain are reasons enough to say no to the project. If the Federal Rail Authority is going to back such losers, let them stand alone with this very unsupportable, unethical idea. No need. No benefit. No build.

Leave a Reply