19
Mar
2002
The largest contingent of Quad Cities' private business and public sector leaders ever assembled flew to Washington, DC, last week and spent three days meeting face-to-face with all eight of our region's elected federal legislators. The purpose of the trip was to present a united front to our legislators regarding bi-state regional issues that affect the economic well-being of the Quad Cities as a whole. Our federal legislators have warmly received this unified approach, because it is much easier to work toward legislation and funding appropriations for respective constituencies when both sides of the river are in agreement, and have prioritized our region's critical issues.
This annual trip to DC started six years ago, when a dozen business leaders convened to drum up support for what continues to be a primary bi-state issue, the Rock Island Arsenal. Since then, the QC contingent has grown to more than 75 attendees, including eight mayors, three city administrators, county supervisors, and city and county staff, all presenting briefing papers on more than 35 issues from the entire Quad Cities region. The Quad City Development Group, run by former Davenport mayor Thom Hart, organizes the submission of briefing papers, travel plans, and coordinating face-to-face meetings with our region's eight legislators.
Over the past several months, with input from all municipalities, counties, area chambers of commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, MetroLINK, and the Bi-State Regional Commission, the main regional issues were prioritized for formal presentations with each legislator. This year the top three issues were the Rock Island Arsenal, I-74 Mississippi River Crossing Needs, and the Midwest Passenger Rail Initiative & Wyanet Connection.
Bringing Home the Bacon
"Many people want to know 'what did you bring back' support-wise, right when we return from these trips. What's difficult to understand is that this about relationship building and a long term, consistent message about our region first," explains Hart.
Hart gives these trips credit for bringing in well over $75 million in financial support that include funds for RIA operations, the Arsenal Bridge repairs/renovation, the I-74 Bridge study, Scott County Housing initiatives, the Rock Island County Records System, and the Illinois Quad Cities Riverfront projects. He also emphasizes that funding for our area's big- and small-ticket initiatives requiring federal support does not happen overnight. Some issues presented this year will see attention from a federal level sooner than others. Follow up on grants, deadlines, and applications is key. Besides raising awareness for our region on the federal level, this trip helps identify the processes, the contacts, and the resources available to our region.
Rock Island Arsenal (RIA)
The Position: The RIA is critical to the health of the Quad Cities with an annual economic impact of $500 million. The Island boasts the largest weapons manufacturing arsenal in the world, completely renovated with modern equipment. Workload is being shifted to other manufacturers, causing revenues to drop from $300 million several years ago to $160 million this year. Fifteen years ago the workforce was 3,000, but today it is only 1,200.
The RIA is an insurance policy that keeps private sector bids competitive and has the capability to respond to unique armament requests more efficiently and quickly due to private sector procurement procedures (e.g., the over-budget and purportedly poorly executed Howitzer contract by British contractors).
The Requests: 1) Continue advocating that the Department of Defense (DOD) and Army increase workload at the RIA. 2) Support the RIA by increasing the Unutilized Plant Capacity funds (renamed IMC) that help lower the RIA deficits. In FY'01, $15.6 million was funded; in '02 it is less?$5.6 million to date, with an estimated $8 to $10 million for the year. This funding helps lower the rates charged for products produced. 3) Reauthorization of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative (formerly ARMS) in the FY03 budget to create more competitive leasing rates. 4) A $1.6 million appropriation for the final phase of the Government Bridge program. 5) Continue to support the RIA as a national asset via the vetting of upper military command assignments.
The Responses: Congressman Jim Leach (IA-R) called the RIA "the heart of the Quad Cities. The trauma the RIA is experiencing reflects the whole nature of the defense industry," he said. "During WWII, four states received half the defense budget: Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Today only two states receive half the budget: California & Texas. To allow the principal arsenal for the United States to shrink is not in the national interest."
Congressman Leach further explained that, in theory, the RIA is there to keep the private contractors honest. "Unfortunately, the military has not kept their word" with regard to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), which has typically shown how work should be pushed to the RIA, according to Leach.
Senator Chuck Grassley (IA-R) stated, "I look at this [the RIA] as something we're always going to have to fight. There's a philosophy in the DOD that the time for arsenals is over. I don't agree. I've been assured that local [officials] will be consulted by the DOD on future changes. There may be another BRAC process, but I don't see it being reinstated until 2005. Due to increased defense budgets and spending, I expect the unutilized-capacity option to be filled out."
Senator Dick Durbin (IL-R) stressed the value of the RIA's in-house pricing mechanisms that ensure competitive bidding. "Illinois has given and given. We have only three bases left. We ended up closing facilities that have resulted in costly environmental liabilities. The lightweight Howitzer [contract with the British] is a disaster. We called that early on. We want to force a recompete of the bid. We need to allow the RIA to prove itself by getting it more business."
The Discussion: As defense budgets increase in this new era, the squeaky wheel will get the grease. Assuming that all of the advantages of utilizing the RIA are true, then the main hurdle seems to be the will of the DOD and the military to use the facility. The influence our legislators wield in this arena may come down to the vetting process of command appointments to the Island that ensure new leadership is positioned to advocate and achieve expanded usage. Further analysis, such as cost-benefit reports for employing RIA resources versus other manufacturers, should be conducted, especially for projects that reflect the RIA's particular competencies. If nothing else, the numbers should sell the facility. It is important to keep in mind the influence peddling by lobbyists for private sector manufacturers that compete with our public facilities, especially in light of the decrease in available dollars for defense spending in the past decade. Since the government cannot lobby itself, it must compete with responsible, efficient fiscal practices that maintain the highest possible quality standards, within timeframes that could be severely constrained. Servicing equipment and systems (maintenance and repair), especially over long periods of time, should be emphasized as a crucial strength of the RIA. Some weaponry has a life of 75 years or better. Private sector manufacturers have abandoned much of the equipment they manufactured 30 years ago, and the same is potentially true for new systems manufactured today. On the other hand, the RIA is capable of maintaining, or even reengineering, those systems and parts it produces, keeping them in peak working condition and possibly extending the life of some of the military's larger investments. The private sector benefits from production volume, showing cost savings due to economies of scale. But volume is not the only economic factor to be considered, especially as it relates to our nation's defense. Our ability to create and maintain a manufacturing legacy for our defense system (s) is equally important in the long term, both financially and strategically.
I-74 Mississippi River Crossing Needs
The Position: The I-74 Bridge is the only national interstate bridge remaining that does not meet federal standards due to its lack of shoulders and effective weaving lanes on access ramps. It carries 74,000 cars per day, twice as much traffic per day as it was rated for, and half of the entire Quad Cities' daily bridge traffic. A three-pronged approach has been enacted by a Quad Cities task force on bridge issues that includes removing tolls on Centennial Bridge; evaluating revenue models to fund a new bridge between East Moline and Bettendorf; and reconstruction required for the I-74 Bridge. $Seven million has come in from the feds over the last two years to fund studies, and the Iowa and Illinois Departments of Transportation (DOT) are also assisting with funding the I-74 Corridor Study to examine solutions. Preliminary engineering is expected to be completed by 2003. Final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction could take from seven to 10 years.
The Requests: Authorization in the 2003 and 2009 Transportation Acts for a portion of the estimated $600 million to $700 million needed to reconstruct the I-74 bridge, including right of way, egress, and reconstruction from 23rd Avenue in Moline to 53rd Street in Davenport. Matching funds from the Iowa and Illinois DOT's will also be sought.
The Responses: Congressman Leach sees the I-74 Bridge as the geographic center of the QCs, and the river as a difficult divider. "The trauma of highway bridges is their huge costs, so state DOTs are loath to deal with them. We've done a good job increasing current dollars by 50 percent."
Senator Tom Harkin (IA-D) explained that he knew the "2003 appropriation has to be done. We have to keep Discretionary Bridge money in the Transportation bill. It's important because the [highway] bridges in our rural states are bigger and more costly. We need to work with the big river states to keep [the funding] in the discretionary bridge program." Harkin went on to explain that he felt the support for this was evident in the Senate, but was unsure of the House. "I know both sides of the aisle in river states in the Senate, but we may not have as many House members in rural states supportive of the discretionary [funding]."
Senator Grassley explained that "How you [the Quad Cities] relate to our reauthorization of the 2003 highway bill will tell the story if it's built. It's very important that both states are funding and cooperating. What else you have in your favor is that we've already invested in studies that have been completed."
Senator Durbin echoed that sentiment stating that "$Seven million should be adequate for studies. We need to keep this project moving now that we've made the initial investment."
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (IL-R) talked of the decrease in Highway Trust funding due to lower fuel consumption last year. He asked if the project was on the five-year plan for Illinois DOT's request for authorization, because if the Illinois DOT has not made it a priority it will difficult to include in the 2003 allotments. (According to Hart, the project is included in both the Iowa and Illinois DOTs' five-year plans.)
The Discussion: The Quad Cities is third behind a major St. Louis river crossing in Illinois/Missouri in need of heavy funding, and the renovation of Wacker Drive in downtown Chicago. With fuel tax revenues down, which fund highway and bridge improvements, this is a tough request. However, the feds have already showed support by funding studies that have identified the problems and ostensibly the solutions. Continued relations with Iowa and Illinois DOTs need to be enhanced to raise the I-74 Bridge as a higher priority, which will in turn provide matching leverage on the federal level to include Discretionary Bridge funding in the Highway bill. Care should be taken to ensure the $600 million to $700 million dollar price tag is accurate and does not balloon, decreasing credibility and viability for a bridge project in a community of 350,000 people.
Midwest Passenger Rail Initiative & Wyanet Connection
The Position: A Midwest Passenger Rail System (MPRS) is needed, especially in light of Amtrak's impending overhaul and the nation's need for additional multi-modal transportation that conserves energy and provides options beyond air travel.
A study was conducted by nine Midwest state DOTs and the Federal Railroad Administration to consider the best opportunities for passenger rail service using Chicago as a hub. The Quad Cities is currently not served by passenger rail. The Quad Cities have formed a coalition of neighboring jurisdictions in Iowa and Illinois to promote the development of passenger rail service along the Interstate 80 corridor. In addition, the Quad Cities corridor was identified as the best alternative for future service between Chicago and Omaha. A railroad connection between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Iowa Interstate Railroad made at Wyanet, Illinois, will be the first step in establishing Chicago-to-Quad Cities service. These enhancements will increase rail service both for passenger and freight from 40mph to 79mph. One of the challenges for funding rail initiatives is that, while fuel taxes from autos and trucks go toward funding highway infrastructures and jet fuel taxes fund air service infrastructure, locomotive fuel taxes go straight into the General Fund and do not fund railroad infrastructures.
The Requests: It is estimated that the nine-state Midwest network would cost a total of $5 billion. The Wyanet connection can be made for $3.9 million, and the Iowa Interstate Railroad improvements are estimated at $28.9 million. The Quad Cities is currently seeking a total of $33.8 million.
The Responses: Senator Leach stated, "We have to save Amtrak and then we have to give it a mission. This is an attractive mission. One of the great economic activities in the Quad Cities is education, such as Augustana, St. Ambrose, and even the University of Iowa, pulling from the Chicago suburbs. I tend to look at this as tying greater access from Chicago to our areas rather than the reverse."
Congressman Greg Ganske (IA-R) wanted to know how this project dovetailed with Amtrak, especially as Congress is looking at an Amtrak shortfall: "I suggest you talk to people on the existing passenger route through southern Iowa who will not want Amtrak closed as they rely on that support."
Senator Grassley stated that this was the one of three issues that he was least prepared to give an answer to because Amtrak was so up in the air. Congress does not currently know what to do with the committee recommendations. "I need more specific questions to be able to answer," he said.
Senator Durbin explained, "In 1995 and the Newt Gingrich era, a bill was passed that said Amtrak had to be self sufficient. We knew the deck was loaded. I'm not sure whether we'll have an Amtrak. Today we refused to increase the CAFE standards [on fuel efficiency]. It's naïve to believe we will be energy independent if we don't ask business and individuals to take responsibility and make sacrifices on the cars and trucks they drive. This rapid rail is a good answer to alternative uses. There may be more support for this in the House due to populations and voter blocs served. In the Senate, when states have little or no service, there's no interest."
A meeting with congressional staffers included Richard Bender, Harkin's senior advisor and policy guru on Capitol Hill. Bender indicated that if Illinois DOT makes the Quad Cities more of a priority for rapid rail service, then getting into the rest of Iowa would be easier. Bender stated he thought the Quad Cities was 4th on the priority list for the Illinois DOT. Denise Bulat from Bi-State Regional stated it was the QCs' understanding that we were second behind connections to St. Louis.
The Discussion: There was great enthusiasm amongst nearly everyone attending that this project would result in a huge economic boon to both the Quad Cities and Chicago. And while Des Moines and the Iowa DOT might not be as vested right now in this initiative because it looks to serve the Quad Cities first, once the service is brought to the QCs, the demand will be there for it to continue west through Iowa City and onto Omaha. Ganske's dismissal of the concept because Amtrak already runs through southern Iowa was greeted as politicking by many in attendance, as he is running against Bill Salier in the Republican primary for Harkin's seat in the Senate. This southern region of Iowa is a voter base for Ganske. Meanwhile, it was conjectured that one is not exclusive of the other. The Amtrak system was set up to be bi-coastal. In fact it was argued that the southern route through Iowa was by design since it doesn't hit any populous areas in Iowa, allowing for fewer stops and time in the stations. Subsequently, the current Amtrak operation serves a national agenda, while the MPRS would serve a much-needed regional mission that is as good for Chicago as it is for the outlying areas. It is argued that an MPRS connection to Chicago could potentially lead to the Quad Cities becoming an outlying western suburb. In addition, five years ago the rail freight industry was not interested in working around two sets of passenger rail schedules. But with current proposed improvements, freight transport times would be greatly decreased as well, creating a climate of cooperation. Clarification as to where this project stands with the Illinois DOT will spell out how much Iowa legislators will push for the appropriations that will help get service to the Quad Cities, opening the door to greater Iowa.
How did we fare?
At least half of the legislators made it a point to praise the QC contingent's unified prioritization of issues on a regional level, and how much more prepared this process made them in representing our interests. Senator Durbin stated, "This is the best turnout in the state of Illinois, and it does not go unnoticed." Senator Grassley stated, "I really appreciate that your delegation has provided the priorities of our local communities."
Purportedly, other communities like Des Moines and Peoria make annual visits to their legislators, but in a decidedly more informal manner, consisting of golf outings and group breakfasts where up to $25,000 in checks will be left on the table. (While there was socializing with the QC group, it was informal and mostly at night after scheduled meetings.)
The social capital amongst community leaders is critical in solving problems back home on a more local level. In fact, despite the competitive nature of the Quad Cities region, we might be one of the country's most effective models of bi-state cooperation for regional issues. It was a working trip, rather than a junket or pork barrel of golf games with legislators and lobbyists. Each attendee paid his/her own airfare, hotel, transit or cab fees, food, and drink. The QCDG covered one orientation lunch, a breakfast with Arsenal staffers from the military, and a breakfast meeting with the legislator staffers.
The professionalism was evident in the well-organized documentation of briefing papers, support material and protocols for presentations. QC presenters adapted to new information as the trip progressed, weaving it into their own presentations as the meetings continued. There was consensus amongst the contingency that, for future trips, more private sector representation would have greater impact, especially from larger employers such as Deere, Alcoa, Modern Woodmen, Royal Neighbors, and Bituminous. While these companies have paid lobbyists year round, those efforts are on industry specific issues, rather than projects that affect the Quad Cities region as a whole. Representation from the major corporations makes sense, but organizers might want to consider advocating that leaders from individual local industries attend, such as healthcare, including chiropractic and nursing; engineering; light manufacturing; technology with an emphasis on ag-tech and bio-tech; distribution; and development. This trip confirmed there is strength in numbers. At a minimum, the meetings provide a rare opportunity to access our federal legislators in their workplace, where, many would argue, exists the greatest representative government system in the world.
U.S. Representative James Leach (Republican, Davenport, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Davenport: (563)326-1841
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-6576
U.S. Representative Greg Ganske (Republican, Des Moines, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-4426
U.S. Representative James Nussle (Republican, Manchester, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-2911
U.S. Representative Lane Evans (Democrat, Rock Island, Illinois)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Moline: (309)793-5760
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-5905
U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Davenport: (563)322-1338
Washington, D.C.: (202)224-3254
U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (Republican, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Davenport: (563)322-4331
Washington, D.C.: (202)224-3744
U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat, Illinois)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202)224-2152
U.S. Senator Peter Fitgerald (Republican, Illinois)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202) 224-2854
This annual trip to DC started six years ago, when a dozen business leaders convened to drum up support for what continues to be a primary bi-state issue, the Rock Island Arsenal. Since then, the QC contingent has grown to more than 75 attendees, including eight mayors, three city administrators, county supervisors, and city and county staff, all presenting briefing papers on more than 35 issues from the entire Quad Cities region. The Quad City Development Group, run by former Davenport mayor Thom Hart, organizes the submission of briefing papers, travel plans, and coordinating face-to-face meetings with our region's eight legislators.
Over the past several months, with input from all municipalities, counties, area chambers of commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, MetroLINK, and the Bi-State Regional Commission, the main regional issues were prioritized for formal presentations with each legislator. This year the top three issues were the Rock Island Arsenal, I-74 Mississippi River Crossing Needs, and the Midwest Passenger Rail Initiative & Wyanet Connection.
Bringing Home the Bacon
"Many people want to know 'what did you bring back' support-wise, right when we return from these trips. What's difficult to understand is that this about relationship building and a long term, consistent message about our region first," explains Hart.
Hart gives these trips credit for bringing in well over $75 million in financial support that include funds for RIA operations, the Arsenal Bridge repairs/renovation, the I-74 Bridge study, Scott County Housing initiatives, the Rock Island County Records System, and the Illinois Quad Cities Riverfront projects. He also emphasizes that funding for our area's big- and small-ticket initiatives requiring federal support does not happen overnight. Some issues presented this year will see attention from a federal level sooner than others. Follow up on grants, deadlines, and applications is key. Besides raising awareness for our region on the federal level, this trip helps identify the processes, the contacts, and the resources available to our region.
Rock Island Arsenal (RIA)
The Position: The RIA is critical to the health of the Quad Cities with an annual economic impact of $500 million. The Island boasts the largest weapons manufacturing arsenal in the world, completely renovated with modern equipment. Workload is being shifted to other manufacturers, causing revenues to drop from $300 million several years ago to $160 million this year. Fifteen years ago the workforce was 3,000, but today it is only 1,200.
The RIA is an insurance policy that keeps private sector bids competitive and has the capability to respond to unique armament requests more efficiently and quickly due to private sector procurement procedures (e.g., the over-budget and purportedly poorly executed Howitzer contract by British contractors).
The Requests: 1) Continue advocating that the Department of Defense (DOD) and Army increase workload at the RIA. 2) Support the RIA by increasing the Unutilized Plant Capacity funds (renamed IMC) that help lower the RIA deficits. In FY'01, $15.6 million was funded; in '02 it is less?$5.6 million to date, with an estimated $8 to $10 million for the year. This funding helps lower the rates charged for products produced. 3) Reauthorization of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative (formerly ARMS) in the FY03 budget to create more competitive leasing rates. 4) A $1.6 million appropriation for the final phase of the Government Bridge program. 5) Continue to support the RIA as a national asset via the vetting of upper military command assignments.
The Responses: Congressman Jim Leach (IA-R) called the RIA "the heart of the Quad Cities. The trauma the RIA is experiencing reflects the whole nature of the defense industry," he said. "During WWII, four states received half the defense budget: Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Today only two states receive half the budget: California & Texas. To allow the principal arsenal for the United States to shrink is not in the national interest."
Congressman Leach further explained that, in theory, the RIA is there to keep the private contractors honest. "Unfortunately, the military has not kept their word" with regard to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), which has typically shown how work should be pushed to the RIA, according to Leach.
Senator Chuck Grassley (IA-R) stated, "I look at this [the RIA] as something we're always going to have to fight. There's a philosophy in the DOD that the time for arsenals is over. I don't agree. I've been assured that local [officials] will be consulted by the DOD on future changes. There may be another BRAC process, but I don't see it being reinstated until 2005. Due to increased defense budgets and spending, I expect the unutilized-capacity option to be filled out."
Senator Dick Durbin (IL-R) stressed the value of the RIA's in-house pricing mechanisms that ensure competitive bidding. "Illinois has given and given. We have only three bases left. We ended up closing facilities that have resulted in costly environmental liabilities. The lightweight Howitzer [contract with the British] is a disaster. We called that early on. We want to force a recompete of the bid. We need to allow the RIA to prove itself by getting it more business."
The Discussion: As defense budgets increase in this new era, the squeaky wheel will get the grease. Assuming that all of the advantages of utilizing the RIA are true, then the main hurdle seems to be the will of the DOD and the military to use the facility. The influence our legislators wield in this arena may come down to the vetting process of command appointments to the Island that ensure new leadership is positioned to advocate and achieve expanded usage. Further analysis, such as cost-benefit reports for employing RIA resources versus other manufacturers, should be conducted, especially for projects that reflect the RIA's particular competencies. If nothing else, the numbers should sell the facility. It is important to keep in mind the influence peddling by lobbyists for private sector manufacturers that compete with our public facilities, especially in light of the decrease in available dollars for defense spending in the past decade. Since the government cannot lobby itself, it must compete with responsible, efficient fiscal practices that maintain the highest possible quality standards, within timeframes that could be severely constrained. Servicing equipment and systems (maintenance and repair), especially over long periods of time, should be emphasized as a crucial strength of the RIA. Some weaponry has a life of 75 years or better. Private sector manufacturers have abandoned much of the equipment they manufactured 30 years ago, and the same is potentially true for new systems manufactured today. On the other hand, the RIA is capable of maintaining, or even reengineering, those systems and parts it produces, keeping them in peak working condition and possibly extending the life of some of the military's larger investments. The private sector benefits from production volume, showing cost savings due to economies of scale. But volume is not the only economic factor to be considered, especially as it relates to our nation's defense. Our ability to create and maintain a manufacturing legacy for our defense system (s) is equally important in the long term, both financially and strategically.
I-74 Mississippi River Crossing Needs
The Position: The I-74 Bridge is the only national interstate bridge remaining that does not meet federal standards due to its lack of shoulders and effective weaving lanes on access ramps. It carries 74,000 cars per day, twice as much traffic per day as it was rated for, and half of the entire Quad Cities' daily bridge traffic. A three-pronged approach has been enacted by a Quad Cities task force on bridge issues that includes removing tolls on Centennial Bridge; evaluating revenue models to fund a new bridge between East Moline and Bettendorf; and reconstruction required for the I-74 Bridge. $Seven million has come in from the feds over the last two years to fund studies, and the Iowa and Illinois Departments of Transportation (DOT) are also assisting with funding the I-74 Corridor Study to examine solutions. Preliminary engineering is expected to be completed by 2003. Final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction could take from seven to 10 years.
The Requests: Authorization in the 2003 and 2009 Transportation Acts for a portion of the estimated $600 million to $700 million needed to reconstruct the I-74 bridge, including right of way, egress, and reconstruction from 23rd Avenue in Moline to 53rd Street in Davenport. Matching funds from the Iowa and Illinois DOT's will also be sought.
The Responses: Congressman Leach sees the I-74 Bridge as the geographic center of the QCs, and the river as a difficult divider. "The trauma of highway bridges is their huge costs, so state DOTs are loath to deal with them. We've done a good job increasing current dollars by 50 percent."
Senator Tom Harkin (IA-D) explained that he knew the "2003 appropriation has to be done. We have to keep Discretionary Bridge money in the Transportation bill. It's important because the [highway] bridges in our rural states are bigger and more costly. We need to work with the big river states to keep [the funding] in the discretionary bridge program." Harkin went on to explain that he felt the support for this was evident in the Senate, but was unsure of the House. "I know both sides of the aisle in river states in the Senate, but we may not have as many House members in rural states supportive of the discretionary [funding]."
Senator Grassley explained that "How you [the Quad Cities] relate to our reauthorization of the 2003 highway bill will tell the story if it's built. It's very important that both states are funding and cooperating. What else you have in your favor is that we've already invested in studies that have been completed."
Senator Durbin echoed that sentiment stating that "$Seven million should be adequate for studies. We need to keep this project moving now that we've made the initial investment."
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (IL-R) talked of the decrease in Highway Trust funding due to lower fuel consumption last year. He asked if the project was on the five-year plan for Illinois DOT's request for authorization, because if the Illinois DOT has not made it a priority it will difficult to include in the 2003 allotments. (According to Hart, the project is included in both the Iowa and Illinois DOTs' five-year plans.)
The Discussion: The Quad Cities is third behind a major St. Louis river crossing in Illinois/Missouri in need of heavy funding, and the renovation of Wacker Drive in downtown Chicago. With fuel tax revenues down, which fund highway and bridge improvements, this is a tough request. However, the feds have already showed support by funding studies that have identified the problems and ostensibly the solutions. Continued relations with Iowa and Illinois DOTs need to be enhanced to raise the I-74 Bridge as a higher priority, which will in turn provide matching leverage on the federal level to include Discretionary Bridge funding in the Highway bill. Care should be taken to ensure the $600 million to $700 million dollar price tag is accurate and does not balloon, decreasing credibility and viability for a bridge project in a community of 350,000 people.
Midwest Passenger Rail Initiative & Wyanet Connection
The Position: A Midwest Passenger Rail System (MPRS) is needed, especially in light of Amtrak's impending overhaul and the nation's need for additional multi-modal transportation that conserves energy and provides options beyond air travel.
A study was conducted by nine Midwest state DOTs and the Federal Railroad Administration to consider the best opportunities for passenger rail service using Chicago as a hub. The Quad Cities is currently not served by passenger rail. The Quad Cities have formed a coalition of neighboring jurisdictions in Iowa and Illinois to promote the development of passenger rail service along the Interstate 80 corridor. In addition, the Quad Cities corridor was identified as the best alternative for future service between Chicago and Omaha. A railroad connection between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Iowa Interstate Railroad made at Wyanet, Illinois, will be the first step in establishing Chicago-to-Quad Cities service. These enhancements will increase rail service both for passenger and freight from 40mph to 79mph. One of the challenges for funding rail initiatives is that, while fuel taxes from autos and trucks go toward funding highway infrastructures and jet fuel taxes fund air service infrastructure, locomotive fuel taxes go straight into the General Fund and do not fund railroad infrastructures.
The Requests: It is estimated that the nine-state Midwest network would cost a total of $5 billion. The Wyanet connection can be made for $3.9 million, and the Iowa Interstate Railroad improvements are estimated at $28.9 million. The Quad Cities is currently seeking a total of $33.8 million.
The Responses: Senator Leach stated, "We have to save Amtrak and then we have to give it a mission. This is an attractive mission. One of the great economic activities in the Quad Cities is education, such as Augustana, St. Ambrose, and even the University of Iowa, pulling from the Chicago suburbs. I tend to look at this as tying greater access from Chicago to our areas rather than the reverse."
Congressman Greg Ganske (IA-R) wanted to know how this project dovetailed with Amtrak, especially as Congress is looking at an Amtrak shortfall: "I suggest you talk to people on the existing passenger route through southern Iowa who will not want Amtrak closed as they rely on that support."
Senator Grassley stated that this was the one of three issues that he was least prepared to give an answer to because Amtrak was so up in the air. Congress does not currently know what to do with the committee recommendations. "I need more specific questions to be able to answer," he said.
Senator Durbin explained, "In 1995 and the Newt Gingrich era, a bill was passed that said Amtrak had to be self sufficient. We knew the deck was loaded. I'm not sure whether we'll have an Amtrak. Today we refused to increase the CAFE standards [on fuel efficiency]. It's naïve to believe we will be energy independent if we don't ask business and individuals to take responsibility and make sacrifices on the cars and trucks they drive. This rapid rail is a good answer to alternative uses. There may be more support for this in the House due to populations and voter blocs served. In the Senate, when states have little or no service, there's no interest."
A meeting with congressional staffers included Richard Bender, Harkin's senior advisor and policy guru on Capitol Hill. Bender indicated that if Illinois DOT makes the Quad Cities more of a priority for rapid rail service, then getting into the rest of Iowa would be easier. Bender stated he thought the Quad Cities was 4th on the priority list for the Illinois DOT. Denise Bulat from Bi-State Regional stated it was the QCs' understanding that we were second behind connections to St. Louis.
The Discussion: There was great enthusiasm amongst nearly everyone attending that this project would result in a huge economic boon to both the Quad Cities and Chicago. And while Des Moines and the Iowa DOT might not be as vested right now in this initiative because it looks to serve the Quad Cities first, once the service is brought to the QCs, the demand will be there for it to continue west through Iowa City and onto Omaha. Ganske's dismissal of the concept because Amtrak already runs through southern Iowa was greeted as politicking by many in attendance, as he is running against Bill Salier in the Republican primary for Harkin's seat in the Senate. This southern region of Iowa is a voter base for Ganske. Meanwhile, it was conjectured that one is not exclusive of the other. The Amtrak system was set up to be bi-coastal. In fact it was argued that the southern route through Iowa was by design since it doesn't hit any populous areas in Iowa, allowing for fewer stops and time in the stations. Subsequently, the current Amtrak operation serves a national agenda, while the MPRS would serve a much-needed regional mission that is as good for Chicago as it is for the outlying areas. It is argued that an MPRS connection to Chicago could potentially lead to the Quad Cities becoming an outlying western suburb. In addition, five years ago the rail freight industry was not interested in working around two sets of passenger rail schedules. But with current proposed improvements, freight transport times would be greatly decreased as well, creating a climate of cooperation. Clarification as to where this project stands with the Illinois DOT will spell out how much Iowa legislators will push for the appropriations that will help get service to the Quad Cities, opening the door to greater Iowa.
How did we fare?
At least half of the legislators made it a point to praise the QC contingent's unified prioritization of issues on a regional level, and how much more prepared this process made them in representing our interests. Senator Durbin stated, "This is the best turnout in the state of Illinois, and it does not go unnoticed." Senator Grassley stated, "I really appreciate that your delegation has provided the priorities of our local communities."
Purportedly, other communities like Des Moines and Peoria make annual visits to their legislators, but in a decidedly more informal manner, consisting of golf outings and group breakfasts where up to $25,000 in checks will be left on the table. (While there was socializing with the QC group, it was informal and mostly at night after scheduled meetings.)
The social capital amongst community leaders is critical in solving problems back home on a more local level. In fact, despite the competitive nature of the Quad Cities region, we might be one of the country's most effective models of bi-state cooperation for regional issues. It was a working trip, rather than a junket or pork barrel of golf games with legislators and lobbyists. Each attendee paid his/her own airfare, hotel, transit or cab fees, food, and drink. The QCDG covered one orientation lunch, a breakfast with Arsenal staffers from the military, and a breakfast meeting with the legislator staffers.
The professionalism was evident in the well-organized documentation of briefing papers, support material and protocols for presentations. QC presenters adapted to new information as the trip progressed, weaving it into their own presentations as the meetings continued. There was consensus amongst the contingency that, for future trips, more private sector representation would have greater impact, especially from larger employers such as Deere, Alcoa, Modern Woodmen, Royal Neighbors, and Bituminous. While these companies have paid lobbyists year round, those efforts are on industry specific issues, rather than projects that affect the Quad Cities region as a whole. Representation from the major corporations makes sense, but organizers might want to consider advocating that leaders from individual local industries attend, such as healthcare, including chiropractic and nursing; engineering; light manufacturing; technology with an emphasis on ag-tech and bio-tech; distribution; and development. This trip confirmed there is strength in numbers. At a minimum, the meetings provide a rare opportunity to access our federal legislators in their workplace, where, many would argue, exists the greatest representative government system in the world.
U.S. Representative James Leach (Republican, Davenport, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Davenport: (563)326-1841
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-6576
U.S. Representative Greg Ganske (Republican, Des Moines, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-4426
U.S. Representative James Nussle (Republican, Manchester, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-2911
U.S. Representative Lane Evans (Democrat, Rock Island, Illinois)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Moline: (309)793-5760
Washington, D.C.: (202)225-5905
U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Davenport: (563)322-1338
Washington, D.C.: (202)224-3254
U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (Republican, Iowa)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Davenport: (563)322-4331
Washington, D.C.: (202)224-3744
U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat, Illinois)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202)224-2152
U.S. Senator Peter Fitgerald (Republican, Illinois)
Project Vote Smart voting record
Washington, D.C.: (202) 224-2854
