The Erie County Metropolitan Planning Organization on Thursday authorized staff to seek outside funding for an economic impact study of passenger rail after a consultant presentation and committee discussion. The coordinating committee voted in favor of allowing MPO staff to pursue grant opportunities and sponsorship for a study that would analyze economic effects of potential passenger-rail service serving Erie.

The vote followed a 40-minute presentation by a consultant who outlined passenger-rail service types, possible networks that could include Erie, and the kinds of economic effects rail investment has produced in other corridors. The committee agreed the MPO could play a sponsor or applicant role to secure funding for an initial economic-impact analysis, estimated in discussion to start around $100,000.

Peter, a transportation planner with WSP, told the committee that different kinds of passenger rail produce different outcomes and that an economic-impact study requires a clear assumption about what level of service is being analyzed. “The most important thing is we need to make assumptions about what the service is we’re talking about,” Peter said during the presentation. He described distinctions among Amtrak long-distance lines, state-supported services and higher-performance corridors and said Erie’s current Lakeshore Limited long-distance stop generates limited local ridership because schedules are oriented to endpoints rather than intermediate markets.

Emily, an MPO staff member, described the MPO’s possible role in sponsoring a study and asked whether the committee would support her office searching for funding. After discussion about study scope, sequencing and local interest, a member moved and a second was recorded; the chair called for a voice vote and the motion carried. Committee minutes show the body authorized Emily to “seek funding” and act as sponsor or applicant to pursue a formal economic-impact study.

Committee members asked whether such an economic-impact study would include market or feasibility work. Peter responded that economic-impact studies do not substitute for feasibility or ridership analyses: they quantify economic outcomes given a defined service scenario, then can be used to justify or scope a later feasibility study. “What an economic impact does not do is it does not establish the feasibility, the costs, the ridership of a new service in a corridor,” Peter said.

Several members raised questions about likely partners, available funding sources and the level of local match that might be required. Emily said the MPO would not commit local funds at this time but would look for external grants and that the coordinating committee would need to approve any formal funding application. The group also discussed coordination with nearby planning efforts in Cleveland, Buffalo and other regional studies funded through the Federal Railroad Administration and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA).

Next steps recorded by the committee: MPO staff were authorized to pursue potential funding sources, clarify a study scope with local stakeholders, and return with a recommended funding application and scope for committee approval. The motion passed by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the meeting record.

The presentation and the committee’s authorization do not guarantee a study will be produced; the MPO still must identify and secure funding and approve a final scope and contract before work begins. Peter and MPO staff offered to make the consultant slide deck available to committee members and said they would assist with next-step outreach to potential funders and partners.