Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Passenger Rail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects $1.5 million state match for Big Sky Passenger Rail planning
Summary
An amendment to provide $1.5 million in general fund matching money for the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority failed on a voice and roll-call vote after lawmakers questioned feasibility and local economic benefit.
Get email alerts on the Passenger Rail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Montana House Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment to provide $1.5 million in general fund matching money to the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority for planning and to unlock $13.5 million in federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Act funds earmarked for the project.
Representative Betsy Powers offered the amendment during executive action on House Bill 2 as an OTO general-fund match that she said would fund phase-two planning — route studies, connection points and stop development — for a proposed passenger rail line across southern Montana. Powers told the committee the authority already had a board and county participation and that the federal funds were contingent on a state match.
Opponents questioned whether passenger rail would deliver meaningful local economic benefits and whether state general fund dollars should be used to support construction or planning of a rail service on tracks owned and operated by private railroads. Representative Schellinger said passenger rail in the U.S. has historically been a “constant loser” financially and that Montana should be cautious. Several members called the proposal impractical and questioned prior county-level activity and the authority’s prior funding sources.
Representative Powers argued that communities along the southern route could gain tourism benefits if a stop allowed visitors to disembark, stay overnight and visit local businesses. She cited a brochure showing counties that had joined the rail authority and noted the federal funds were already earmarked but required a match.
On roll call, the amendment failed 10 yes, 13 no. Several committee members said the question of inspector funding for rail safety (addressed elsewhere) and other rail-related needs must be considered separately.
Ending: The committee completed Section C and moved on to Section D business.
