JOHNSON COUNTY – An effort led by Greater Iowa City, Inc. and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors is reportedly considering bringing passenger rail service to the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railroad (CRANDIC) corridor between North Liberty and Iowa City via a trial lease with a railroad startup called Pop-Up Metro. Agencies within the Iowa City area have long sought a commuter transit option for the CRANDIC corridor, which once provided frequent, electrified interurban passenger rail service from Cedar Rapids to Iowa City. The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) is soon expecting the results of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) study for the corridor, following a previous three-part passenger rail study completed in 2020, in addition to a rail-to-trails study from 2018.
[Visit Greater Iowa City, Inc.’s CRANDIC page for a map of the proposed commuter rail route.]
According to a presentation from a July 15th Joint Entities Meeting, the Pop-Up Metro program offered by Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) would provide battery-powered train sets, modular station platforms, and operation assistance for a three year period. RDC markets the startup as a real-world pilot program that municipalities can grow into a permanent transit system. An aggressive timeline is sought by Pop-Up Metro and Greater Iowa City, Inc. as a June work session for the county board described “months not years” as an advantage of implementing the service.
Public details are still scarce, leaving many questions. What is the background of Pop-Up Metro and RDC? What infrastructure improvements would be required? What will be the total public cost of beginning service? Who will operate the line and fund continuing costs? What about the upcoming Bus Rapid Transit study? Are there better alternatives?
Who are RDC and Pop-Up Metro?
Pop-Up Metro is a subsidiary company of Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) led by rail capitalist Henry Posner, III. RDC is primarily invested in freight railroads, including the local Iowa Interstate Railroad, with a mixed history on passenger rail ventures due to its involvement in the failed UK passenger train manufacturer VivaRail, which entered bankruptcy in 2022. Vivarail sought to develop fast charging battery-electric engines for use with refurbished rolling stock from the London Underground rapid transit system.
Posner founded Pop-Up Metro in 2020 as a proof of concept for “turnkey” battery-electric passenger rail service in the United States on lightly-used or defunct freight branch lines. The company markets itself as a low-risk trial option for smaller municipalities or transit agencies who may struggle to garner the capital funds required for initiating passenger rail services, through entering a lease of train-sets, modular platforms, charging equipment, and operating assistance.
Yet, a 1.8 mile demonstration line in Pennsylvania and a weekend deployment of solely the modular station platforms (no trains) at the December 2023 Army-Navy game appear to be the untested company’s few accomplishments. A Pop-Up Metro train has not delivered a single rider to work, school, errands, or play under an operational transit line.
At this point in time, RDCs venture is more of a station platform company than a passenger rail provider.
Concerns emerge investigating the history of VivaRail and the two train-sets Pop-Up Metro inherited from the UK manufacturer’s failure. The VivaRail train-sets are refurbished London Underground Class D 230 cars converted to electric motors powered by large batteries stored within the cars. VivaRail initially deployed the Class D 230 sets with diesel motors, which were plagued with reliability issues and even fire. The battery-electric versions began demonstration as bankruptcy loomed. The UK’s Great Western Railway (GWR) acquired VivaRail’s assets in early 2023 and just began trial operations of the battery-electric Class D 230 trains on a West London line earlier this spring. It appears GWR continued to invest in engineering and development of the train-sets after the acquisition, however, it remains unclear if RDC and Pop-Up Metro are doing the same with their two cars.
Any city entering into a lease with Pop-Up Metro would be prudent to examine the history of the company’s untested VivaRail Class D 230 battery-electric train-sets. Battery-electric trains are an emerging technology with few transit agencies conducting initial trials and freight usage developing only within the last year. The train-sets acquired by Pop-Up Metro are, at best, a technology in-progress developed for UK rail standards. Despite Posner’s marketing of the venture as a “low-risk” trial, the untested nature of train-sets, charging technology, and operation concept seems inherently risk-laden.
How will they operate on US railways suffering from decades of neglect from bottom-lining freight companies? The lithium iron phosphate batteries used in the train-sets achieve optimal performance within the temperature range of 32°F and 113°F. Temperatures below freezing and above 80°F are rare in the oceanic climate of the United Kingdom, but extremely common in the humid continental climate of Iowa. How will the VivaRail train-sets perform under extreme cold and humid heat? Pop-Up Metro only owns the two Class D 230 train-sets and, with Vivarail’s demise, RDC has a diminished ability to easily acquire replacements.
Johnson County’s leaders must do their due diligence on the performance ability of these trains and negotiate a contingency for their failure if they proceed with Pop-Up Metro. Reliability is paramount to a ridership in a commuter rail system. Users need to trust that they will arrive at their workplace in a consistent fashion to choose a train over their personal vehicle. Battery-powered motors that do not start in the Iowa winter and overheat in summer could sour the public appetite for any further significant investment in public transit. Especially considering the CRANDIC line will need to target adoption by commuters in Coralville and North Liberty, who overwhelmingly commute by car at 88% and 97% respectively.
What about infrastructure and capital costs?
Pop-Up Metro may supply station platforms, chargers, and train-sets, but uncertainties remain regarding the condition of the rail infrastructure of the CRANDIC right-of-way. The infrequent freight traffic of the corridor necessitates less stringent regulatory demands and operational requirements than a new commuter rail system seeking Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approval. While local stakeholders and Pop-Up Metro have yet to publicly announce the current proposal’s infrastructure and capital needs, the prior passenger rail study commissioned by the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) describes the corridor’s potential needs in detail:
“The Corridor’s existing track structure, which at present hosts only minimal local freight railroad operations, would require track and track structures components to be renewed or upgraded to support the implementation of commuter rail service. This is necessary to meet federal regulations for passenger rail services, to provide for adequate safety, reliability, and ride quality for the commuter rail mode, and to reduce regular and capital maintenance program costs ….” (p. 50).
The study calls for the following upgrades to the CRANDIC infastructure (p. 51-54):
- Replacement of the main track rails for the entire Iowa City-North Liberty segment,
- Two new bridges
- Several existing bridge repairs
- Four track sidings
- Site drainage upgrades
- Maintenance facilities
- New signals and communication lines
- Street crossing improvements
- Corridor safety fencing
The total estimated capital costs for commuter rail implementation is listed at $48.9 million using figures for the year 2019 (p. 57-58). Since Pop-Up Metro provides the rolling stock and station platforms, the remaining costs estimated in the study would hold at $36.1 million representing a significant capital investment to implement any passenger rail service regardless of rolling stock procurement.
Though the current proposed rail service has not publicly announced estimates of infrastructure work, it seems unlikely that cost could be drastically lower than the $36.1 million in the prior study due to significant construction pricing inflation since 2019 and that any Pop-Up Metro rail service would still require FRA regulatory approval to begin operations. During a June work session, county supervisor John Greene mentioned that the project would likely require “tens of millions” in capital projects and may qualify for up to 90% federal grant funding for certain infrastructure costs due to the battery-electric nature of the train-sets. However, these grants could likely be sought if using electric train-sets procured without Pop-Up Metro.
The marketed advantage of Pop-Up Metro reducing the upfront implementation costs for municipalities is subdued by the reality that many defunct or lightly-used legacy rail corridors are little rehabilitated from their original construction of the late 19th or early 20th-centuries. What advantage is Pop-Up Metro truly offering if the great majority of start-up costs are in the physical condition of the rail corridors? What advantage is offered if there remains the aforementioned concerns about the performance and reliability of Pop-Up Metro’s train-sets?
Who would operate the system?
The proposed system would operate within Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty wider than the jurisdiction of any existing transit agency within the area. The June work session of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors disclosed that the final decision makers on any passenger rail system would be the MPOJC and that Iowa City and Coralville Transit may provide staffing. However, it would be prudent for the MPOJC to finally pursue the creation of a consolidated metropolitan transit organization, with or without the introduction of commuter rail on the CRANDIC line.
A metrowide transit agency would allow the bus services of Iowa City, CAMBUS, and Coralville to share funding, staff, and infrastructure while reducing administrative costs and easing coordination. MPOJC already jointly handles federal and state funding appropriations of each agency and the majority of bus lines organize around Iowa City’s Downtown Interchange at the Pentacrest due to the recent Iowa City Area Transit Study. Because funding grants and administrative resources are filtered among three transit operators, redundancies sap resources that could be better deployed for delivering service to riders. For example, both Coralville and Iowa City are undergoing capital investment projects for transit centers and maintenance facilities.
As an aside, the creation of a metro transit agency would provide the opportunity for community leaders to brainstorm a cringey slogan or acronym. “JoCoGo” maybe? HawkTran? Not my job.
What about the BRT study?
After months of delay, the MPOJC’s Bus Rapid Transit study is finally complete and is set for a formal presentation at a meeting in early November. Initial details from the November 5th agenda of the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee show that a North Liberty to Iowa City BRT system along the CRANDIC corridor would be feasible and carries an estimated capital construction cost of $92 million. The cost figure does not include any lease or purchase of the right-of-way from the railroad company. Below are the main highlights:
- The freight rail right-of-way would be replaced with dedicated bus guideway lanes with an adjoining 10 foot multi-use path. It is unclear if the rails would be preserved for occasional freight use.
- The study’s preferred alternative recommends 15-minute frequency during weekdays, lengthening to 30-minutes during evenings and weekends. The 18-stop route would take 27 minutes to travel between the Iowa City and North Liberty termini.
- The system would utilize 40 foot battery-electric buses.
- Using year 2024 population figures, expected riderships begins at 3,655 daily boardings , increasing to 4,360 in 2045.
The initial information does not discuss any potential construction timelines or which agency would operate the service, or the aforementioned merging of area transit agencies.
While the study deems Bus Rapid Transit feasible for the CRANDIC freight corridor, it is likely a poor application of such a service. BRT systems are generally lauded for providing benefits of rail transit options (frequency, capacity, speed, transit-oriented development opportunities, and reliability), while requiring lower initial capital costs with more flexibility in implementation. A typical application of a BRT system involves converting under-utilized street or highway space to dedicated bus lanes along high demand corridors, allowing a city to provide rapid transit without the cost and turmoil of acquiring right-of-way for railways. For example, Albuquerque Rapid Transit operates on dedicated bus lanes along the centerline of the unwieldy US Route 66 for much of its service area, more akin to Iowa City deploying BRT along Highway 6.
Given the $92 million price tag and that the CRANDIC railroad presently exists as a dedicated rail right-of-way, the North Liberty-Iowa City BRT proposal fails to grant the main advantages of BRT over a boring ol’ commuter rail system. The MPOJC passenger rail studies yielded an estimated start-up cost of $49 million in 2019 dollars for implementing a commuter rail line. Inflation calculators suggest an updated price tag of $60 million for 2024. Inflation in construction and transportation sectors rose faster than the general index, so one may expect a range of $60 million to $80 million. Regardless, the figure is likely at worst, on par with the BRT’s $92 million. Commuter rail is higher capacity and a better long-term investment than BRT, in addition to allowing for expansion towards Cedar Rapids for a regional system.
No Pop-Up Metro? No BRT? What are the alternatives?
Traditional Electric Rail
The first alternative is to simply do the proper thing and return the line to its original early 20th-century form: a commuter rail powered by an overhead wire. This century old technology that uses wires strung from sticks generates fewer emissions and is more economical than supposed “groundbreaking” transportation innovations in lithium batteries and modern electric vehicles. Grant funds and infrastructure projects are wasted attempting to reinvent the wheel when reliable electric trains have existed longer than antibiotics and polio vaccines. Cities abandoned them for gasoline cars and diesel buses so long ago we forget they existed.
To beat a dead horse, the CRANDIC corridor is already an intact rail right-of-way. There is no need to spend millions in additional capital funds to pave it over for bus usage. Just as there is no need to enter a risky lease of unproven battery-electric trains that may not perform in Iowa’s drastic climate. Transit service from North Liberty to Iowa City can be achieved reliably and with low emissions by implementing the technology it once hosted. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, the Bay Area’s Caltrain, and many other municipalities use overhead wires to power their electric commuter trains. It is a known and proven quantity. Meanwhile, comparatively few US transit agencies are choosing to experiment with battery-electric options.
Beyond the questions of operational reliability, it is unclear if battery-electric options have the cost advantages that Pop-Up Metro claims. Boston’s MBTA recently entered a $54 million agreement to purchase battery-electric train-sets for its 9.2 mile Fairmount Line ($5.87 million per mile), while overhead electrification ranges from $2 million to $4.5 million per mile, depending on local factors. Overhead electrification of the CRANDIC corridor is a glaring omission in the MPOJC’s rail feasibility studies that leaves our municipal leaders ignorant of a potentially better-suited alternative to BRT and Pop-Up Metro.
Invest in the Buses
If BRT or Pop-Up Metro remain the only systems in consideration, perhaps local governments would find prudence in investing the millions of funds into merging the local bus agencies into a unified organization with an expanded network. While the bus services provided in Johnson County are respectable for an American urban area of its size, area coverage is limited and poor service frequencies prohibit greater usage of the existing network. North Liberty is solely served by a single line operated by Coralville Transit that runs once outbound and once inbound per day. Such a level of service is absolutely unacceptable for a rapidly growing community and it is likely a major reason why 97% of North Liberty residents commute by personal car.
Within the urban core of Iowa City itself, few bus lines achieve frequencies better than 30-minute service. An overwhelming majority of community participants in the recent Iowa City Area Transit Study listed more frequent service as a primary desire. As repeatedly discussed on The Prairie Urbanist, increased frequency of a transit line has amplifying effects across the entire network. Higher service frequencies allow people to use transit with spontaneity and allow for more connections by wasting less time waiting for transfers. Iowa City’s wildly successful fare free program increased bus ridership by 43% in 2024, yet permanent funding sources for the program are still unknown.
Coralville, Iowa City, and the University of Iowa Cambus are currently expanding maintenance facilities and purchasing more buses; however, limited operations funding, staffing, and lack of a unified agency continue to hamper the networks from operating farther and more often. The tens of millions in capital funds and $2 million to $4 million in annual operations funds discussed in the MPOJC CRANDIC studies would vastly transform the area’s bus network, while also expanding fare free buses to all of Johnson County. I believe such investments in the bus network would impact a significantly greater reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled and benefit a larger portion of Johnson County residents than any CRANDIC project, BRT or rail.
Alas, do not fear.
Any project for the CRANDIC corridor remains early in the decision making process and much information is still awaited. The MPOJC will soon release the full Bus Rapid Transit study and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will likely provide more information on Pop-Up Metro in the near future. Public engagement will follow thereafter. Years may pass. Despite the shortcomings of municipal transit governance, we rarely must accuse any public bureaucracy of being hasty.