South Dakota

Transportation Secretary throws cold water on South Dakota Amtrak expansion

Published

2 years ago

April 20, 2024

Transportation Secretary throws cold water on South Dakota Amtrak expansion

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – While momentum for Amtrak expansion to South Dakota has been growing for months, the state’s Transportation Secretary is doubtful it will ever become reality.

No state official had commented on the Federal Railroad Administration’s Long Distance Service Study until Wednesday when Jundt addressed the topic during a State Railroad Board meeting, the first since the FRA released its third round of meeting materials.

“I’m just being as honest as possible here. I do not see any routes in South Dakota rising to the top from a high-priority standpoint. As you know, just the cost of physically doing rail in our state is very expensive,” Jundt said during Wednesday’s meeting.

MORE: Advocates: Proposed Amtrak service a big first step for South Dakota

Jundt was part of a 2021 study that concluded that South Dakota would not be a viable candidate for passenger rail expansion.

Jundt cited several reasons why the two routes going through South Dakota would be pushed back by the FRA in their final report to Congress.

The first is that much of the state’s current rail infrastructure would need to be upgraded to meet the FRA’s requested top speed of 80 miles per hour for passenger service. A recent project with the Rapid City, Pierre & Eastern Railroad upgraded 163 miles of rail from Fort Pierre to Rapid City at the cost of $82 million – $42 million coming from RCP&E, $22 million from a U.S. Department of Transportation’s RAISE grant, and an additional $20 million from the State of South Dakota.

“Rapid City, Pierre & Eastern’s line to go from 10 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour was quite significant,” Jundt said. “Just due to the fact of our expansive shales that we have in the state, and so I would anticipate that when they get to the point of physically putting a dollar value to this, it’s going to be definitely over a billion dollars, and more than that.”

Another reason why Jundt doubts passenger rail could ever be feasible in South Dakota is because of the state’s low population compared to other proposed routes in the study. He said when the FRA is looking at potential ridership in its ongoing fourth round of studies and stakeholder meetings, it will be hard to justify the cost compared to the number of travelers from South Dakota.

“Our anticipation is that the concept that they have out there, as they physically go through some of this, I would see a rate of return if that’s what they’re looking at and what ridership would be and everything else might be truly envisioned on this, is not going to rank as high as the other routes that they’ve identified,” Jundt said.

MORE: Considering economic pros and cons of potential passenger rail expansion

Those arguments, though, are at odds with Dan Bilka, President of the advocacy group All Aboard Northwest and one of the main driving forces behind bringing back passenger rail service to South Dakota for the first time since 1969.

Bilka said Friday that the funds for the projects are already planned and that if the State of South Dakota, as well as counties, cities and organizations, don’t voice their support, those funds would be lost. He said if Amtrak were going to come to the state, they expect the federal government to take a lion’s share of the cost.

“We’ll see what the final recommendation is from the Long Distance project team about what to pay for. Our personal take is that it should not be put onto the states or communities. Maybe they can ask for a local match, but it should not be burdensome, especially since we have not had passenger rail service here in South Dakota since before Amtrak service,” Bilka said.

Jundt also noted that if Amtrak were to come to South Dakota, the state would lose its Special Transportation Circumstance grants, or STC grants, that it receives from the federal government each year. South Dakota has been receiving those funds for some time, and those grants totaled about $27 million each in 2022 and 2023.

However, those grants would go away if the state received any sort of passenger rail service, whether it came from Amtrak or not. In its 2015 State Rail Plan, Minnesota lists a possible passenger rail line from Minneapolis to Sioux Falls as a future project. Should that ever become a reality, South Dakota would lose access to STC grants.

Bilka said it’s not a matter of if but when passenger rail service will eventually come to the state. He said South Dakota is actually missing out now by not being a part of the numerous rounds of grants released recently by the federal government, which could also be used to help pay for freight railroad upgrades.

“I can understand the concerns about the STC grants, but they’re missing part of the larger picture. We actually might be losing more money that way than the meager, token amount we’re getting through the STC grant program,” Bilka said.

He also argued that the scope of the survey isn’t just to see how many more riders Amtrak can garner by expanding. One of the focus areas outlined in the survey is to reach more people in the United States living in rural or disconnected areas and allow them to consider taking rail as a mode of transportation rather than just by car.

Bilka said internationally, passenger rail doesn’t make a full return on investment, but neither do highways or airports, all of which drive economic activity.

“There’s very few passenger rail systems that ‘make a profit’ from farebox recovery. That’s true for Europe, that’s true for Asia,” Bilka said. “But it’s the economic vitality that it brings to the communities, similar to our highway network and our aviation network that neither of them don’t ‘pay for themselves.’”

Bilka said if there isn’t enough support for South Dakota to be added to Amtrak’s network, those funds would only go back to states that already have extensive networks. He said actions like the resolution passed by the Rapid City Council helps show that support, and he argued that money spent in South Dakota will go much farther towards meaningful growth than going back to more populated areas.

“I would, personally, would rather have some of that money come out our way than have it all get gobbled up by California and the Northeast Corridor. Let’s say if it is a billion or maybe two billion dollars to upgrade the line for the route across the state from the Twin Cities to Denver. That should not be a sticker amount we should be so adverse to at that point,” Bilka said. “Especially with what the [SDDOT] bringing up about the STC grants, I don’t think in the history of the STC grant program we’ve ever received anything close to that.”

MORE: Thune weighs in on Amtrak expansion to South Dakota

The final round of meetings the FRA plans for its study is due to take place near the end of next month, with a final report expected to come sometime in the middle of June. Along with that will come preferred routes, funding sources, and a cost and public benefit analysis.

Source link

Click to comment

South Dakota

Feeding South Dakota

Published

12 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

South Dakota

SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for Feb. 26, 2026

Published

1 day ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at Feb. 26, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from Feb. 26 drawing

03-14-22-50-57, Bonus: 04

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

South Dakota

SNAP soda ban headed to desk of South Dakota governor, who’s concerned about costs

Published

2 days ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

SNAP soda ban headed to desk of South Dakota governor, who’s concerned about costs

State Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank, speaks in the South Dakota Senate at the Capitol in Pierre on Feb. 10, 2026. Davis is sponsoring a bill that would ban the use of SNAP benefits for soda purchases. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

By: John Hult

PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – The question of whether South Dakota moves to ban the use of government food assistance for sugary drinks is in the hands of Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, who has signaled his opposition to the bill all through the 2026 legislative session.

The state Senate voted 27-6 on Wednesday to endorse House Bill 1056, after the House passed it earlier 58-11. Assuming the same levels of support, both margins are wide enough to overcome a Rhoden veto, should he choose to issue one.

The bill directs the Department of Social Services to ask for a federal waiver to allow the state to bar the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for the purchase of soft drinks.

SNAP is a federal program, managed by the state, through which people with low incomes get a monthly allowance for food through a debit-like card that can be used at most stores to buy nearly any consumable grocery item save alcohol and prepared foods.

Representatives from Rhoden’s office testified against the bill in House and Senate committees, arguing that the administrative costs would be too high. A fiscal note attached to the bill between its passage in the House and its appearance on the Senate’s Wednesday calendar estimated that implementation would cost $310,000 through the first two years. Those costs would come from hiring an extra employee and contracting for software to track sales, file reports and help retailers determine which drinks are banned.

Backers see long-term savings to the state, though. A high percentage of SNAP recipients are also on Medicaid, a taxpayer-funded health insurance program open to disabled and income-eligible people.

On Wednesday, Burbank Republican Sen. Sydney Davis noted the connection between excess soda consumption and health problems like obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Medicaid dental costs alone add up $51 million a year, she said.

Mitchell Republican Sen. Paul Miskimins, a retired dentist, told the body he once counted 32 cavities and seven abscesses in the mouths of 2-year-old twin boys who were covered by Medicaid.

He attributed the tooth decay to sugary beverages.

“I don’t know if that first visit was more traumatic on the boys or on my dental staff and myself,” said Miskimins.

Tamara Grove, R-Lower Brule, was the lone senator to speak in opposition on the Senate floor. She argued that some stores might stop accepting SNAP payments due to the administrative burden of sorting barred products from the rest of their inventories, and pointed out that the bill wouldn’t do a thing to prevent SNAP recipients from loading up on sugary foods like ice cream or snack cakes.

“It gives this look as if there’s going to be this big, huge change in the way that people buy products, but it’s really not going to be,” Grove said.

Some surrounding states, including Nebraska, have moved to ask for a waiver to ban soda sales through SNAP. Such waivers are now an option, as President Donald Trump’s administration is willing to consider granting them. Former President Joe Biden’s administration was not.

Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, the South Dakota bill’s prime sponsor, got a letter last week from Trump administration officials expressing support for her proposal.

In response, Rhoden spokeswoman Josie Harms told South Dakota Searchlight that the governor “has always been supportive of the Trump Administration’s efforts to Make America Healthy Again,” using a reference to the policy agenda branding used by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We have met directly with his Administration on this issue, and at no point has our opposition been directed at President Trump or his efforts to reform SNAP,” Harms said. “Our focus has always been on ensuring the implementation of SNAP reform works effectively for our state.”

Harms said Wednesday that Rhoden would answer questions about the bill at a Thursday press conference.

Source link