$157M in federal funding committed for Springfield railroad project
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) — The final segment of the Springfield Rail Improvements projects can move forward, after lawmakers announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has officially budgeted over $157 million in federal funding for the project.
This comes after the Trump Administration directed federal agencies to pause 'all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,' earlier this year.
IL lawmakers announce $157M in funding toward Springfield rail project
The $157,126,494 project is part of a local, state and federal partnership designed to reduce rail congestion in downtown Springfield. Once the project is finished, it'll consolidate train traffic from Third Street the 10th Street and construct a series of overpasses and underpasses along the corridor.
Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski (IL-13) said this project will connect communities and build a more reliable transportation system for the future.
'Securing funding for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project has been a top priority of mine, and with the funding now finalized, we're one step closer to transforming our downtown, reducing rail noise, and making our streets safer. This project is also creating good-paying union jobs, benefiting families across our community,' Budzinski said in a news release.
Springfield street set to close for water main relocation, railroad project
This phase of the project includes includes rail improvements, track realignment, and the construction of a new Amtrak Station in Springfield. It will consolidate the Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern corridors into one multitrack corridor through the city, which will — hopefully — lead to a high speed passenger rail connecting St. Louis and Chicago in the future.
'Connecting communities is at the heart of transportation and today's final federal commitment for a new Amtrak Station, rail improvements, and track realignment in Springfield will better connect passengers between St. Louis and Chicago,' Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said in a news release. 'The Springfield Rail Improvements Project is dramatically changing downtown Springfield by reducing rail congestion, creating jobs, and improving safety for passengers, drivers, and pedestrians.'
High-speed rail survey could help bring trains through Central Illinois
Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) added that investing in rail infrastructure will help grow Illinois' economy. And, after pushing for this project alongside Durbin and Budzinski, Duckworth is 'grateful' to see this project move towards completion.
'This federal investment will go a long way in helping us build a new multimodal transportation center, improve efficiency for passengers traveling between St. Louis and Chicago and support good-paying jobs while making Springfield safer for pedestrians and drivers,' Duckworth said in a news release.
The project includes the construction of a Multimodal Transportation Center. It will improve public transportation connectivity among intercity passenger rail, local bus service, and intercity bus service.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
List of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from DHS website after law enforcement outcry, questions about accuracy
The Department of Homeland Security removed a list of hundreds of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that it published on its website Thursday following questions about its accuracy and pointed criticism from a major group representing law enforcement. DHS had described it as 'comprehensive list of sanctuary jurisdictions including cities, counties, and states that are deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens,' according to an archived version of the since-deleted webpage. The agency added that each jurisdiction 'will receive formal notification of its non-compliance and all potential violations of federal criminal statutes.' President Donald Trump has vowed to punish jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal authorities' immigration enforcement as part of his administration's efforts to increase deportations. There's no specific or legal definition of what constitutes a 'sanctuary jurisdiction.' The term is often used to refer to law enforcement agencies, states or communities that don't cooperate with immigration enforcement. Asked by CNN why the list was removed, a senior DHS official said in a statement Monday that the list 'is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly.' The statement did not respond to specific questions about how the list was created or who identified jurisdictions that would be included. 'Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,' the statement said. But several jurisdictions on the DHS list said it does not accurately describe their policies. The city of Las Vegas said in a statement on X that it has never been a sanctuary city and is 'not sure why DHS has classified Las Vegas in the manner it has.' Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said while his city is 'welcoming,' it is not a sanctuary city. Several city officials in San Diego County said they were confused about being on the list — including one mayor who told local media that officers are allowed to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in certain cases. The president of the National Sheriffs' Association, which represents more than 3,000 sheriffs nationwide, also criticized the list in a statement Saturday. The group's president, Kieran Donahue, demanded an apology and that the list be removed, said the list was published 'in a manner that lacks transparency and accountability,' and accused DHS of doing 'a terrible disservice to President Trump and the Sheriffs of this country.' Donahue said that in a meeting between his association and members of DHS, 'no political appointee for the administration could explain who compiled, proofed, and verified the list before publication.' 'This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome,' said Donahue, the sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho. Trump signed an executive order in April directing the DHS secretary and the attorney general to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions considered to be obstructing federal immigration laws. The order directs federal agencies to identify funding that could be withheld from such jurisdictions. Donahue, the sheriffs' association president whose statement criticized the now-removed list, was in the Oval Office when Trump signed that executive order.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Donors' vs ‘takers': SALT battle stirs debate between blue and red states
President Trump's domestic agenda bill is spurring a debate over whether blue states are subsidizing red states. After a successful pressure campaign from blue-state Republicans, the House version of Trump's bill was amended to boost the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap to $40,000. The agreement was a major win for a handful of House Republicans from wealthier districts in blue states. The GOP lawmakers backing the larger cap argued their constituents tend to pay higher state and local taxes in large part due to high property values. Before Trump's 2017 tax bill, the constituents could write off their state and local taxes. That bill imposed a $10,000 ceiling, which the blue-state GOP lawmakers said unduly punished their area's homeowners, who suddenly had a massively larger tax bill. The SALT cap is controversial because it's a tax break that benefits wealthier Americans in more affluent coastal states. But those arguing that the higher ceiling is justified say their constituents already send in more to the federal government in taxes than they get out in public services. As a result, they argue their states are already effectively subsidizing state with lower property values that tend to get more in federal benefits than their constituents pay in taxes. This has spurred a larger debate over who is subsidizing who when it cones to red and blue states. Democrats and blue-state Republicans defend the SALT deduction and advocate for a higher cap because their states often pay more in taxes than they get back in services. They distinguish between 'donor states' and 'taker states' and argue that, as donors, they should be able to fully exempt their regional taxes from their federal tax bill. 'Most of these states … are high tax states that give more to the federal government than they get back in federal services. Most of the red states are taker states, states that get more from the federal government than they actually pay in taxes,' Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said during a markup of the tax portion of the GOP bill earlier this month. 'It's really not fair that we are being stuck with this cap on our state and local tax deduction because people are getting taxed on taxes that they've already paid,' he said. The argument is a common one among Democrats. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) made the point during an interview with television pundit Sean Hannity in 2023. 'We're subsidizing your states, Sean, because of your policies,' he said. Republicans in red states see things dramatically differently. They argue many residents of blue states are simply living in high-tax areas and shouldn't get a federal tax reduction for doing so. If they want lower taxes, vote to lower the local taxes or move. State tax experts say blue states are generally sending in more to the federal government than they are getting out in benefits because they have larger local economies and more higher-income taxpayers. The 'donor state' and 'taker state' distinction has been around for decades, though funding used to flow more from northern states to Southern states rather than from coastal states to interior states. Recent studies show a bit of a complicated picture, though in many cases it is blue states that are paying in more to the federal government than they are taking out. For example, Washington, Massachusetts and New Jersey all ran a deficit with the federal government in 2023, according to a 2025 New York comptroller study, meaning these states sent in more in taxes than they received in benefits. Other states with a substandard balance of payments include California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Utah and Illinois. Most of those states have repeatedly voted for Democratic candidates in recent presidential elections and have Democratic senators representing them in Congress. Utah is a notable exception. However, when it comes to states simply taking large amounts of benefits from the federal government, the report from the New York comptroller paints a more complicated picture. The top 10 taker states in 2023, the report found, included New Mexico, Virginia, Hawaii, Maryland and Maine, which repeatedly have backed Democrats in the presidential election. The list also included Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky and Alabama, five red states. New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia all receive more than $12,000 more per person from the federal government than they pay in taxes, according to the comptroller study. A separate report from the State University of New York found the states in 2022 with the most favorable balance of payments per capita were Virginia ($14,888), Kentucky ($14,507), Alaska ($14,031), New Mexico ($13,009), and Maryland ($11,617). Texas and Florida, the two GOP-leaning states with the largest economies, received moderately more per person from the federal government than they provided in taxes. There's no single government program or tax that's responsible for the net transfers from blue states to red states, but experts point to health care matching contributions, also known as FMAP, as a major driver. 'If you look at FMAP, the share usually for red states is much higher, meaning there is more federal support,' Dadayan told The Hill. 'Medicaid is the largest share of all the federal aid going to the states. That's one [way] that red states get substantially more funding from the federal government than the blue states get.' The GOP bill makes large cuts to public health care programs to partly offset some of its tax cuts, with millions of people set to lose access to public health care as a result of the legislation. There is no regional breakdown of where those people live from the Congressional Budget Office, but the distribution of FMAP allocations suggests they may be located in Republican-led states. While the bill still has to make it through the Senate, the higher $40,000 SALT cap would lower taxes on more affluent taxpayers by allowing them to deduct more local taxes from their federal returns. This could take a bite out of the net federal subsidies from Democratic to Republican states by amping a tax cut that is of particular advantage to Democratic states. It will also contribute substantially to the federal deficit. One estimate from the Tax Policy Center found that a $40,000 SALT cap without an income threshold would cost more than $600 billion through 2034. Getting rid of the SALT cap altogether would cost more than $1.2 trillion through the next nine years, the group found. All the maneuvering the House has done on SALT and the last-minute agreement Republicans struck to raise the cap to $40,000 could be for nothing. Republicans in the Senate don't have a SALT caucus that is threatening to break from the rest of their party in the same way that the House does. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill that the SALT cap wasn't really an issue for the Senate, even though he recognized that the House had to make a deal. Investors say they expect changes on the bill could come from Senate moderates. 'We will be watching Senate moderates and moves in the bond market, as these will likely drive last-minute adjustments. The true deadlines remain the August recess,' Larry Adam, chief investment officer of investment bank Raymond James, wrote in a note to investors.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Roy Wood Jr. knocks White House, CNN at Peabody Awards
Comedian Roy Wood Jr. on Sunday went after the White House and CNN at the Peabody Awards, according to a report from The Hollywood Reporter. 'Last year's host was Kumail Nanjiani, so that is back-to-back years with a minority host. The Peabodys standing up for diversity, how about that?' Wood said during the event, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 'Which means in a few months, the White House will cut their funding and so they'll have John Mulaney, that's on y'all,' he added, according to the outlet, appearing to reference the Trump administration's recent attempts to target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Back in January, President Trump issued an expansive executive order stating that 'illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity.' The president added that the policies 'deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.' According to its website, the Peabody Awards does not have any 'set criteria for judging the winners,' but 'recognize stories that illuminate social issues with depth and complexity as much as stories that entertain and inspire through their art or voice' in fields including streaming, television, digital media and radio. Wood also seemingly referenced the recently released book 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,' by his CNN colleague Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 'It's hard to create stuff about terrible things without knowing all of the terrible things. It's hard — that's why I quit 'The Daily Show,' it was too much stress.' Wood, the host of CNN's 'Have I Got News For You,' said, per the report. 'I work at CNN now, I ain't got to do nothing but plug Jake Tapper's book.' The Hill has reached out to the White House and CNN for comment.
