Developments this week look promising for the controversial high-speed rail passenger line proposed between Rochester and the Twin Cities.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration and Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority announced Monday that the agencies intend to prepare a two-step environmental impact statement for the high-speed rail project, known as Zip Rail.

Then Tuesday, Zip Rail opponent Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, said he reached an agreement with project backers to ease up on proposed legislation to block the state from spending tax dollars on the line.

The agreement would allow the project to move forward only if construction and operating costs can be funded privately, according to a House GOP news release.

“I want to thank Zip Rail advocates for their willingness to compromise and am confident that the agreement reached will protect taxpayers from the financial costs of the Zip Rail proposal,” Garofalo said in a statement. He will introduce the new language in the Legislature next week.

The first phase of the environmental study will evaluate eight potential routes and a no-build option, MnDOT says. It will include analysis of social, economic and environmental impacts.

Monday’s announcement comes after the release of a document in January that identifies routes along U.S. 52 and Minnesota 56 for further study.

The environmental study is meant to ensure the project complies with the National Environmental Policy Act, and is required to receive federal funding. A draft will be released for public comment and hearings later this year.

The nonstop line would connect the Twin Cities to various high-tech and medical destinations in Rochester. Trains could travel the 100-mile corridor in around 50 minutes at speeds up to 220 mph, according to the project website.

The plan was met resistance in area between the two end points, such as in Goodhue County, where opponents say Zip Rail will divide roads and farmland while providing no benefit to residents. Opponents also have criticized the lack of details released for the project’s cost and funding sources.

A cost/benefit analysis, ridership, revenue and cost estimates won’t be published until after a recommendation for a preferred build or no-build alternative is made, according to the project timeline.