The governator is seeking to block the HSR ballot issue, as well as state funding pledged for existing intercity rail services as part of Proposition 1B. See:

 

http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0107/0107_4.pdf

In the website I listed below you can find more information about the California High Speed Rail Authority, including route information. 

 

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

 

The Governator's opposition to the rail initiative, I believe, will lose out to the people's desire for a better transportation alternative.

3-1-2007 

Downeaster News

Local Amtrak gaining steam

 

 

WASHINGTON -- In its fifth year of service, the Amtrak Downeaster Service is attracting a growing ridership for the daily trains between Portland, Maine, and Boston.

 

In figures for the four months ending Jan. 30, nearly 110,000 passengers used the service, an increase of more than 4 percent from the same period a year earlier. Ticket revenue is up by 3 percent and is at about $1.4 million for the four months that begin the current Amtrak fiscal year.

 

This page has been printed from the following URL:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02282007/business-b-downeaster.up.html

 

 

^My problem is that I've lost all patience.  I'm tired of reading about news of new rail routes and systems everywhere but Ohio...  I know I need to be more patient, it's just getting more and more difficult. 

We can't use gas tax for anything but infrastructure that supports cars since gas is used in cars and the idea is that money should be distributed back where it came. We need to change that in the Ohio revised code. It's not impossible to do; unfortunately many of our Ohio legislators represent the "dark side".

Gildone..... step away from the computer.... have a nice cup of decaf...... keep repeating "trains will run in Ohio someday....trains will run in Ohio someday....."

 

 

We can't use gas tax for anything but infrastructure that supports cars since gas is used in cars and the idea is that money should be distributed back where it came. We need to change that in the Ohio revised code. It's not impossible to do; unfortunately many of our Ohio legislators represent the "dark side".

 

It's the Ohio Constitution that needs revising, not the ORC. And there are some gas tax and vehicle registration fee funds not generated by highway users or not essential for the legal operation of vehicles. Those funds might legally be used for non-highway transportation in Ohio.

Yea... instead lets pony up money to 20 lane highways and bridges to nowhere.

Sounds swell. -_-

 

No worries.  We won't even have that option in 5 or 6 years, once the Highway Trust Fund goes broke.

 

LMAO!

 

You, I like. :)

^My problem is that I've lost all patience.  I'm tired of reading about news of new rail routes and systems everywhere but Ohio...   I know I need to be more patient, it's just getting more and more difficult. 

 

I'm right there with you.

It doesnt help matters when I hear or read about people or politicians trying to dissolve any light-rail or public transit projects and proposals.  Yet, these same people have the one track chant of "MORE ROADS, MORE CARS; MORE ROADS, MORE CARS".  I still cant see how these people miss the fact that their current system and train of thought is ludicrous, the damn thing doesnt even work. /sigh... =/

 

Maybe I'll do what noozer says and step back a bit.  I'm getting a bit irritated over the current state of things.

 

/breaktime.

Use your irritation as motivation for positive action. Write letters/e-mails. Hold a meeting to form a transit riders union/association. Keep researching the issue. Form a vision plan. And, by all means, read what the other side has to say so you can go on the offensive and avoid the defensive. Be positive and confident. Change is already happening and, one way or another, change will continue to accelerate. The only question is will it be a gradual, productive transition or one borne from desperation? Help the masses avoid the desperation as best you can, but if the desperate times can't be avoided, then be ready to serve as a resource for them when they start their wandering search for a new direction.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 5, 2007

 

                        Sandra Abrevaya 202-224-7115 [email protected]

 

 

AMTRAK PROVIDES STUDY TO RESTORE STATE-SUPPORTED RAIL SERVICE TO

ROCKFORD AND NORTHWESTERN ILLINOIS

 

Host railroad negotiations and funding needed to advance the plan

 

CHICAGO – Amtrak has completed a report requested by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) that evaluates possible Northwestern Illinois routes between Chicago and Dubuque, Iowa, via Rockford, Ill.  This “Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service” is also in response to a July 2006 town meeting held in Rockford and hosted by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) who was joined by Congressman Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.), Amtrak and IDOT representatives, labor officials and community leaders from Boone, Winnebago, Stephenson, Jo Daviess, DeKalb and Ogle Counties.

 

            In the report, the approximate cost of upgrading the railroad infrastructure to accommodate passenger train speeds is up to $62 million, dependant on the choice of routes.  Not included in this figure are any capital costs for railcars and locomotives, nor what are assumed to be the local costs of providing stations.

 

The annual operating cost for any of the three routes is estimated at less than $5 million, based upon a single daily round-trip frequency.  Chicago-Rockford travel times of about two hours and Chicago-Dubuque travel times of less than 4.5 hours are possible and would be competitive with automobile driving, dependant on the choice of routes, agreements with host railroads and required infrastructure improvements.  Excerpts from the report and a map are attached.

 

            Amtrak estimates two construction seasons would be needed to make the infrastructure improvements necessary to achieve these travel times.

           

            “We appreciate all the effort that Amtrak has put into gathering the data assembled in this report,” said IDOT Acting Secretary Milt Sees.  “This is a good first step, and gives us some of the information we need as we move forward and work with local communities, their elected leaders and Sen. Durbin to determine the best course of action."

           

            “In July we held a meeting that showed us that Northern Illinois communities are committed to bringing Amtrak back to the area,” said Sen. Durbin. “Today, we have a feasibility study that shows us that adding rail service along the Chicago to Galena/Dubuque corridor will give businesses and tourists a time competitive and convenient alternative to the Northwest Tollway rush hour.

           

            “Amtrak already provides quick, cost-effective, and reliable public ground transportation to 30 communities in the state – it's time to add communities in Northwest and North Central Illinois to that list," Durbin concluded.

           

            “With the completion of this report, we are now closer than ever before to restoring Amtrak service to Rockford and Northwest Illinois," Cong. Manzullo said. "Daily passenger train service to Chicago will give our residents another great transportation option and bolster economic activity throughout northern Illinois. I want to thank Amtrak for completing this study, and I look forward to working with Sen. Durbin, our state officials, and our local leaders to make this new train service a reality.”

           

            The last passenger train service through Rockford and Freeport to Galena and Dubuque was operated from February 14, 1974, through September 30, 1981, using the CN (former Illinois Central or Chicago Central) route.  At that time, IDOT contracted with Amtrak to operate the daily round-trip train known as the Black Hawk.

           

            “Many parts of the country lost rail passenger service in the 70s and 80s,” said Alexander Kummant, Amtrak President and CEO.  “With partners such as the State of Illinois – and with the support of Sen. Durbin, Cong. Manzullo and others – the Rockford area can again have the economic and environmental advantages of Amtrak service.

           

            “We look forward to taking the next step, which would involve negotiations with host railroads, development of detailed capital plans and funding requests,” Kummant added.

 

Last month, IDOT asked Amtrak to deliver another feasibility report, this one to study state-supported service to the Quad Cities (including Rock Island and Moline, Ill.,), which has never been served by Amtrak trains and which lost its passenger rail service in 1978, when the Rock Island Railroad discontinued operations.  The findings of the study are expected by year’s end.  The IDOT request is the result of a meeting Sen. Durbin held several weeks ago in Rock Island, where public support was heard for a return of passenger trains to the region.

 

 

The general population growth along the eastern portion of this corridor has been strong over the past decade, but passenger train service formerly provided by Amtrak ceased in 1981.  Highway traffic volumes on Interstate 90 (Northwest Tollway) between Chicago and Rockford are significant; with frequent backups the closer one gets to Chicago.  Rockford is a major residential and commercial center and the largest metropolitan area in Illinois without passenger rail service.  Between Rockford and the O’Hare Airport area, many new residential developments have been established.  Further west, Galena is a significant destination city for tourism, especially during the summer and fall.  At Dubuque, there is an aggressive plan underway to redevelop the downtown property along the Mississippi River.

 

Following receipt of the study request, a number of alternative rail routes were identified as candidates for this service.  Physical evaluations of the routes were conducted with host railroad personnel, including inspections, assessments of capital needs, and identification of operational challenges.  Revenue/ridership forecasts were determined based on recommended schedules, and estimates of cost to operate the service were developed.  The goal was to prepare a high-level and objective report of the findings, in response to IDOT’s request, for further discussion.

 

Three alternative routes were identified as potentially feasible for establishment of Amtrak service between Chicago and Rockford, with only one route being practical between Rockford and Dubuque.  These alternatives are shown on the map, above.  Each requires a different level of capital investment to make the service a practical reality.

 

Although there have been general discussions and field inspections with the host freight railroads, the specific infrastructure improvement proposals, draft schedules and other railroad-related comments have not been negotiated or agreed to with the host freight railroads and reflect only the findings and best judgment recommendations of the study team.  Should further progression of one of the alternative proposals be desired, detailed discussions and negotiations will have to be initiated with those rail carriers (emphasis added).

 

A larger version of the map in .jpg format is available from Amtrak Media Relations, Chicago.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-05012838.apds.m0299.bc-ct--massmar05,0,5638242.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

 

Governor: Mass transit ridership increases by 2.7 million

Associated Press

 

March 5 2007

 

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut's bus and rail services saw ridership increase by 2.7 million in 2006, proving that the state's mass transit efforts are paying off, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Sunday.

 

The largest increase was in the state's bus service, which had 1.5 million new riders last year on daily fixed routes, a 5 percent jump. The New Haven line of the Metro-North rail service had more than 1 million additional passengers in 2006, also a 5 percent increase. And Shore Line East rail ridership increased by 35,000, or 8 percent.

 

 

************************************************

 

March 5, 2007

 

Michigan Transit plans gain momentum

 

Dems build buzz, seek cash for Detroit's transportation system

 

Andy Henion / The Detroit News

 

From proposed commuter trains to regional bus service, the long-failed effort to establish mass transit in car-crazy Metro Detroit is building steam, officials say.

 

Bringing the issue to the forefront are increasingly congested roads, soaring gas prices and the fact that Democrats -- who historically have championed public transportation -- now control the state House, governor's office and Congress.

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070305/METRO05/703050375

With the possible exception of Los Angeles, Detroit is the only major U.S. city without effective mass transit, critics say.

 

I think Los Angeles has a pretty damn good transit system that is getting better all the time.

 

The state plans to spend $247.7 million on public transportation programs next fiscal year -- a 1 percent increase after a nearly 4 percent increase this year, according to the Michigan Department of Transportation.

 

Absorb that figure for a moment. Now compare that to the Ohio Department of Transportation's pitiful $16.3 million in state funds for transit last year and again this year. Michigan's transit budget is 15.2 times larger than Ohio's!! The Ohio Public Transportation Association is asking for $89.9 million next year and the establishment of a dedicated fund for transit. Write your state legislators and ask them to approve it ( http://www.house.state.oh.us/ and http://www.senate.state.oh.us/ ).

 

Residents such as Laura Bodary, 35, of Royal Oak would like an easier way to get around. The mother of four said she went to college in Boston and regularly rode that city's extensive public-transportation system.

 

"I've seen how it has worked for a city before," she said. "My gut tells me that's that's how cities thrive, and I'd like to see this city thrive."

 

Truer words were never spoken.

 

KJP:  I took your suggestion and wrote the following to my reps in the G-A:  State Rep. Jim Hughes, Senator Steve Stivers and (for good measure) Senator Ray Miller.  I used some of your phrases, as they made an excellent point.  Here's hoping more of you will take the time to let your state reps hear from you.

 

 

Dear.....

 

Absorb these figures for a moment:

 

The state of Michigan plans to spend $247.7 million on public transportation programs next fiscal year -- a 1 percent increase after a nearly 4 percent increase this year, according to the Michigan Department of Transportation.

 

Now compare that to the Ohio Department of Transportation's pitiful $16.3 million in state funds for transit last year and again this year. Michigan's transit budget is 15.2 times larger than Ohio's!! Is it any wonder why public transit isn't a viable option for many Ohioans, despite the best efforts of COTA and other transit systems to stretch the limited dollars they currently get.

 

While Michigan and other states view transit and rail as an essential transportation investment with a clear return in terms of economic development, energy savings, air quality and creating more mobility choices for their citizens.

 

Meanwhile, here in Ohio, where the cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle (according the the US Census) has become second only to the cost of housing for most families, regardless of income status, we have fewer options to having to use the car, bus systems that can't afford to provide service when and where it's most needed (and for that reason cannot attract new riders and revenues).  Why?  Because Ohio views public transportation as some kind of loss leader and a convenient target when it comes time for budget cutting.  Even ODOT's own mass transit division has had its budget slashed consistently over the past several biennums.

 

The Ohio Public Transportation Association is asking for $89.9 million next year and the establishment of a dedicated fund for transit.  Maybe it will be viewed as an expense by some of your colleagues.  But maybe it ought to be viewed as Michigan and other states view it.... as an essential transportation investment: every bit as vital and necessary as highways, water, sewers, electric grid system and any other part of our infrastructure.

 

How do we pay for it?  Why not employ the same strategy the Ohio General Assembly employed to determine whether an increase in the state gasoline tax was necessary (which it was.)?  Why not call for the convening of a joint legislative / private sector task force to identify and secure a dedicated source of funding to be directed at mass transit and rail?

 

That's my view.  I hope you will keep an open mind and consider how Ohio is being made to look rather backwards by it's neighbors when it comes to public transportation.

 

Thanks. Nice letter!

This is encouraging: a small town newspaper that gets rail & transit and asks the best question I've heard in a long time....  How can we not afford to advance this rail plan?

 

St. Cloud Times (Minnesota)| WWW.SCTIMES.COM

Our View: Take next step to Northstar, do study

Times Editorial Board

 

March 5, 2007

 

Early next month, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority will decide whether to fund a study to determine the feasibility of expanding the Northstar commuter rail line from Big Lake to Rice.

 

Honestly, can Central Minnesota afford not to do the study?

 

Indeed, can this area — already struggling to find enough qualified workers, already trying to fit too many vehicles on too few roads, already millions of dollars short in transportation funding — afford not to push for the rail expansion?

 

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070305/OPINION/103050034/1006/NEWS01

© 2007, St. Cloud Times, all rights reserved

Is Amtrak service in Watertown's future?

By Adam Tobias of the Daily Times staff

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 1:20 PM CST

http://www.wdtimes.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/news1.txt

 

Watertown residents may soon be able to hop on an Amtrak train in the city and travel to Madison, Milwaukee or Chicago - but that scenario all depends on the passage of Senate Bill 294.

 

The bill, which is also known as the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007, was proposed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Trent Lott in January and would provide $12 billion in federal funding for nationwide Amtrak services over the next six years.

 

The proposed 85-mile route between Madison and Milwaukee would include stops in Watertown, Oconomowoc and Brookfield, with trains traveling up to 110 mph, according to Randy Wade, passenger rail manager for the state Department of Transportation. He added a trip from Madison to Milwaukee would take roughly 70 minutes.

 

Wade said it will cost between $300 and $400 million to extend the Amtrak Hiawatha Service from Madison to Milwaukee and that under the proposed bill 80 percent of the funds would be provided by the federal government, while the remaining 20 percent would be covered with state funds.

 

But the idea of a rail service between Madison and Milwaukee has not received federal support for many years, and in order for the railway to become a reality the bill must be passed by the House and Senate.

Although U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, R-Fond du Lac, said that regular rail service has been expanding in the region, he acknowledged it will be an uphill battle to get Senate Bill 294 approved.

 

“Frankly I have been skeptical about the idea of rail service between Milwaukee and Madison because both communities are quite large and I have been worrying about how many people would actually take it,” said Petri, who is also a member of the House rail subcommittee. “But I have to admit that as they have been adding more stations for the Amtrak between Milwaukee and Chicago the ridership has boomed.”

 

According to Wade, the corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago has seen record numbers in ridership over the past two years. State Department of Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi said Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed an additional $500,000 in the 2007-09 biennial budget that would add a car to each train in that corridor because many of the trips are standing room only.

 

Petri said he feels there is a need for a train service between Madison and Milwaukee, but added many obstacles still have to be overcome.

“It's hard, these sorts of changes,” Petri said. “Even though there might be tracks and even though there might be some interest in doing rail service, changing an Amtrak route and so on doesn't happen overnight. There are a lot of factors and of course it will take basically at the federal level the people to listen and follow the lead of the state officials.

 

“If the governor and the powers that be - the secretary of transportation, state legislators and so on - decide they want to have the Amtrak go to Madison then it would be much more likely to happen than if they did nothing,” Petri said.

 

To help the state move forward with showing there is a need for such a service, Doyle has proposed to raise the state's borrowing limit for the project from $48 million to $80 million.

 

Busalacchi, who is also the chairman for the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, gave testimony last week to a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on how this particular project would benefit the state.

 

Busalacchi told the subcommittee there is demand for extending the Amtrak Hiawatha Service and that it would also provide energy efficient transportation that could help reduce the nations' dependency on foreign oil. He added intercity passenger rail uses around 18 percent less energy per passenger per mile than commercial air and personal auto travel.

 

Although there are many obstacles that have to be overcome in order for this rail service to move forward, Wade said the DOT is cautiously optimistic that the bill could be passed sometime in 2007.

 

If the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act is approved later this year, Wade said the service could become operational as early as 2010.

 

If the Amtrak rail service is extended between Madison and Milwaukee that corridor will see about six round trips per day, and that number could ultimately reach 10 round trips, Wade said.

 

Although it is too early to give an exact price, Wade said the fare for a one-way trip from Madison to Milwaukee would cost around $25, which is comparable to the $21 for a one-way ticket from Milwaukee to Chicago. He added the price for a ticket from Watertown to either Madison or Milwaukee would be prorated.

 

If the bill is passed later this year, Wade said the DOT will work with the communities that will have stops to determine the best locations for train stations.

 

“We have some thoughts on where the stations could be but what we would like to do is partner with the communities and fully develop them because parking is a major issue,” Wade said. “You want to have parking because it is so important for people who are traveling from the train stations.

 

“I think that is one component that every community has to really identify because rail is not the way we are used to traveling in America,” added Randy Roeseler, executive director of the Watertown Area Chamber of Commerce. “And if you come to Watertown on the Amtrak, fine, but when you get off where do you go from there?”

 

Most city officials agree that a passenger train corridor between Madison and Milwaukee would be a great asset to Watertown.

 

“I definitely think it would be a benefit to the city, not only for people who live here and work toward Madison or Milwaukee, but it will make Watertown more attractive as a place for people to make their home,” Watertown Mayor John David said. “I also think as we continue to attract businesses to Watertown it will make it more accessible for people who may work here and don't live here.”

 

“We are looking forward to it because it would give people a chance to come and go here and to visit and to do business without driving,” Roeseler added. “If you have to go into Milwaukee for business it may be much easier just to hop on the train and get off at certain points than to drive and try to park.”

 

Wade also said the new railway would also encourage downtown development.

 

“We find throughout the country when you increase transportation by adding another mode by getting service right to the downtown you see all kinds of developmental opportunities cropping up,” Wade said.

 

David said he was not that big of a proponent of rail services a few years ago, but his attitude has changed because of rising gas prices.

 

“I don't see gas prices going lower very consistently and it is just getting to be extremely expensive for people to drive and I think this will be an alternative to that,” David said.

 

The Madison to Milwaukee corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, a nine-state coalition to connect the region with high speed passenger rail service. The coalition includes Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and Ohio.

 

The DOT has negotiated the purchase of the approximately 32-mile corridor between Madison and Watertown and the Canadian Pacific Railway owns the portion between Watertown and Milwaukee.

Governing Magazine/March 2007

 

FEATURE: TRAINS

 

REVVING UP THE RAILS

 

States are ready to put up big bucks to speed up passenger rail service--if someone would just push freight trains out of the way.

 

By Josh Goodman

 

If a train leaves Charlotte, North Carolina, heading north to New York City, when won't it arrive?  It probably won't get there in 13 hours, even though that's what's listed on the Amtrak schedule.

 

Last year, more than 80 percent of trains on this route arrived late. And the line's performance is not unique. One-third of Amtrak trains pulled into their destination stations behind schedule. The Coast Starlight--the train that runs between Seattle and Los Angeles--was the worst: It was on time for less than 4 percent of its trips. Shorter regional routes performed a bit better than the longer passenger-rail routes, but none scored above a 90-percent on-time record.

 

Making the trains run on time is a vexing problem. Rails' supporters, which include state governments that subsidize passenger trains, tout train service as a necessary transportation option with important implications for economic development. But it's an option that can live up to its potential only if the trains don't turn off ridership by being late. The problem is frustrating because the source of most of the tardiness is well known: Trains hauling freight delay their passenger-carrying counterparts. And the solution is something few want to hear: massive capital investment.

 

THE FREIGHT FACTOR

 

By global standards, passenger trains in the United States are painfully slow at best. While trains in Europe and Asia speed along at 150 to 200 mph, in this country, an Amtrak train can be outpaced by a lead-footed motorist. Most trains aren't authorized to go faster than 79 mph.

 

But if foreign passenger trains zip along like Ferraris and American ones lumber along like minivans, then freight trains putter around like golf carts. Trains carrying goods often creep along at 30 or 40 mph. After all, it doesn't matter whether a shipment of coal or grain arrives in 10 hours or 15. The extra cost of moving the goods quickly, including higher costs of maintaining the tracks, doesn't justify the expense.

 

In many places, the minivans are stuck behind the golf carts on the equivalent of a one-lane highway. The American railroad system is bound together in a tenuous public-private partnership. Private railroads, which are freight-oriented, own the vast majority of the track, requiring the publicly managed passenger trains to share space with slower freight trains. "On-time performance is slipping and continues to slip," says Frank Busalacchi, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, "because we all have these problems with freight rail."

 

This problem is coming to a head now because American freight rail is booming, having just completed its ninth consecutive year with record volume. This success represents a dramatic reversal for an industry that had spent decades downsizing. In an effort to stay profitable in the lean decades, the industry had been tearing up tracks and letting others fall into disrepair. Federal deregulation of freight rail in the early 1980s accelerated this process as rail companies consolidated and looked to cut costs.

 

Richard L. Beadles, who serves on Virginia's Rail Advisory Board, notes that railroads today are learning a lesson that any child playing with blocks already knows: It's much easier to destroy something than it is to rebuild it. "There was an appalling lack of planning and vision," he says.

 

Private railroads are now spending billions of dollars on improvements, but track maintenance and construction is so capital- intensive that it's a challenge just to keep up with the growing traffic. Maintenance is also a mixed blessing. Track work is necessary but compounds delays--and that's before any benefits are realized.

 

Officials from the private railway sector admit that, when making upgrades, their priority is to serve their investors who don't see any profit from improved passenger service. "It takes time to build capacity, and you have to make sure you're getting an adequate return on investment," says Tom White, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads. "We can't make investments that are primarily public service in nature."

 

THE STATE ROLE

 

Had this dilemma played out 15 years ago, state transportation officials might have shrugged and said intercity passenger rail was a federal responsibility. Today, however, more than a dozen states have a financial stake in intercity passenger rail, with California, Illinois, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin among the most active. They see passenger rail as a solution to a host of disparate problems, from congested highways to polluted air to economic stagnation.

 

Part of this shift is the embrace of a concept that's a dirty word in the private sector: redundancy. Roads, airports and now rail all face challenges with overcrowding. The operating theory is that none of them alone can get a growing population where it needs to go, so all are necessary pieces of the puzzle. Rail represents a way to move people from city center to city center (unlike air travel) and allow business travelers to work while in transit (which is difficult in a car). In an era of high gas prices, traffic jams and airport security delays, trains are often a more appealing way to travel than they were in decades past.

 

That's certainly what California has found. In 1990, Golden State voters used the ballot-measure process to provide state funding for passenger rail. One of the uses of that money was to start up service between Oakland and Sacramento, cities that are 80 miles apart and where passenger-rail service didn't exist. Last year, the route, known as the Capitol Corridor, expanded to 16 daily round trips, with seven of them continuing beyond Oakland to San Jose. Healthy ridership (more than 1.2 million passengers on the Capitol Corridor last year) has been possible only through a major investment, one that Amtrak, the federal government and freight railroads weren't and aren't willing to make. But California has pumped $1.7 billion from bonds into the Capitol Corridor and two other routes since 1990.

 

Regional corridors such as Oakland to Sacramento are the passenger-rail system's silver lining. They're the routes where ridership is growing, new daily trips are being added and revenue comes closest to meeting expenses. And, many of the most successful routes--Seattle to Portland, Oregon; Milwaukee to Chicago; Chicago to St. Louis; Harrisburg to Philadelphia; and California's Capitol Corridor—have been enabled by state money. These investments have been fueled by states' desire to augment service and by the need to step in where Amtrak, because of its perpetual funding crisis, will not.

 

"Amtrak has an entire country to worry about," says Karen Rae, a deputy secretary in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Noting the faster and more numerous trips on the Keystone Service, from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, she added, "If this had been left to Amtrak, you would have seen minor improvements and half the service that we're providing."

 

DOUBLE TRACKING

 

These gains, however, are cause for hope rather than elation. Rail still represents only a tiny fraction of intercity trips in the United States. Many transportation officials don't think that's because Americans are inherently in love with driving but rather because trains in this country are slow and unreliable.

 

"It's where you have an appointment and end up being an hour late," says Busalacchi, who is also chairman of States for Passenger Rail. "That's where people get disenchanted and go right back to the automobile."

 

While the problem is intensified on longer routes, it exists on regional ones, too. For example, Amtrak's Cascade is a mid-length route from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, British Columbia, and includes the important Portland-to-Seattle corridor. Only 48 percent of Cascade trains arrived on time last year. Freight traffic was the biggest source of delays--even though federal law stipulates that Amtrak trains be given priority over their freight counterparts.

 

Faced with the freight-delay problem, states have a couple of imperfect options. One is to offer the freight railways incentives--bonuses if they clear out of the way enough to let passenger trains run on time. Wisconsin has been using such incentives to get the Hiawatha--the Milwaukee-to- Chicago route--running on time. In 2006, Hiawatha had the best on-time performance of any intercity passenger line. Maine also uses the bonus approach to help get its Downeaster, the route from Boston to Portland, to the station on time. Currently, it is an early on-time leader for this year.

 

But the inducements don't always work. Amtrak has been offering its own incentives to the private railroad companies but the freight lines have left tens of millions of dollars on the table as the passenger trains that run on their tracks have continued to be delayed. Part of the reason that these payments don't work is that the dollars involved aren't enough to influence multibillion-dollar companies.

 

But there are other fundamental reasons why the bonus approach doesn't work. Incentives are based on a premise that if freight railroad operators just tried a little bit harder, the passenger trains would be able to run on time. However, with the tracks overcrowded and regular maintenance necessary, delays are inevitable. Slowly, the passenger-rail community is realizing that, despite some horror stories to the contrary, their freight counterparts might be doing the best they can.

 

"We have come to grips with the reality that the freight railroads are not out to make life difficult for Amtrak," says Cliff Black, an Amtrak spokesman. "The tracks are congested."

 

This congestion can be solved with fewer trains or with more tracks. Rail officials across the country talk of turning single track into double track and double track into triple, creating more parallel lines so that the faster passenger trains can pass their freight counterparts more easily. Their wish list includes new or expanded sidings--places where slower trains can pull over to let faster ones speed by. Some sidings are too short to accommodate today's longer freight trains.

 

But building and expanding rail service to offset rail congestion would require much bigger investments than states are making today. For example, Busalacchi longs to start up passenger service between Milwaukee and Madison, but the cost for that 80-mile project is pegged at $400 million. That kind of price tag raises the question of whether intercity rail warrants that sort of investment. The answer may be "no," unless the trains get faster.

 

SPEED DEMONS

 

There are two keys to getting people to ride the trains: price competitiveness and time competitiveness. With regard to the latter, it's often faster to drive regional corridors--barring traffic jams -- even if the trains run on time. High-speed rail would change that and state rail officials are starting to move in that direction.

 

Fifteen years ago, the federal Department of Transportation designated five high-speed rail corridors around the country. "What that meant was, 'Bless you, go forward and do good things with your own money,'" says Patrick Simmons, director of the rail division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

 

When North Carolina got around to studying its high-speed corridor--running from Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Raleigh and Charlotte--it discovered something unusual for a public transportation project: The projected annual revenues exceed operating expenses. North Carolina and Virginia are now moving forward on a project that would have trains moving at 110 mph; they are conducting environmental impact studies that will be required to secure federal funds.

 

California's high-speed-rail proposal is even more ambitious: It would run trains at twice the North Carolina corridor's speed, whisking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in a little over two-and-a-half hours. Supporters hope to place a measure on the 2008 ballot to supply funding for this project.

 

Pennsylvania is ahead of them both, having just begun running trains at up to 110 mph on the Keystone Service last fall. The project required $145.5 million in track upgrades, with costs split between the state, Amtrak and the Federal Transit Administration. With those upgrades complete, the 100-mile trip takes just over an hour and a half, slightly faster than by car. Rae says her state had two factors working for it in starting the high-speed service: First, Amtrak owns the tracks on the Keystone Service--it doesn't on most corridors.

 

Second, the route has very little freight traffic. Just as the tenuous freight-passenger relationship hinders present intercity train travel, it imperils its future, too. Rae's previous job was as the top rail official in Virginia. In many ways, the Richmond-to-Washington, D.C., corridor is similar to Harrisburg-to-Philadelphia: Both connect a major metropolis to a smaller capital city that is 100 miles away. But Rae says that hooking up Richmond and Washington with high-speed rail is a much tougher task and therefore more expensive.

 

The cost of high-speed on the Charlotte-to-Washington, D.C., line, will be billions of dollars, not the millions for the Keystone Service. Don't even ask about California's high-speed project. It comes with a $40 billion price tag, which is why Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced in January that he opposed the rail ballot measure and preferred to focus on roads.

 

With no hope for help from private freight-bound railroads and limited funding of their own, state rail officials are looking to an institution that hasn't been known for its financial largesse for passenger rail: the U.S. Congress. What they're shooting for is legislation that, besides funding Amtrak at much more generous levels, would also provide matching funds at the same formula as highways — 80 percent of the cost of capital rail projects. This legislation passed the Senate last session on a 93-to-6 vote but never went any further. The bill has been reintroduced, but until something happens in Washington, states, much like the passengers aboard the trains, are left waiting.

 

 

COMMUTER MATCHUPS

 

Travel times by car and train

 

                                            DRIVING  RAIL

ROUTE                                  TIME    TIME*

Washington, DC-Boston, MA        7:44     6:30

Harrisburg, PA-Philadelphia, PA     1:44     1:35

Milwaukee, WI-Chicago, IL         1:37     1:34

Raleigh, NC-Charlotte, NC           2:36     3:24

Oakland, CA-Sacramento, CA       1:17     2:00

Seattle, WA-Portland, OR            2:48     3:30

Chicago, IL-St. Louis, MO           4:52     5:30

Los Angeles CA-San Diego, CA      1:53     2:40

 

*Scheduled rail travel times often vary depending on the time of departure. The Washington to Boston time refers to the Acela Express service.

 

Sources: Amtrak, Michelin

 

-- --------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Copyright 2007, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.

Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.

http://www.governing.com

 

State of Minnesota, Northstar and BNSF Sign Key Agreement

 

  Agreement Secures Use of Train Tracks, Other Terms for Life of Commuter

                                Rail Line

 

    ANOKA, Minn., March 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Officials from the

state of Minnesota, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) and

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) signed a key agreement today that defines

Northstar's rights to operate along the 40-mile stretch of BNSF train

tracks between Big Lake and downtown Minneapolis.

 

    "This agreement is another significant milestone toward delivering

Minnesota's first commuter rail system, one that is in high demand among

Northstar Corridor residents," said NCDA Chair Dan Erhart.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-07-2007/0004541920&EDATE

It has taken decades for this to come through but finally the city and county of Honolulu has decided to build a light rail transit system! Except the dumbasses in charge of this whole thing decided AGAINST putting a stop in the Honolulu International Airport (where they would've gotten an insane amount of riders) and they also omitted the option of connecting it to the University of Hawaii, which is basically 20k+ kids with no cars who would've been riding that shit all the time. Oh well.

 

Vote clears way for initial transit work

 

After decades of dashed plans, Honolulu is closer than ever to building a major mass transit system to link West O'ahu with the island's urban core.

 

In the wake of yesterday's 5-4 City Council vote approving the first phase, Mayor Mufi Hannemann said he was "very confident" that construction would begin by 2009. "The key to this was to be willing to compromise, to be able to give something to get something," Hannemann said.

 

The council voted to retain a controversial route along Salt Lake Boulevard rather than immediately link the system to Honolulu International Airport. The 20-mile route selected yesterday would begin near the planned University of Hawai'i-West O'ahu campus and end at Ala Moana Center.

 

A route backed by Hannemann would have included those starting and ending points, but would have dipped south to the airport instead of following the Salt Lake path. "We didn't get our first choice; we got our second choice," Hannemann said.  The vote cleared the way for engineering and environmental studies to begin, Hannemann said. The council and the mayor said they expect the system to eventually stretch from West Kapolei to Manoa and Waikiki. Also still to come is a decision on what kind of technology — rail, rubber-tired vehicles or other options — the transit system would use.

 

Hannemann allies unexpectedly had swapped the airport link for Salt Lake Boulevard last Wednesday to win a crucial swing vote from Councilman Romy Cachola that kept the project alive. Salt Lake residents were thrilled that yesterday's vote upheld the earlier decision, but others said the city was rapidly creating an expensive mess that would benefit few. "I'm absolutely elated," said Grant Tanimoto, chairman of the Aliamanu/Salt Lake/Foster Village Neighborhood Board. "For a while there, it was touch and go. But the process played out, and the right decision was made."

 

Wai'anae resident James Manaku Sr. said he did not believe the system would ever help the Leeward Coast. "It's not going to benefit us in any way, shape or form," he said. "It's just going to benefit those who develop property along the way."

 

POLITICAL REALITY

 

Voting in favor of the route last week and yesterday were Cachola and council members Todd Apo, Nestor Garcia, Gary Okino and Rod Tam.

 

Voting in opposition were Donovan Dela Cruz, Charles Djou, Ann Kobayashi and Chairwoman Barbara Marshall. The decision capped a wild week of political maneuvering as supporters of other paths scrambled for votes, and angry constituents bombarded council members with phone calls and e-mails.

 

Apo had tried to steer the route back to Hannemann's original proposal of going past the airport by tacking on promises that later links to Salt Lake and UH-Manoa would be top priorities. Djou, Garcia and Tam joined him yesterday. But the vote fell short when Okino, who had come up with the Salt Lake compromise last week, refused to abandon that route. Doing so would have stabbed Cachola in the back, and someone else would then almost certainly have switched his or her vote to kill the route anyway, Okino said.

 

"Obviously, the airport is the better route, but this is political reality," Okino said. "I think we got the best of what we could have gotten." Cachola said he was "ecstatic" that the Salt Lake route had held up despite the attempts to alter it. "I'm on cloud nine," Cachola said. "Salt Lake is the best route, for the greater good."

 

He said an airport link should be built only if the system is later extended into Waikiki.

HARSH CRITICISM

 

But Djou called yesterday's decision a "train wreck" that would doom the entire project.

 

"This system will be a failure from the day it starts, because it has dropped UH-Manoa and the airport," he said. "We're clearly on the wrong track." Djou had joined Dela Cruz in calling for an alternative that would have stretched from Fort Weaver Road to University Avenue and King Street via the airport. The move was defeated when Kobayashi was the only one to join them. Dela Cruz said he still supports the overall project, but was very frustrated by all the politicking.

 

"Some people want to build a train, but it looks like we're trying to build a roller coaster," he said. "It goes up and down, and we don't know where it will end. I hope the public doesn't start to lose confidence in the project." Hannemann conceded that trying to break ground on the project by 2009 was "aggressive" and "ambitious." But he blasted Gov. Linda Lingle for publicly doubting on Monday that such a schedule was possible.

 

"The governor should really jump on board," Hannemann said. "She's really out of step and out of touch."

 

Yesterday's decision "takes us another step forward in erasing the image that the Honolulu City Council fumbled 15 years ago, and I think that's very, very important," Hannemann said. A previous council killed a similar project in 1992 by voting against a tax hike that would have helped pay for it.

 

Former Mayor Frank Fasi had tried since the late 1970s to build a mass transit system.

 

The route gets that close to the airport but doesn't go into it?? I'd love to hear the gory details on that decision!!

hold on to your hats, you guys will love this...

a mayor talking about the benefits of no pay transit. think about it!:

 

 

Mayor Says Free Mass Transit In The Public's Best Interest

 

March 09, 2007

 

On his weekly radio show Mayor Michael Bloomberg discussed the idea of free bus and subway service Friday.

 

Talking about the Staten Island Ferry, which has been free since 1997, the mayor suggested that free mass transit citywide might be in the public’s best interest.

 

video:

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=67541

 

 

hmm, now why did he go to miami and not wintery cleveland to see this brt business?  :laugh:

 

 

Mayor Looks To Miami Transit For Changes To NYC Bus Service

 

March 08, 2007

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in Miami Thursday to, among other things, see changes to the city's bus system that New Yorkers might soon see on their local bus route. NY1 Transit reporter Bobby Cuza filed the following report.

 

It is called Bus Rapid Transit, a system of improvements -- like dedicated lanes – that has helped speed up buses in cities like Miami. Mayor Michael Bloomberg witnessed the system’s success first-hand Thursday.

 

video:

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=67519

mrnyc, do you get a commission every time you use an emoticon?

mrnyc, do you get a commission every time you use an emoticon?

 

edit: modified to wall street journal standards.

The route gets that close to the airport but doesn't go into it?? I'd love to hear the gory details on that decision!!

 

There are some claims that easy and cheap transportation out of the airport would hurt some of the local transportation businesses that deal with tourists. Getting around the island is a nightmare but it's also a huge industry here that has a lot of power. That's also why the route avoids Waikiki, the biggest tourist destination on the island.

hmm, now why did he go to miami and not wintery cleveland to see this brt business?  :laugh:

 

Mayor Looks To Miami Transit For Changes To NYC Bus Service

 

 

As different as NYC is from other US cities, it is still so firmly american with its annoying coddling of cars and parking and tolerance of auto-related quality of life problems (red light running, honking, driving in bike lanes...).  Drives me nuts.  Seriously, what is there to study in Miami- this ain't rocket science- just separate the bus lanes with a curb, enforce traffic laws and separate the stops a little more.  Not even sure if you need to time the lights.

 

Some inspiration from Paris:

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, the French have the technology to clean subway stations more than once a year, so maybe NYC isn't ready.

 

 

 

 

 

 

strap...very good observations.  These are things that should have been added into the ECP.

Now THAT is a streetscape!!

Passenger-rail coalition to host National Rail Passenger Leadership Summit

 

On March 23, a coalition of passenger-rail groups will host the National Rail Passenger Leadership Summit in Chicago.

 

The event is targeted at supporters of all forms of passenger rail: light rail, trolley, commuter rail, regional rail and the national intercity passenger rail system. A working meeting will feature presentations and networking opportunities.

 

Co-sponsors include the Iowa Association of Railroad Passengers, Texas Association of Rail Passengers, Indiana High Speed Rail Association and Midwest High Speed Rail Association.

 

The following day, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association will host its spring meeting in Chicago. The events co-sponsors are the Iowa Association of Railroad Passengers, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Indiana High Speed Rail Association and Texas Association of Rail Passengers.

 

Details about the meetings are available at www.nationalrailpassengersummit.org.

 

More from the event website:

 

If you support enhanced passenger rail in any form: light rail, trolley, commuter rail, regional rail and the national passenger rail system, you need to attend the National Rail Passenger Leadership Summit on Friday, March 23, 2007 in Chicago.

 

This will be a unique working meeting with important presentations and opportunities to work together for a better future for passenger rail in the United States. Hear the visions. Share your vision. Make things happen.

 

The Summit is a project of grass-roots passenger rail organizations who see reasons to unite our efforts and coordinate our efforts so we can have more success.

 

It is one of three unique days of meetings about improving our transportation infrastructure.

 

This will be the day before the Midwest High Speed Rail Association Spring Meeting on Saturday, March 24, 2007, and the day after the Environmental Law & Policy Council's 12th Annual Transportation and Land Use Strategy Meeting on Thursday, March 22, 2007.

 

Co-sponsors for this event are: Iowa Association of Railroad Passengers, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Indiana High Speed Rail Association, Texas Association of Rail Passengers and TRAINS Magazine. If your organization would also like to be a co-sponsor, please contact Eliot Keller at [email protected]

 

Confirmed speakers are:

 

George Chilson, President, National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), "Sharpening the focus and honing the strategy.”

Jim Coston, Coston & Rademacher, P.C., and Corridor Capital LLC., former member of the Amtrak Reform Council, “Passenger rail vision.”

Tim Gillespie, Consultant for BGL Associates and former Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, Amtrak, "Financing the passenger rail effort."

Rick Harnish, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, “The successes of the Illinois Plan”

Stuart Nicholson, Public Information Officer, Ohio Rail Development Commission, “Ohio's vision and successes.”

More invitations are out and responses are pending.

 

Location:

 

Union League Club of Chicago

65 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, Illinois 60604

312-427-7800

 

 

Now THAT is a streetscape!!

 

And, that's human-scale development.  Notice how the traffic isn't bumper to bumper given the density of the neighborhood?  No one seems to be obese either...

 

 

Now THAT is a streetscape!!

 

And, that's human-scale development.  Notice how the traffic isn't bumper to bumper given the density of the neighborhood?  No one seems to be obese either...

 

 

 

If I went there I'd never come back!!!

I'll let you know how it is.

Now THAT is a streetscape!!

 

And, that's human-scale development.  Notice how the traffic isn't bumper to bumper given the density of the neighborhood?  No one seems to be obese either...

 

 

 

If I went there I'd never come back!!!

 

Yeah, no doubt! As my nephew said about visiting the Toys 'R Us in Times Square -- "That's my DREAM!"

I'll let you know how it is.

 

Seriously, KJP, if you don't clog this site with thread after thread of Euro HSR and transit photos when you come back, yer gonna have some 'splainin' to do.

March 11, 2007, 6:55PM

Philadelphia Story: The Northeast plots a comeback

Houston Chronicle

 

By NEAL PEIRCE

PHILADELPHIA — To many people across America, the historic Northeast Corridor— Maine to Virginia — has an old, cold, crowded image. But could it be young, green and creative, a cutting-edge region of 21st-century America?

 

That question, posed by Petra Todorovich of the New York Regional Plan Association, engaged a Northeast Climate and Competitiveness Summit convened here March 2.

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4620481.html

Washington, New York and Boston may seem to be thriving, but not such cities as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newark, N.J., and Bridgeport, Conn.

 

This is a nice article, but I disagree with including Philly in the 'not thriving' list... Yes, Philadelphia is still old, dirty and nasty (people-wise), but it's Center City is blowing the hinges off with new office buildings (Comcast over 60 floors) and condos (1 is plus-40 floors; another, plus-50) going up everywhere.  Restaurants and entertainment venues in Philly are also exploding... The writer slipped, here.

Council to study rail line again

 

Key --

1. Some democrats, such as Majority Leader Jim King, support the measure. Others, like U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth (D), wants further information.

2. Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson (Republican) did not embrace the idea and worry about impacts to the Ohio River Bridges project.

3. With developments such as the arena, Museum Plaza, RiverPark Place, etc., majority leader has stated now is the right time to revisit light rail. Such a system connecting the new developments throughout downtown and Bardstown Road, and to the northeast and southern suburbs (at stations near interchanges) might work best IMO. Currently, there are bus systems that reach many of the far-flung suburbs, and as previously reported, many are near or at capacity despite bus capacity increases. The demand is there, we just need to go one step further.

4. Work was previously culled on a light-rail line along Interstate 65 from downtown to the Gene Snyder in 2004 because of political support and funds.

 

Article information: "Council to study rail line again, By Marcus Green, The Courier-Journal, Friday, March 9, 2007"

 

--

 

Metro Council Democrats want to revive plans for a light-rail system in Louisville, the first major push for the project since it was shelved nearly three years ago.

 

The council's 15-member majority caucus included light rail on a list of priorities for 2007 released yesterday, along with its top goal of increasing affordable housing.

 

The council's Republican leaders, as well as Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson's office, didn't immediately embrace the idea, instead raising concerns about funding and a possible impact on the Ohio River bridges project.

 

But with developments such as the arena and Museum Plaza set to attract thousands of residents and visitors downtown, majority leader Jim King said now is the right time to revisit light rail.

 

"We need to move people in and out of our city's core, and the automobile is not the answer," said King, D-10th District.

 

Work on planning for a light-rail line along Interstate 65 from downtown to the Gene Snyder Freeway ceased in 2004 because of lagging political support and lack of funds.

 

Light-rail supporters, such as Chris Iosso, welcomed the news that the project could be revived.

 

Iosso, who works in social justice issues with the Presbyterian Church (USA), favors light rail for environmental reasons and "as a way of networking the city together."

 

King said Democrats will urge the council's transportation committee to study light rail.

 

In a statement, U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-3rd District, said it remains to be seen how feasible light rail will be, "but it is definitely intriguing, and it is certainly on the table as we enter the next stage in determining our long-range plans."

 

Metro Council Democrats also are pledging to create an affordable-housing trust fund, monitor a controversial animal-control ordinance and continue to redevelop abandoned industrial property.

 

Abramson spokesman Chris Poynter said light rail is more suited as a long-range transit project, and near-term consideration should be given to rapid-transit bus systems.

 

"We'd all love to see (light rail) if we had the money, but you have to do what's feasible," Poynter said. "There's not a lot of federal transportation dollars out there."

 

Minority leader Robin Engel, R-22nd, said council Republicans' top concern is the bridges, which Abramson named as the city's No. 1 priority in January.

 

Engel said Republicans would favor renewing the light-rail debate -- provided that funding would not take away from the bridges.

 

Opponents of light rail cite high construction and operating costs and say such lines fail to ease traffic congestion.

 

"Light rail is good at one thing: spending lots of money," said Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., libertarian think tank.

 

O'Toole said that no light-rail line in the nation covers its operating costs, and that dedicated bus lanes can transport eight times as many people as a light-rail line.

 

Paul Coomes, a University of Louisville economist, said studies show light rail is sometimes subsidized up to 80 percent by the federal government.

 

But, Coomes noted, light rail is being built in Nashville, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C. -- cities commonly seen as competitors for Louisville.

 

"Whether it's cost-effective for moving people, they're getting it," he said.

More turn to mass transit

 

Article information: "More turn to mass transit, By Marcus Green, The Courier-Journal, Tuesday, March 13, 2007"

 

Key --

1. TARC's ridership highest since 1999 and still growing

2. "Gas prices spurred Americans last year to jump on buses, subways, trolleys, light rail and other public transportation at a greater rate than at any time since the 1950s."

3. 15.8 million rides in 2006. January 2007 ridership surpasses January 2006, even with lower gas prices.

3a. 1.35 million rides in January 2007; 1.29 million rides in January 2006; 1.17 million rides in December 2006.

4. Standing-room only crowds on some buses meant an increase in service on the Outer Loop along the Preston Highway to downtown and out on the Dixie Highway.

4a. Riders now wait 12-20 minutes on some roads, but will be reduced to <15 minutes.

5. Express service will be offered between southern Indiana and downtown Louisville for 2007. A park and ride lot will be constructed near Interstate 65 and 265 for this purpose.

6. 6% increase in 2006 ridership over 2005 surpassed the 2.3% increase over the same period nationwide.

6a. Nationwide, light rail use increased 5.6%.

 

--

 

Gas prices spurred Americans last year to jump on buses, subways, trolleys, light rail and other public transportation at a greater rate than at any time since the 1950s.

 

The trend, reflected in a report issued yesterday by the American Public Transportation Association, also played out in Louisville, where TARC ridership hit its highest point since 1999.

 

The Transit Authority of River City logged 15.8 million rides in 2006, and January's ridership was ahead of last year's pace.

 

Buechel Metropolitan High School student Kevon Taylor, who was waiting for a bus on Eastern Parkway yesterday, said rising gas prices were a large part of his decision to take the bus to school.

 

Though he's also having car problems, Kevon, 18, noted, "Even when my car was working, I was riding … TARC because gas is high."

 

Barry Barker, TARC's executive director, said he doesn't think higher prices at the pump are the only reason for the rise in ridership.

 

"The high fuel prices last year certainly put everybody on notice," he said. "But I think more and more people are looking for choices about how to get around. Frankly, they're recognizing that TARC's an alternative to the hassle of driving and parking."

 

Bill Millar, president of the national association, agreed.

 

"We're seeing growth pretty much across the board in pretty much every mode," Millar said. "People are rediscovering the convenience of public transportation."

 

"For 50 years, we were told the most convenient thing to do is drive our cars," he said, noting that last year's 2.9 percent growth in ridership -- to a total of 10 billion trips -- was the biggest single-year jump since 1957.

 

TARC counted 1.35 million rides in January, the most recent data available, up from 1.17 million rides in December and 1.29 million last January.

 

Barker expects ridership to increase this year and said adding service along TARC's most traveled routes is the agency's top priority for 2007.

 

Facing standing-room only crowds on some buses in January, TARC increased the service on its popular route from the Outer Loop along Preston Highway to downtown, then out Dixie Highway.

 

"We were getting some crowding on it on weekends, so we added service," said Nina Walfoort, a TARC spokeswoman.

 

Riders now wait 12 to 20 minutes between buses on the line covering much of Broadway, Bardstown Road and Taylorsville Road, but TARC officials want to ensure that buses arrive no later than every 15 minutes.

 

TARC also plans to launch express service between Southern Indiana and downtown Louisville later this year, with a "park and ride" lot near Interstates 65 and 265.

 

Barker said three or four buses would serve the route and make several stops downtown. The $175,000 cost would be paid by Indiana's federal transportation funds.

 

The 6 percent increase in TARC ridership last year exceeded the 2.3 percent growth rate of bus transit nationwide, according to the transportation association.

 

But among all public transportation, light rail systems had the biggest increase in ridership at 5.6 percent, the report says.

 

A light rail proposal for Louisville was shelved about three years ago, but Metro Council Democrats resurrected the issue last week by naming it a top priority for 2007.

 

Elderly people, who form a growing share of the U.S. population every year, are increasingly opting for public transportation, said Jeff Arndt of the Texas Transportation Institute, accounting partly for the ridership increase. Transit agencies often provide free or low-cost services to the elderly and disabled.

 

New immigrants also are more likely to use mass transit than native-born Americans, because the newcomers often can't afford vehicles, Arndt said.

 

Turkish native Nurjan Durak, a computer engineering student at the University of Louisville, was waiting for a bus yesterday on Broadway. She said she rides TARC twice a day but would prefer to drive if she owned a car.

 

Durak said she supports public transportation and prefers to use it in places such as her home city of Ankara. But Louisville's buses don't run as often as she'd like.

 

"It is difficult," she said. "If you miss one bus you shall wait a long time."

dig it!  :clap:

 

 

DIG IT! 2ND AVE. LINE IS ON TRACK

 

By JEREMY OLSHAN Transit Reporter

 

 

March 5, 2007 -- The second groundbreaking of the Second Avenue subway is only weeks away, MTA officials say.

 

"It's been in the planning for the last 60 years, but it's going to happen in the next few weeks," said Mysore Nagaraja, head of MTA Capital Construction.

 

The first groundbreaking on the project, in the works since 1929, occurred at the corner of East 103rd Street nearly 35 years ago.

 

The MTA completed several sections of the tunnels, but by 1975, the city's fiscal crisis derailed the project.

 

All the while, the need for the project has never been in question - the East Side's Lexington Avenue line has long been crammed beyond capacity.

 

The new subway, which extends the Q line and creates a T line, will be completed in four phases.

 

Phase One will run from 96th Street down to 63rd Street, where it will connect to the Q line.

 

This segment, which includes stops at 86th and 72nd streets, will cost $3.8 billion and is scheduled to be completed in 2013. It will be used by an estimated 191,000 riders daily.

 

The MTA is about to accept the low bid for the tunneling of the first phase, and expects to sign a full funding grant agreement with the federal government shortly.

 

Phase Two will run from 125th Street through the vacant 1970s tunnels before connecting to 96th Street. Phase Three will run down to Houston Street, and the last leg will go all the way to Hanover Square in lower Manhattan.

 

Before the tunneling can start, the gas, water, sewer, electric and communications lines that run under the street will have to be either supported or moved out of the way, Nagaraja said. This should take roughly eight months.

 

The tunneling should take just over a year, Nagaraja said. All the while, the MTA will be monitoring the vibrations so as not to disturb those above ground.

 

The MTA has already spent $266 million on the design and planning of the new subway.

 

Longtime residents and officials on the Upper East Side say the MTA has answered many of the concerns about the construction project.

 

"This is a case of be careful what you wish for. We've wanted this subway for so long, but now we have to deal with some of the consequences of getting it," said David Liston, chairman of Community Board 8.

 

 

excellent, mrnyc.

Interesting, extensive discussion, on skyscraperciy.com, of Milwaukee's prospects where Cleveland and Cincy are discussed, among other Midwestern comparatives... Also, detailed discussion + links to a proposal to extend Chicago-Metra's Kenosha, Wisc. line north to Beer City...

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=436421

Quote

 

The state plans to spend $247.7 million on public transportation programs next fiscal year -- a 1 percent increase after a nearly 4 percent increase this year, according to the Michigan Department of Transportation.

 

Absorb that figure for a moment. Now compare that to the Ohio Department of Transportation's pitiful $16.3 million in state funds for transit last year and again this year. Michigan's transit budget is 15.2 times larger than Ohio's!! The Ohio Public Transportation Association is asking for $89.9 million next year and the establishment of a dedicated fund for transit. Write your state legislators and ask them to approve it ( http://www.house.state.oh.us/ and http://www.senate.state.oh.us/ ).

 

I guess all that carping about "that state up north" only counts when it comes to football?

 

DIG IT! 2ND AVE. LINE IS ON TRACK

 

 

Only 70 years behind schedule!  I kid- this is totally awsome- thanks mrnyc.  $266MM spent on engineering so far- man this project is big.  I wonder what subway fare will be in 2013...

too bad that Q/T train won't roll under 125 street to atleast lenox.

 

I bet 2nd avenue get cleaned up pretty quickly.  Although I would never move over there.

I also love that great graphic posted at the Skyscapercity.com thread....

 

 

(A graphics guru could always substitute "Milwaukee" in the bus' destination sign for most if not all Ohio cities!)

^ that's a good one.

 

 

too bad that Q/T train won't roll under 125 street to atleast lenox.

 

I bet 2nd avenue get cleaned up pretty quickly.  Although I would never move over there.

 

that's what i thought too. however, you gotta think they are leading up to a cross-town train on 125th. someday.

^ that's a good one.

 

 

too bad that Q/T train won't roll under 125 street to atleast lenox.

 

I bet 2nd avenue get cleaned up pretty quickly.  Although I would never move over there.

 

that's what i thought too. however, you gotta think they are leading up to a cross-town train on 125th. someday.

 

It would be great to have a train from B'way/125 street right to LGA or the new mets stadium

[b]Dedicated light-rail lanes coming to Toronto[/b]

JEFF GRAY

 

Globe and Mail update

 

TORONTO — The TTC will unveil a plan Friday to build dedicated light-rail lanes on key routes across the city – as promised in Mayor David Miller's re-election campaign – laying out a blueprint that could see new state-of-the-art streetcars gliding down Eglinton and Finch Avenues.

 

TTC chairman Adam Giambrone would not reveal any specific details yesterday, but said the plan, to be accompanied by a public-relations campaign to boost support for the idea of a light-rail network, will include routes promised by the mayor last fall, as well as “some surprises.”

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070315.wttc15/BNStory/National/home

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...703150460/1003

 

City looks to public for transportation input

 

Andy Henion / The Detroit News

 

DETROIT -- If you like the idea of streetcars rolling down Woodward Avenue or express buses zipping along Gratiot, city transportation officials want to hear from you next week.

 

The Detroit Department of Transportation will hold four open houses to get public feedback on its quest to build a rapid transit system.