tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83097638462320300842024-03-08T05:19:33.676-08:00Maine Rail TransitWorking to preserve rail corridors for the revitalization of rail service in Maine. From the MainLine Downeaster to Branch lines in every county.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-28241641692959018762014-01-18T15:45:00.002-08:002014-01-18T15:45:49.156-08:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/lL2j2o7_bCE/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/lL2j2o7_bCE&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/lL2j2o7_bCE&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
Finally figured out how to access this blogger again. Turns out I started a new Google Account and lost track of my original Maine Rail Transit blog page. Whatever, we are back and it looks like we have sustained a lot of interest in the restoration of passenger rail in this region. I was just reviewing the last posting a discussion with a rail supporter, but serious skeptic. <br />
<br />
The fact is..... and that is how we intend to proceed with this demonstration. The Maine Rail Transit Coalition, with members from around the state and across the professional and political spectrum have been researching the facts around transportation, climate change, congestion and the real costs to consumers and taxpayers of the current transportation policy and investments by state DOT's and Federal. We have some good facts and experts in many fields ready to research additional information.<br />
<br />
Our analysis indicates that a passenger rail service is the basis for a new paradigm of investment and transport. Rather than traditional transportation based on pavement and other asphalt solutions, whether it is auto, bike or ped, the MRTC recommends a multi-model system of mobility providing accessibility to places for all users, no matter age, health, abilities, or economic status. <br />
<br />
Our current work, funded by the National Association of Realtors Smart Growth action project, and the Sierra Club is way advanced in providing the resources for a demonstration project of passenger rail service between Portland Maine and Bethel in Oxford County Maine. True, the Portland area MPO is ignoring us, and the Portland City government says it can't be done. But elsewhere in the state, and in the streets and meeting places around Portland and everywhere there is a growing chorus of support to try this.<br />
<br />
Not only do we believe climate change is real and threatening, but we believe that the auto-dependent system of transport model used by the government planners, and heavily supported by the advertising and oil industry, is in fact the primary cause of our economic malaise. <br />
<br />
It is Train Time. Like the Maine Rail Transit Coalition on Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Maine-Rail-Transit-Coalition/140782759317489">https://www.facebook.com/pages/Maine-Rail-Transit-Coalition/140782759317489</a> . Send us your questions and ideas <a href="mailto:Info@Mainerailtransit.org">Info@Mainerailtransit.org</a> Join us in our presentations and forums around the state by checking our calendar at <a href="http://www.mainerailtransit.org/">www.mainerailtransit.org</a> And talk to your local, state and federal officials, both elected and entrenched (I mean staff). <br />
<br />
We can do this.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-80651661855067328392012-10-02T17:49:00.000-07:002012-10-02T17:49:46.284-07:00The Way Life Should behttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z76WdoKZhj0melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-18679875637275192542012-10-02T16:34:00.002-07:002012-10-02T16:34:33.578-07:00Commuter trains v. Buses. We can do both, right?{Contact Names deleted to protect the innocent}
From: On Behalf Of Karl
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 4:48 AM
Subject: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
The Conservative Opposition in NH never wavers!
Published on Concord Monitor (http://www.concordmonitor.com)
Home > A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
________________________________________
Newspaper article: MONITOR BOARD OF CONTRIBUTORS
A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Too few riders, too much money
By Grant Bosse / For the Monitor
September 23, 2012
When it comes to transportation policy, you're either a train person, or you're not.
I'm not.
__________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Let’s not forget that we already have a bust service that is more frequent and cheaper than any commuter rail service would be.
Carl, Sugar Hill, NH
________________________________________
From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Carl D.
Subject: RE: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Hello Carl
Based on national experience, and in regard to some of the analysis we are conducting on restoration of existing railway corridors in Maine and NH, meeting modern transportation requirements, we are finding that bus service is significantly more costly than passenger rail transit. Just in terms of the damage a bus does to roadways -thousands of times more than cars - but also in regards to what type of economic impact a bus system has (zero $ ROI), compared to that of the public and private wealth that is being generated at passenger rail terminal, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We of course also cannot discount the costs of environmental degradation from both fumes and the impacts of asphalt systems on the environment. But the real impact is that of our continuing dependence on oil-based transport, both in the vehicles themselves, the rubber-based tires and the internal combustion engine, but also the costs of roads that are literally breaking the budgets of households and at every level of governments. Building and rebuilding asphalt roadways every 7 to 10 years is far more expensive than building, and maintaining steel bed roadways that in many cases have withstood traffic and the elements for well over a hundred years.
You may have been correct in referring to the service as a BUST. Because the use of buses on taxpayer subsidized roadways is clearly neither cheaper, nor does it have to be more frequent than that of a restored passenger railway service.
It is train time. The numbers support it. Please consider that over the past 75 years we have designed a culture that does not make it easy to consider alternatives from that of asphalt. But there must be, and there is a better way.
Tony Donovan
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Portland Maine
WWW.MaineRailTransit.org
Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org
or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com
"Build Trains not Lanes"
____________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:20 PM
To: 'Tony @ Home Office'
Subject: RE: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Dear Mr. Donovan,
There has long been a debate concerning the relative merits of bus vs rail for intercity transport and for urban transit. Your note compares bus service to rail transit, whereas my note referred to intercity service between Concord and Boston. I’m sure that you are aware of the importance of traffic density for comparisons of various transport options; in major metropolitan areas, rail transit certainly has a role – as do bus services. For intercity service, buses travel at low marginal cost over highways used by tens of thousands of cars and trucks daily, whereas rail services travel over capital-intensive rights-of-way. I have worked with railroads for many years, and I understand very well the costs of operation and maintenance. If the traffic volume is there, fine; but if the traffic volume is low, then intercity bus over existing highways is much better – and much more flexible.
I think that your statements about the economic impact of rail terminals and bus terminals are misleading. An expensive rail terminal that attracts little traffic will have little economic impact, and the same would of course be true for a minor bus terminal that is underutilized. But remember that the investment for bus is just a few percent of the investment required for rail, so the rail advocates must quantify very much larger benefits to justify the added expense.
You note that a bus does the damage of “thousands of cars”, which is overstating the case (“many cars” but not “thousands” and a bus does less damage than the much more frequent heavy trucks). A bus can replace a couple of dozen cars on the highway, thereby reducing congestion, which is a greater concern than pavement costs on busy highway networks.)
I am certainly not against increasing rail services. However, I believe that we will be better off with a well-integrated system that involves rail, fixed route intercity bus, local transit, and demand-responsive transit (and cabs and private automobiles as well). I believe that we would be better off promoting improved transport systems, with better use of energy, rather than focusing solely on rail.
Thanks for your response,
Carl Senior Research Associate & Lecturer (Retired)
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
M.I.T.
_________________________________________
From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:31 PM
To: Carl
Subject: RE: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Carl:
Thank you. I did not intend to mean that we should focus solely on rail. My response was in reaction to your comment that appeared to focus solely on buses. In fact we are designing a model of integrated transportation services that uses all modes, but as in many federal studies, supported by highly paid consultants, that conclude rail cannot be a viable mode due to the capital costs, too often rail is dismissed first in favor of buses. Buses are damaging roads equal to the impact of thousands of cars and in many cases exceeding that of trucks ( I will source that for you, but am busy right now). Roads are "capital-intensive rights-of-way" more than that of railways over the long-term. (I will source this also)
We are in agreement that alternative transportation system planning needs to include all modes. No longer can we dismiss rail due to perceptions that it is more expensive. and we must consider the proven facts that passenger railway terminal sites are attracting tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment. Something buses are not doing, and have never had the reputation for doing.
Thanks for your note. Please feel free to follow our work at www.mainerailtransit.org . Our coalition is growing and we do believe that it is truly train time.
Thanks.
Tony D
_____________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:09 PM
To: 'Tony @ Home Office';
Subject: RE: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Carl, Tony, Christopher
Good commentary on rail vs bus. I offer one more quick comment from the peanut gallery. Why don’t buses go directly to Manchester Regional Airport? From Concord, one can get to Logan by bus with less hassle than to Manchester. If service was direct, I would use the bus to the airport more frequently. I assume others feel as I do.
I also ask for comment if the economics of Trains to Manchester-Concord work, vs bus service for now, except as a stop on thru tracks to Montreal.
Randy Bryan
_____________________________________________________________
From: Tony @ Home Office
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: A commuter train to Concord? No thanks.
Hi:
In Maine our organization recently was awarded funding from the National Association of Realtors for a grant application that is designed to evaluate the feasibility of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic railway corridor for passenger service as it was identified in the 2011 FTA Small Starts Portland North Alternative Modes project study.. our study is corridor based, multi-modal land-use planning designed to incorporate a system of all modes of transportation to meet mobility and accessibility needs at the community level, for the purpose of funding transit with local support - a key requirement for Federal funding. We believe that our model will enhance economic development, attract private investment and establish a model that is applicable to other corridors throughout the country - applicable to what we are referring to as low-density populated areas like maine (and new Hampshire). We are hard at work, with little funding, but a lot of committed professionals.
With luck, and good work, we could answer your question re., Manchester Airport. let's continue the conversation. By the way, the Portsmouth Branch that intersects the Downeaster Amtrak mainline service at Rockingham Junction 9 miles west of Portsmouth, continues west for another 20 miles to the Manchester Airport. The route is blocked by a slight Interstate somewhere in Manchester, but it is a protected railway corridor currently used for recreational purposes.
Just a thought...........
Maybe I'll blog a bit about this. Have not in a while http://mainerailtransit.blogspot.com/
TD
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Portland Maine
WWW.MaineRailTransit.org
Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org
or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com
"Build Trains not Lanes"
melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-24517420128319628962012-06-01T02:55:00.002-07:002012-06-01T02:55:28.539-07:00An Asphault-Based SystemOn Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Tony @ Home Office <tdonovan@maine.rr.com> wrote:
The message is to get off of the asphalt-based transportation system. Buses and e-cars just perpetuate this problem. It is not the fuel it is the asphalt. We need a alternative to roads. Supporting rail is the first step. problem the SC has is that national thinks E-cars are the answer. Nope. It does not address the asphalt lobby. The message is rail. If you (we) don't like tar sands - if we don't like oil - we must convince the majority that fixing roads and bridges is just one more piece of propaganda spread by the asphalt lobby to keep us addicted to oil-based transport. and in turn keeps the likes of Vique and company in the money. Count the number of asphalt plants in Maine alone. I think it may be the biggest product we produce - using maine minerals and Saudi, now South Dakota oil. Made in Maine - a paved earth.
Train Time.
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Portland Maine
WWW.MaineRailTransit.org
Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org
or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com
"Build Trains not Lanes"melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-17126518755363939622012-04-29T12:09:00.001-07:002012-04-29T12:09:54.237-07:00WOULD YOU TAKE YOUR BIKE ON THE TRAIN?From: Gary Higginbottom [mailto:ghiggin2@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 6:01 AM
<b>Subject: Mtn Division RailWay Corridor
</b>Have you see this yet concerning the Mountain Division line?
Would you take a train or ride a bicycle to the Fryeburg Fair? We want to know!Click here to take the Survey. http://www.gpcog.org/Transportation_and_Land_Use/mountain-division.php
Thanks, I took the survey.
Reasonably encouraging that GPCOG is even using the 4-letter r-word. Is it just tokenism?
A Realistic Plan for the Mountain Division line --
1) Short-trip transiters (on appropriate-size rail passenger equipment) between Portland, Westbrook, Gorham, South Windham, Standish -- offload River Rd. and 302.
2) Recreation and tourist riders from Portland/Westbrook to Fryeburg and North Conway -- including cruise ship tourists. Including putting one's bike on the train and going to Standish-Fryeburg-NConway for biking and overnighting.
3) Pellets and sand and gravel (and other items/commodities?) from the Fryeburg-Baldwin-Standish area to Portland
Mtn. Division is an incredibly straight bee-line from S. Windham, thru Westbrook to downtown Portland, and right to the doorsteps of Mercy Hospital, Maine Medical Center and Barber foods- three of Portland's biggest employers - and in the future, to the Thompson's Point office/entertainment complex. Once people take that rail run on a quick DMU, it will change their whole geographic perception of Portland-Windham.
But the bigger rail action is to L/A and beyond -- ultimately using rail equipment that is more appropriately sized than the big, infrequent Downeaster. Break the big cultural wall between Anglo-myopic Maine and the very large population/economy of Montreal-Sherbrook. (Peter Vigue understands it.)
--Gary H.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-61556597607547734342012-04-23T05:36:00.000-07:002012-04-23T05:36:23.579-07:00WHY ME?WHY ME?
Yes I do sympathize, if I do not actually agree with Governor LePage, in his quest to root out waste in government. We really must take a hard look at how we are spending government dollars, and who is making the decisions about how that money is spent. Are we rooted in policies that are protecting the special interests of institutions who should be working for progress rather than feeding off the troth of government taxes? Governor LePage is systematically rooting out unnecessary government agency spending that unfortunately cuts spending on some of our most needy.
Which begs the question, have we considered all government agencies? Are there more interests out there that are wasting our money? Consider two recent examples of government spending that are not only not thought out, but both are spending programs from the great society thinking of the “Great Recession”, pre-2008, when resources could be wasted on special interests.
The East-West Highway Corridor study and the plan to build a 315-car Interstate 295 Park and Ride in Yarmouth are examples of spending decisions made years (decades) ago by the State of Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). The supposed to be “privately” funded 2000’ wide east-west corridor across Maine did not make sense when asphalt was relatively inexpensive, and a billion-dollar road for trucks certainly does not make sense with the price of oil in this day and age. The DOT is spending $300,000 on the whim of a few road contractors, when reports show an immediate need for $700 million for existing transportation infrastructure.
The Yarmouth Interchange redevelopment is another example of MDOT engineers allowed to run amok designing some hair-brained “multi-model funded” program that will cost over $9 million dollars. This on a problem that could be resolved with just a sign and improved sightline. “But’, they say, ‘this will reduce congestion at the next Yarmouth Exit 17”. So we are spending nine million dollars to improve a section of highway1 ½ miles to the north. If you think this sound wasteful, try driving Route 1 in Yarmouth at the most congested part of any day. You might experience a ½ minute delay.
I raise these issues because there is a better way. In fact the MDOT just completed a $1.3 million dollar study evaluating alternatives for a better way. The Joint MDOT/FTA-financed Portland North Alternative Modes Project New Starts study completed in August of 2011 considered 30 alternatives to highway widening.
Problem is, MDOT rejected all options for a highway-based bus system that does not meet FTA criteria for funding. Did I mention there was seventy-five million dollars in federal funding available to Maine for any one of the alternatives, except for the one selected by MDOT? That would be $75,000,000 (six zeros). The Governor might take his tight-fisted budget axe across the street to the MDOT headquarters for some real savings, or at least a more sensible use of scarce transportation funds.
Our coalition of transportation interests has taken a close look at MDOT spending over the past decade, and evaluated opportunities to save money and/or get a real economic return on our government dollars. Running out of room for this story, if you would like to hear more specifics, go to our site at www.MaineRailTransit.Org and join the conversation.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-19471595162220249512012-03-25T06:06:00.002-07:002012-03-25T06:06:52.113-07:00Gentlemen, we are out of money. Now we have to think" [W. Churchill]I am having trouble deciding whether I would be more successful in the state-house or as a private citizen.
Would voters support this agenda, this platform?
{note -Read my 2008 City Council 3 publication. Compare it to this rant....}
The Auto industry is finding that young people are not interested in cars, much less as a car representing their social mobility. (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/a-teenage-question-a-car-or-a-smartphone/) This a survey found that when asked, young people ages 23- 33 responded that they prefer the Internet over owning a car. The automakers-- America's industry is responding to this by marketing on MTV, targeted ads and getting headlines in the media. "The experts say you need a car." This is the same mistake by US industry that Consumers/taxpayers were victims of 60 years ago when the auto-makers told us that experts are saying; we need to build highways across and into every urban center in the nation.
The economic morass of the way we live now is forcing us to think. The answer is not a another generation saddled with annual auto-mobile ownership costs. The answer is a new model. Progressive ideas are needed to create new products that will meet consumer wants --- and build them here. The answer is mobility by means other than autos. The answer involves questioning whether the asphalt-based transportation system we have developed over the past 2 generations 60 + years is still working.
It is not. Auto-Dependance, infatuation, and recreational worship of the automobile in this culture is going to change whether you accept this or not. It is even harder to accept if that is where all the money is.
Just like the young in the middle-east, young people in this country are beginning to complain. Rather than have troops shoot them in the streets, or police brutalize them in the cities, the solution is to give them what they want. Security, mobility, freedom and safety. Transportation has the power to give this, to fund this. Transportation historically creates wealth by attracting investments at terminal sites. Jobs that these young technology - advanced future leaders want. We want livable cites and clean air and water for generations to come. We do not want or need parking garages. They would rather have a disposable car (zip, and make certain it is powered by renewable). They have innovation, and new applications they want to share - like how to connect multiple destinations. They shop and spend locally. Rail Transit can offer this.
This is about our having a choice of mobility. Rather than bailout the auto-industry again when it becomes reality that no one wants or can afford their product. As hard as that is to fathom, it is very much a reality. This next generation should be able to buy one good auto that can last them the rest of their lives. Mobility reduces the number of miles on your own personal vehicle and we all know that the value of a car, its ability to last w/out major repairs, is based on its mileage. Giving consumers alternatives to paying the costs of mileage, will save household budgets.
The goal is policy developed by the community rather than policy developed in response to a system of funding created by the Federal government (created by lobbyists for the Feds), and distributed based on formulas that favor the road system. This trickles down to the local roads and local planners hired for the purpose of meeting state and federal requirement and therefore entirely upon roadways. What we are calling an "asphalt-based" land-use system.
It is time that policy is developed by those who will use it and pay for it. Rail Transit into town centers offers an opportunity to create wealth. new development, new businesses, new modes of transporting users from node to node - home, shopping, school, medical, work and recreation. A rail corridor defines a transportation system that links all the terminal stop locations with the commerce needed to sustain the system. Community-based sustainable development. Say it again - community-based sustainable development. And it is not the job for staff - it is the job of people elected to represent their communities. Staff is stuck in the asphault.
In 196_ the asphault system caused local planners to allow the destrcution of the great Portland Union Station. The fedearl stamp on local transportation decssions was complete.
But - the state of Maine, under the leadership of several progressive Governors and MDOT commissioners, recognized that the raillines needed to be preserved. We currently control over more than 300 miles of railway in Maine and hundreds more miles have agreements in place for state rail use. Now is the time to take back our freeedom to decide how we want our communities to be. We now have an opportunity to make our cities and towns quality livable places, attracting new ideas, new and innovative technologies and the generation that can make this happen.
-----Original Message-----melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-20603142288277809982011-12-01T14:31:00.000-08:002011-12-01T14:38:28.248-08:00Beware of Certain Bike/Ped PlansUnderstand that I have an avid biker and walker. I live car-free for a good part of the year and have served as a Trustee on a trails organization and advoacted safer pedestrian access everywhere I travel. But as was evident with the City of Portland Maine's transportation Committee and planning department staff this week, sometimes we forget our prioritiies. I am cutting and pasting a commnet I shared with a national organization about a blog on the current Federal Transportation Bill http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/11/29/whats-lost-when-transportation-enhancements-becomes-%E2%80%9Ccmaq-aa%E2%80%9D/#more-118837. But this relates diecctly to portland consdering a cnversion of our rail corrdors to trails. As Follows:<br /><br />Well at the known level of risk I take in raising the ire of so many I must lend my 2 cents worth. <br /><br />Active transportation funding is a problem. Active transportation is a key word that we watch for when we find the Nationally-based, Federal highway-funded RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY making plans to discontinue more railway corridors for use as recreational trails. Please, before you launch the familiar attacks, spend some time on the history of this group. They may have changed their name to rails with trails, but the intent and outcomes are the same - loss of valuable railway corridors. <br /><br />TRT was organized around the same legislative era when the railroads were being shut down as American transportation was completing its transformation to the single-occupancy automobile and nearing the end of a era of the most successful transportation system in the world. I won't spend a lot of time here, but from 1946 to 1976 the auto/roads pavement succeeded. Passenger rail transportation was considered a waste of money and an interference for the freight rail operators who were also losing market share to the subsidized road system. Fear of losing railway corridors to abutters led the Federal government to pass legislation to protect the corridors. Enter the RTT group, funded through highway fuel taxes stepping into the picture under the assumption that they would provide "Interim use of the rails" as recreation trails until such time as rail could re-emerge. <br /><br />Their track record, if you will, has been very successful. Thousands of miles of rail corridors have been converted to trails and less than 1% has been converted back. Once they are in, their is no way to get them out. One might suggest that the corridors should be shared. The greatest engineering feat of the 19th and 20th century designed around a transportation system that was moving thousands of people IN BOTH DIRECTIONS at over 100 miles per hour (yes 100 years ago passenger rail was traveling that fast and faster). Note "both directions". Now transportation planners believe that the corridor is wide enough for joggers and bikes and pushing baby carriages alongside 100 mile an hour trains. But not only is that unrealistic, but in order for commuter rail to work, as rail was originally designed, trains must operate in both directions - there is no room for non-motorized uses. (oh yes, but when you Google design for Rails WITH Trails all the links point to successful systems - all in manuals written by the RTTC and funded with highway dollars) It just ain't so.<br /><br />The "argument" these days is about our health. But the real debate should be the economic impact. We must consider transportation and the economic malaise we are in in the same policy breath. Roads and cars have not only destroyed the economy, but they are the cause of our poor health and environment. A rail will not only bring great economic opportunity to raise us from this depressed economy, but our environment will improve. Besides, there are plenty of places to jog and bike that are not in railroad corridors!<br /><br />Before we make policy and finding decisions on such things as trails, or funding organizations that convert railway corridors to recreational trails we need an EIA. Not just an Environmental Impact Analysis (which is one of the costliest burdens of rail investments) but an ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. if one were to analyze the return of taxpayer investment on a trail verses railway, the economic impact is significant - and not at all in the favor of trails. The idea that recreational trials brings tourism and economic impact to towns along the route is BS. In maine, where the rail/trail is paved at a cost of $Two Million Dollars a mile, the towns along the way are left with the responsibility of on-going maintenance, and in the winter no users except for lazy, trail and rail destroying oil using snowmobiles who can be elsewhere ( I wasn't showing any prejudice there was I?). <br /><br />I have to go to work, of which there is not much of these days.<br /><br />Think hard about "Active Transportation". Is it just one more way for the anti-rail contingent to kill the best solution to our oil crisis? or is it good for our health as we lose our homes?<br /><br />Tony Donovan<br /><br />Train Timemelikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-8085453293551322472011-10-27T14:59:00.000-07:002011-10-27T15:00:23.609-07:00Mainer’s enthusiasm for passenger rail has not wanedOnly forty years have elapsed since the Maine Central Railroad ceased intercity passenger rail service from Portland to Boston, Lewiston, Bangor and points west. Railway corridors in Maine’s largest urban center were abandoned, first on Commercial Street in 1989 and then the Union Branch in 2009; one to make it safe for automobiles and the other to create an urban recreational trail.<br />Yet Mainer’s enthusiasm for passenger rail has not waned. Interest is at an all-time high, and people I talk to from Wells to Bethel, Freyberg to Rockland and yes, even in the eastern counties, not only value restored passenger rail service in Maine, but see the need for a reinvigorated passenger rail system throughout the state. The time has come for a paradigm shift in our transportation mentality, and passenger rail will be - must be - an essential component of transportation in the 21st century. <br />Too many people, with good intentions, are underestimating our ability to change transportation policy. Too many people are saying rail will take too long, cost too much and face so much opposition, that we should take other alternatives, even it means continuing pumping tax dollars into road paving for buses and giving up on our existing railway transportation corridors for trails. Just as Commercial Street made way for cars, and the Bayside was cut up for a trail, we now are being asked to consider taking the last of the rail corridors into Portland to be used for other than their intended and engineered purpose.<br />The fact is, we can have a modern commuter and passenger intercity rail system, and we can have it in as few as two years. The railway routes are established. State and private rail companies have or are in the process of upgrading the infrastructure. Funding is not only available, but a careful analysis will show that it is a lot less expensive than rebuilding our roads every ten years. No one questions rebuilding a 1/3 mile long bridge for $38 million dollars (Martins Point), but consider it impossible to pay $14 million for 20 miles of track to Freyberg. Building five miles of rail is a road to nowhere, but spending $18 million of local property tax dollars to rebuild a section of the River Road is OK. <br />Until now we've lacked both the political will at all levels of government and a coordinated effort to make passenger rail a reality. But after ten years of successful regular Amtrak service between Portland and Boston, the time for revitalized passenger service throughout Maine is upon us, and it's time to act. It is not a time to be distracted by recreational use of this critical asset.<br />While recreational trails and off-road motoring are important to some segments of the economy, they should not overshadow the importance of a restored Mountain Division and St. Lawrence & Atlantic railways bringing real, long-term economic stimulus and jobs to communities through which they serve. A passenger rail system attracts private development dollars. Rail offers a more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly option than buses, airlines or automobiles. It also provides a much needed transportation option to seniors, students, or all those who would rather avoid the general hassle of automobile travel. What we need is a passenger rail initiative that connects the small urban centers of rural Maine regions not currently served by Amtrak. <br />It's high time to invest in a robust passenger rail transportation network that we can all be proud of, a network that includes both the Amtrak Downeaster and restoration of the regional network of railway transportation corridors that so ably served our economic needs in the recent past and hold out the best promise for our immediate future. Please, the next time fill up your gas tank, consider what it would be like to be free of the burdens of your car. We urge you to consider the possibilities. In twenty years you'll look back and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you.<br />Anthony J. Donovan, President<br />Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />Portland Maine<br />WWW.MaineRailTransit.org<br />Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org<br />or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com <br /><br />"Build Trains not Lanesmelikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-50862916661528510712011-03-04T13:59:00.000-08:002011-03-04T14:14:59.245-08:00Portland Press Herald "Rails to Trails" ; 3/4/11Funny those media folks. Interviewed me for 15-20 minutes about this Mt. Division Trail issue. I talked economics, railroad terminology, property tax burdens, costs of roads, business development, jobs, environment, politics etc. What does she quote me on? A baby carriage next to the train. Either that reporter does not get it, or she favors the trail - or both. Following are the notes I sent her, that were not referenced in today’s PPH article:<br /><br />(1) There are limited public resources available for transportation uses in Maine and many competing uses statewide for in federal transportation dollars. The voters choose to invest in rail as a means of reducing our dependence on oil, reducing the impacts of trucks cars and buses on paved roadways and as a means of increasing the efficiency of freight transportation.<br /><br />(2) There is a misperception that the June 2010 Bond funding does not complete the job. But in fact the 4-5 miles of 115 lb track that is laid, sets us up for commuter passenger rail service between Portland and the commuting towns as far out as Standish. The fact is, we can have a modern commuter and passenger intercity rail system, and we can have it in as few as two years. The railway routes are established. State and private rail companies have or are in the process of upgrading the infrastructure. Funding is not only available, but a careful analysis will show that it is a lot less expensive than rebuilding our roads every ten years. <br /><br />(3) No one ever questions when funds are used to pave only a section of roadway. The real issue here is how we might reduce the tax burdens associated with roads. MDOT is rebuilding a 1/3 mile long bridge for $38 million dollars (Martins Point), and the media is only telling us which lane will be closed and when. But consider $14 million for 20 miles of track to Freyberg and the 1st five miles of rail is a “road to nowhere”. Ten Thousand cars a day travel on the River road, and the towns of Windham and Westbrook are facing an $18 million dollar to repave a section, and that is not a road to nowhere! A $14 million dollar investment in rail will rebuild the tracks as far as Freyberg and last 50 years compared to the 10 or so years paving a few miles of roads will get a town. <br /><br />(4) Transportation funding should be targeted toward the greatest economic good for the public. Trails are going to cost a lot of money to engineer and build. The 5 miles already completed in Gorham cost $1 million in tax dollars and it is already deteriorating from snowmobile use. The towns along the line will be responsible for maintaining this trail –when they can’t afford to fix their own sidewalks, much less roads, schools etc. A true economic impact analysis comparing rail transit to Non-motorized recreational uses of public dollars should indicate that this is not the best use of public dollars.<br /><br />(5) Rails to Trails or Rails with Trails is basically an effort to remove vital railway corridors for use as recreational trails. This is a fact. And, regardless of the stated motive to “preserve the RR ROW” as an “Interim use” for trails, the fact is once a Railway is a trail, politically and economically it is close to impossible to return it to rail use. In fact we have had engineers on the trails part of this corridor that have showed us the damage the trail is doing to the rail corridor that may not be reparable.<br /><br />(6) The Rail to Trails conservancy was created by the Federal government as a means of preserving the corridor for future use of rail. To prevent the corridors from being lost, not to provide an easy road system for hikers. Although there is a large constituency supporting the use of the corridors for a trail, once taxpayers and consumers learn of the benefits that rail will provide, the consensus should change. But meanwhile all we have heard from are the recreational trails folks.<br /><br />(7) RIGHT NOW, more than ever, we need railway transit. Our need to divest ourselves of our dependency on oil and the single-occupancy vehicle is imperative – and railways offer the most economical choice for achieving this goal. If the Maine voter decided that tax dollars are best invested in recreational trails, over railways, or other critical economic uses, so be it. We suggest that is not the case.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-54331934437928961912011-02-28T15:45:00.000-08:002011-02-28T16:48:29.470-08:00Channel 6 Rails to Trails Feb 28It really is too bad that the folks who want to enjoy redreational and nature hikes in Maine can't seem to locate a place other than establsihed railway transportation corridors. You would think, in this big open state there would be a couple of other options. Now, the nature trails folks are so desparate for this easy, straight and level route to recreate on, they sold their souls to the biggest carbon emmision ters of the woods - Snow mobiles. <br />Background: The Sebago to the Sea Coaltion is asking the Governor to stop spending the Bond money Maine voters passed for rail, until they can find a way to make the rail into a trail. My thoughts, as shared with the Channel 6 folks:<br />**********<br />Regarding the Caroline Cornish Story<br /><br />Interesting that 2 of the news stories prior to the one about the rails to trials were about the costs related to maintaining roads during storms and also about the budget crisis we face across the state. If I was to keep watching I'm sure national news would cover the mid-east and the fast rising price of gasoline. So we now have the recreational trails people trying to delay, or prevent the investments into a real alternative to car. The rails to trails people found an easy path for them to hike in the woods even if it is a paved road, straight level and no scenery except an old rail line. Here we have a state with more open space than any in New England and in many of the nation, yet the recreational trails people are determined to<br />make their nature walks on this corridor.<br /><br />Fact is, it is train time. The people of maine voted for this investment,and the trails people have known since the first day that the purchase of this corridor was for rail. Interim use is not permanent trails.<br /><br />Then there is the fact that this PAVED trail will need to not only be paid for with tax dollars, when the roads and bridges are facing a $700 million dollar shortfall - but each town will be responsible for maintaining these lines - paved trails for snowmobilers paid for with local property tax dollars. The 8 ,mile paved trail built already cost $1 million. Problem is one department in MDOT is funding trails ( Dan Stewart) and another funding rails (Nate Moulton) and the roads guys are dominating the discussion so no one is paying attention.<br /><br />The Maine rail Transit Coalition has attended every Sebago to The Sea meeting and we have made it clear that the trails are undermining the rails,that the trails will need to be moved, as per state law, and that there are many other options for biking (roads) and hiking in this region. The railroads across the country have been lost to trails and maine has had a preservation program in place for almost 20 years to eventually restore rail. now that we have an opportunity to leverage federal funding, which is supporting rail investments across the country, and with the global threats off crushing costs related to road based transportation, now is not the time to allow the trails to take over these critical economic assets for recreational uses that have questionable, if not limited benefits and in fact with snowmobilers use may have in fact additional costs to local property tax burdens.<br /><br />Train Time<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony Donovan, Pres.<br />Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />Portland Maine<br />WWW.MaineRailTransit.org<br />Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org<br />or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com<br /><br />"Build Trains not Lanes"melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-46255067928268761672011-01-20T16:30:00.000-08:002011-01-20T17:02:44.320-08:00An Interesting E-Mail Exchange w a CriticAs per this title, the following was an exchange generated by a rail critic/road supporter who contacted Portland State Representative and MRTC member, Ben Chippen with his opinion on investing in rail (and his opinion on the intelligence of those who support investing in rail). A long, but interesting read. as follows:<br /><br />---------------------<br />On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:32 PM, George <gcolby@maine.rr.com> wrote:<br /><em>I think the state of Maine should only spend money on the rail beds as we do the roads. I read about the economic income of the Downeaster. What is the balance sheet total, positive or negative? If the balance sheet is negative then we shouldn’t be financing it.</em><br />***************<br />From: Ben Chipman [mailto:votechipman@gmail.com]<br />Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:43 PM<br />To: George<br />Cc: Tony @ Home Office; Gary Higginbottom<br />Subject: Re: Railroads<br /><br />Hello George,<br />The balance sheet for roads is always going to be negative. Pavement and roads do not make money for the state. We should not expect railroads to either. Transportation costs money. Creating a mile of pavement costs a lot more than developing a mile of rail. Dollar for dollar our money is much better spent on railroad. I am not saying roads should not be repaired but we should not stop funding rail either.<br /><br />Ben Chipman, State Representative<br />-----------------------------<br />From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:56 AM<br />To: George; Ben Chipman<br />Cc: MRTC<br />Subject: RE: Railroads<br /><br />Mr. Colby, <br />Cc. Rep. Chipman<br /><br />Dear Mr. Colby: <br />In regards to your e-mail on railroads, please find attached the economic impact analysis of the Downeaster passenger rail. The Maine Rail Transit Coalition agrees that the State of Maine should only spend money on rail as we do on the roads. Currently that is not the case and although the highway fund is facing looming deficiencies, investments in railway transportation corridors are even more under-funded. Yet the economic impact of the Downeaster operations alone are projected to generate $76 million in property tax revenues, while creating thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in wealth over the next few decades. At the same time the increasing costs of pavement, roads and bridges are being shifted from the state to local municipal budgets e.g., property taxes, at a time when nether towns nor consumers can afford them. Railway transit offers an alternative to commuters that will not only reduce their annual transportation fees, but it will reduce local property tax burdens while at the same time attracting private business and housing investments to locations around railway terminals. This is already happening in Maine (Brunswick, Portland, Saco, and Old Orchard) to the tune of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.<br /><br />The cost of constructing one mile of railway is $800,000 and last 50 years (or more). The cost of reconstruction one mile of road is about $2 million and needs to be reconstructed every 10 years. Although operational costs of commuter rail require public subsidies, the costs to households for owning and operating a car are estimated at over $10,000 annually per car. If rail can reduce the costs of owning multiple cars, and even help consumers to own a good car for a longer period of time, that return on sales, income or gas tax investments need to be weighed against the costs of continuing to rely on foreign oil and pavement based, single occupancy transportation.<br /><br />Railway transit is effectively used around the world and in fact, prior to the introduction of the federal highway system, the US railway system was the most advanced in the world, with trains traveling over 100 mph to small and large towns throughout the country. These towns prospered with the rail, and there is a real question as to whether the highway system we now rely on is bringing prosperity to our towns, or a cost burden that is inhibiting our ability to create good jobs and wealth for our citizens. <br /><br />The Maine Rail Transit Coalition is a group of dedicated professionals from around the State with colleagues around the country that are engaged in studies, educational forums and analysis of transportation with the purpose of explaining the real benefits of railway transportation and the hidden costs of our continuing reliance on roads for economic development.<br /><br />I hope you can visit our website at www.mainerailtransit.org for additional information and up to date reports on transportation issues. We appreciate your sharing your comments and hope that you are able to continue to share your thoughts and ideas with us as we continue our efforts to lower transportation costs, and increase economic opportunity for Maine residents.<br />Sincerely, Tony Donovan, President Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />*************************<br />From: George [mailto:gcolby@maine.rr.com]<br />Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:29 AM<br />To: 'Tony @ Home Office'; 'Ben Chipman'<br />Cc: 'MRTC'<br />Subject: RE: Railroads<br /><br />Apparently you are both ignorant as to how freight moves in Maine and the United States. Both of your attitudes are wrong. We need cooperation between trucks and railroads, NOT on or the other. I am a professional truck driver and I have the same complaint about some of the trucking associations, us or them. <br /><br />It would or will be several years before the railroad can even come close to moving the freight that trucks move. Ben your economic ignorance is showing again. Roads absolutely do make money for the state and towns. How do you think products and services get from here to there?<br /><br />I checked the website and that is just a typical optimistic projection done in 2008 and after you get past the propaganda ,most of it untrue especially about being “green” there is not much of sudstance there.<br /><br />Thank You for the response<br />George Colby<br />-----------------------------------<br />From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:19 PM<br />To: George; 'Ben Chipman'<br />Cc: 'MRTC'<br />Subject: RE: Railroads<br />Dear George:<br /><br />Actually our group works very hard to establish facts and data to support our analysis and that information we put out for discussion. However, more important is that we tend to try to work with all groups in a manner that is not hostile, or in any way exhibiting vitriol as is so much in the news these days. We do not ever make statements that might be cause for someone to think we are angry or stubborn. We do not ever call anyone ignorant, and though we might consider statements made by others to be wrong, we never say that they are wrong but rather try to establish facts and analysis so as to help everyone understand all positions. The only attitudes we believe are wrong are those that can be considered to be personal attacks on our integrity.<br /><br />So moving beyond that aspects of our communications, please consider the following:<br /><br />The railroad industry and trucking industry is cooperating to a great extent throughput Maine and the US. Intermodal transportation networks are critical to the economical and efficient movement of goods. The Auburn intermodal is the best example in Maine where we have products hitting the shelves of retailers in Maine after a rail connections from Vancouver delivers (china-made products) to trucks that deliver to LL Beans etc. I am not certain where you read us to say that it was one or the other. We are instead seeking to balance investments in both.<br /><br />It is also true that it will be several years before rail freight matches truck. But several years is not that far off. And it was just several years ago when Maine's truckling industry gathered at the Capital to complain that they were being driven out of business due to high gasoline and diesel costs - something that unless we increase roads subsidies the State has no control over. <br /><br />I am not certain how roads make money for states and towns. Businesses make money through the creation of wealth and use transportation, provided by government investment as a critical tool to achieve that wealth. But the government subsidies have been required for the deficits in user fees for the Highway Trust Fund for many years. From 2008 to present more than $30 billion dollars have been transferred from the General Fund to the Highway Trust fund. Funds that could have been used to pay for other services - or to reduce taxes.<br /><br />I am not certain what website you went to. if it was the Maine Rail Transit one, we do seek to post established data, or facts. If what you say about things being "untrue" please be specific and we will respond accordingly. As for green, our goal is economic prosperity and the best return on investment for consumers in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally sound. We believe that is we achieve efficiencies, economic prosperity and environmental benefits will naturally follow.<br /><br />The train industry has so many drawbacks simply due to the way America was planned during the post WW2 era, with advent of suburbia. During the 50s and 60s when the highway system was being developed there were many regulations being created in favor of the automotive industry, thus hurting the train industry. A few figures major figures about trains to consider: <br /><br />- 85% of the wear on our highways is caused by trucks. <br />- One 80,000 lb truck does as much damage to the highway as 10,000 cars. <br />- One train can replace 280 to 500 trucks, since each wagon can carry on average 100 tons vs 56 ton max on a truck. <br />- A truck requires 3 times more fuel per ton per mile. Though the figures range from 1.4 to 9 depending on equipment and conditions. <br /><br />Just a few of the benefits that would result from replacing as much of the trucking industry with rail as possible: <br />- Significant reduction in wear and maintenance costs associated with highways. <br />- Less maintenance and less trucks on highways means less traffic jams, which cost an estimated 100 billion yearly to the US economy. <br />- Using less fuel to ship goods would lower dependency on foreign oil and help reduce emissions for the environment. <br />- Cheaper goods, due to cost reductions in shipping since a large portion is based on fuel consumption. Exactly the reason why truckers are often heard having protests and strikes during high fuel prices. Inexpensive goods would result in a boost in the economy. <br />- The rail industry is financially responsible for it's infrastructure. While trucking companies only contribute a small mount to the extremely large budget that is spent on keeping the road infrastructure in America running. <br />- In 1995 42,000 people died in automobile accidents. A third of all highway accidents that result in death involve trucks. Meanwhile the railroad industry only claims about 500 lives per year (almost all to people who were trespassing on tracks ). <br />- One rail line can carry as many people in a day as 16 lanes of highway. Plus trains are actually quieter than trucks. Highways produce a lot of noise pollution and require the placement of sound barriers. Meanwhile a train only comes once in a while, and even then does not create too much noise. <br />- Trains are constantly evolving, and even today's diesel locomotives are far superior technologically than their truck counterparts. <br /><br />Always a pleasure to have someone like you causing us to think, research, analyze and respond. Thanks again for your commentary.<br />******************************<br />George wrote:<br />First I will probably not tone down my speech when I feel it is warranted. That is the problem with this country today. The shooting in Arizona had NOTHING to do with vitriolic speech.<br /><br />As I said in my reply to Susan Davis I am not opposed to trains. I also believe they have a place in transportation. I may not have mentioned it before, I own a small trucking company and I don’t get subsidized by any government. I have recently changed my view on government financing and railroads. I had for many years been opposed to any government financing of railroads, however I would not be opposed to State & Federal Government financing of railroad beds as they do roads. However I object strongly to subsidizing operating costs of any business by government.<br /><br />I also stay up on engine technology and to say that locomotive engines are superior to truck engines is just plain wrong. As a unit locomotives are not “far superior” to today’s trucks.I would invite you to read the 2 following article from the Bangor Daily News<br />http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail.html?sub_id=161898<br />http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Business/Twin-Rivers-Paper-to-use-Canadian-railroad,160865<br />Thanks George<br />-----------------------------<br />From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com] <br />Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:56 AM<br />To: George<br />Cc: MRTC; Ben GreenIndy Chipman<br />Subject: RE: Railroads<br /><br />Mr. Colby:<br />In the articles you provided;<br />1. Mr. Dutton states:"We support the rescue of the rail line, but it is incomprehensible for Maine to spend $20 million of public money with zero transparency into the process, terms and desired outcomes for rail customers and the taxpayers at large. "<br />REPLY: Lack of transparency is a chief concern of our group. We can get nothing from the state regarding rail investments. All done behind closed doors. just as the highway industry has operated for decades.<br /><br />It is well-known that Twin Rivers is battling with MMA to secure cost-effective, reliable rail service from our Madawaska plant. The state’s rail, if accessible to Twin Rivers, may in the future provide important rail options to our plant and, by extension, help secure our long-term sustainability. However, we need assurances that the rail will be operated under the principles of capitalism, not backroom deal making.<br /><br />2. MMA is a lousy company and that applies to most rail operators, particularly in Maine. Thank goodness for government investment in roads and federal and state gas subsidies to keep the operating costs of private trucks low.<br /><br />My old aunt once said that I should always preface certain statements with "in my opinion", such as "In (your) opinion the shooting in AZ had nothing to do with vitriolic speech" In my own opinion I suggest that it did. And in my own opinion I suggest that you will achieve more by indeed toning down your speech. Too many angry people out there calling people with different opinions ignorant and wrong. That not only risks their anger, but it ends to have those being called names ignore the name callers. We are not bad people and we are working hard (with zero pay) to try to raise the level of incomes for everyone in Maine.<br /><br />Good comments about twin Rivers and Frazier. A couple of more dollars a gallon on the pump and they may lose a few of those truckers. As for MMA, hopefully we can get some competition up there soon. I lean toward Canadian operators.<br /><br />TD<br />Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />Portland Maine<br />WWW.MaineRailTransit.com<br />Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org<br />or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com<br />"Build Trains not Lanes" <br />----------------------------<br />From: George <gcolby@maine.rr.com><br />Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:52:06 -0500<br />To: "'Susan S. Davis'" <susandavis228@gmail.com><br />Subject: RE: Railroads<br />Can you tell me exactly how much it cost to reconstruct 1 mile of railroad bed and 1mile of roadway please. Thanks<br />*************************<br />From: Susan S. Davis [mailto:susandavis228@gmail.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:10 PM<br />To: George; Anthony J. Donovan; 'Ben Chipman'<br />Cc: 'MRTC'<br />Subject: Re: Railroads<br /><br />George,<br /><br />Please note that truckers are benefiting from trains elsewhere, and we are likely to as well as we rebuild out lost, and much less expensive, rail infrastructure.<br />Regards, Susan, MRTC<br /><br />Ohio truckers thank Norfolk Southern for boosting business http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/AivkdRaMxMdjzOvwfDamhsfCLRkq?format=standard> <br />Ohio's short-haul truckers say business is booming, thanks to Norfolk Southern's freight service. The opening of the Heartland Corridor line allows the railroad to send double-stacked freight shipments into central Ohio from points of origin along the East Coast, dramatically increasing work for truckers who shuttle containers the last few miles from the rails to the customer. "Instead of having a train once every three days, now you can move containers much more swiftly. There's a big difference," says one trucking-company operator. American City Business Journals/Columbus, Ohio <br />-----------------------<br />From: George <gcolby@maine.rr.com><br />Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:10:46 -0500<br />To: "'Susan S. Davis'" <susandavis228@gmail.com><br />Subject: RE: Railroads<br /><br />I grew up next to a railroad and the rails don’t last 50 years. I know of some roads that have been constructed correctly that have lasted 50 years. On the “about” $2 million dollars for road construction, what exactly what size roadbed are you talking about? I am not against railroads, I believe they have their place. I am not against the government maintaining railroad beds. I AM against any subsidy of operating costs. I am a trucking company owner and I don’t get any subsidies from the government and I don’t want any.<br />Thanks George<br />--------------------<br />From: Susan S. Davis [mailto:susandavis228@gmail.com] <br />Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:30 AM<br />To: George<br />Subject: Re: Railroads<br /><br />George,<br />I repeat the statistic from below: The cost of constructing one mile of railway is $800,000 and lasts 50 years (or more). The cost of reconstruction one mile of road is about $2 million and needs to be reconstructed every 10 years.<br /><br />An even more important aspect of that statistic is that increasingly the cost of annual road maintenance is being transferred to municipalities, which have to choose between funding education and fixing roads. Add that to the cost per household of anywhere from $5-10,000 just owning each car (the gas is the least of it), and you start seeing the hidden impact of roads over rails. But they have to work together. Trucks are a critical component of a successful rail infrastructure. My personal favorite? The name “pick-up” came from picking up freight at the railroad station!<br />Best regards, Susan<br />----------------------<br />From: Susan S. Davis [mailto:susandavis228@gmail.com] <br />Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 10:35 AM<br />To: George<br />Cc: Ann Adams; Anthony J. Donovan; Gary Higginbottom; Joan Saxe; Joane Saxe; Mark Sengelmann; Mark Sengelmann; Paul Weiss; Susan S. Davis<br />Subject: Re: Railroads<br />George,<br /><br />I don’t have those statistics, so I’m copying other members of the Maine Rail Transit Coalition to get them for you. If I’m not mistaken, roads and highways have a lot of hidden subsidization. Other members of the MRTC can speak to that better. <br /><br />It’s important to know that General Motors orchestrated the destruction, of, and the negative propaganda about, rail and railroads in order to sell cars, trucks, oil, gas, rubber. They were found guilty of collusion with Standard Oil and Firestone Tire in the systematic destruction of light rail systems, starting in Los Angeles, by the US govt. in the early 1950s—paid all of $1,000 fines, each party. Then along came Eisenhower to create the interstate highway system, done by two friends, both GM executives brought in to run the Dept. of Defense (you’ll remember that defense was the argument for the Interstate System creation, stimulated by the success of the Autobahn in Germany) and Dept. of Transportation. I can assure you that you will not be able to extract real cost comparisons from DOTs to this day. They hide the subsidies and they do not acknowledge the hidden and unintended consequences of road construction vs. rail.<br /><br />We’ve pulled together our statistics using the Freedom of Information Act as often as not. Let’s see what others can add.<br /><br />Thank you for continuing this conversation and not just walking away. As you have seen and will see, this is a highly informed and educated group on the subject of rail, transit and transportation.<br />Best regards, Susan<br />----------------------------<br />George wrote:<br />I agree on the behind closed doors. I have been to MDOT public hearings and Maine Turnpike public hearings. There was always a conclusion reached and they weren’t going to change their minds and they were not open to less expensive and “new” ways tried in other states to repair bridges that equaled the same result. There is too little transparency in all of government.<br /><br />I added a comment to your signature. ("Build Both")<br />Thanks George<br />***<br />'nuf said (4 now)melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-18461911414587823922010-09-14T07:40:00.000-07:002010-09-14T07:50:17.467-07:00An interesting discussion on Rail by Bus AdvocatesThe discussion began with a report from the Portland-based Mane Assoc for Sustainable Transportation as follows:<br /><em>"Our {MaST} position on rail: Christian dropped the ball on this last month. We had a brief discussion of how hardline rail advocates have somewhat undermined the practical implementation of better rail service by alienating/ridiculing various leaders, and the need to present a more reasonable position. General agreement around stating these as priorities: Given limited resources, we need to focus on areas where they'll provide the greatest benefit to businesses, passengers, freight, and commuters. A million dollars spent on a rail line in Piscataquis County will not provide the same benefit as a million dollars spent in Auburn - Maine should be disciplined in focusing its limited resources where rail is most likely to succeed, in order to maximize our rail investments over time. We believe that those priorities should be, in no particular order: Secure reliable funding for our existing Downeaster service first. The immediate priority for capital improvements in Maine should be the trunk line between NH and Lewiston/Auburn - imrpoving service for freight as well as for passengers. Passenger rail stations must be well connected for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists. MDOT/AVCOG will sponsor a public hearing on Amtrak expansion to L/A on Sept. 8th. CLF will go and Christian might as well. We plan to present our ZOOM proposal as evidence that there's demand for transit between L/A and Portland. Hillary pointed out that Tony D. has been antagonistic to the idea of bus service. Important to point out that buses and rail are complimentary: Concord Coach and the Downeaster serve the same people in Portland/Boston, give travelers more options, and make both services more successful. If Amtrak goes to L/A 5 times a day, commuters will still want to have a bus service available in case a train doesn't fit their schedule.</em><br /><br />FOLLOWED BY THE FOLLOWING RESPONCES:<br />Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:46:17 -0400<br />From: ghiggin2@earthlink.net<br />To: c.neal.milneil@gmail.com; hilary@theleague.com<br />CC: tdonovan@maine.rr.com; weissp@hotmail.com<br />Subject: Re: MAST Steering Meeting Friday<br /><br /><br />Christian and Hilary,<br /><br />Since you're still copying me on MaST Steering Committee communications, some reactions to your last meeting's notes... <br /><br />Yes, Tony Donovan is dogged about bypassing intercity bus and moving directly to commuter rail. Doggedness is necessary in order to overcome the powerful pavement construction lobby. That construction lobby will grant you some bus expansion because they perceive more pavement-based bus action as potentially construction-generating, whereas the highway construction lobby is hard-wired to fear and strongly resist serious funding-agency commitment to commuter rail as throwing a big monkey-wrench into their comfortable pavement expansion/maintenance paradigm. <br /><br />That very powerful pavement lobby and their Portland-area funding conduit - PACTS - are willing to allow bus transit because it uses pavement, and unsustainable pavement maintenance/construction is mostly what Maine's transportation decision-making structure is all about. Furthermore, this transportation decision-making structure includes not just the construction and paving firms and the PACTS local government folks (in Greater Portland), it also includes consultants such as those who get another job by adding the L/A rail "study" to their expanding Portland North contract. <br /><br />The pavement folks should especially like a bus alternative that adds bus transit to the emergency lanes of I-295. Don't look now, but with this I-295 bus-emergency-lane scenario those emergency lanes may need to be reconstructed with adequate foundation to handle regular bus traffic (as opposed to the original emergency-lane function of just supporting occasional stationary vehicles). The pavement guys will thus love the bus-on-295 proposal forthcoming from Portland North since it enables MDOT to tell the public - including MaST - that they are expanding mass transit while giving the construction industry another possible tear-and-rebuild job on 295. <br /><br />Furthermore, by adding the "analysis" of Amtrak to Lewiston-Auburn, MDOT's consultants not only get another consulting gig, but MDOT also throws a token rail bone to rail advocates and to the Lewiston-Auburn folks who felt stiffed when Brunswick got the Downeaster. <br /><br />If MDOT was seriously considering rail service to L/A, , they would first of all not just make the easy, knee-jerk response that passenger rail = AMTRAK. Instead they would make an open-minded examination of rail service that is appropriately scaled, scheduled and equipped for both Portland-L/A commuter and Boston travel needs. This may very well be smaller-equipment, scalable, modular commuter-rail cars with relatively more frequent service for commuters and with linkage to the Downeaster in Portland (or Yarmouth Junction) instead of analyzing only a full-scale AMTRAK train going to L/A with insufficient travel frequency for commuting needs and thus a preordained negative feasibility assessment (which would please the pavement lobby). <br /><br />Secondly, If MDOT is seriously considering rail service to L/A, they should bring the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) fully into the study function because NNEPRA - per the Maine Legislature - "is directed to take all actions that are reasonably necessary to initiate, establish or reinstate regularly scheduled passenger rail service between points within this State and points within and outside this State. These actions may include, but are not limited to, the acquisition, holding, use, operation, repair, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, modernization, rebuilding, relocation, maintenance and disposition of railroad lines, railway facilities, rolling stock, machinery and equipment, trackage rights, real and personal property of any kind and any rights in or related to that property." (Maine Revised Statutes Title 23, Chapter 621, Part 7 - Railroads, subchapter 1, Section 8003.) I.e., if serious passenger rail planning is to be undertaken, the Legislature has designated NNEPRA to do the job, but MDOT doesn't seem to be sufficiently serious in this Portland-L/A analysis to involve the State of Maine's passenger rail entity.<br /><br />MDOT might be mentioning analysis of rail passenger service to Montreal in their L/A project publicity, but when Patricia Quinn of NNEPRA was asked recently about how soon rail service to Montreal might happen, she replied that it probably won't happen until after she stops dying her hair blond. Guess they're not real serious -- but some dogged effort might change that. Meanwhile, keep an eye on Patricia's roots.<br /><br />This all makes MDOT's Portland-L/A passenger rail project look like a token effort -- thus a dogged response is justified.<br /><br />So back to Tony's approach -- <br />Pushing past the pavement lobby requires stubborn assertiveness and commitment to rail, not just playing by the desires of the decision-making establishment. MaST seems to be satisfied working within the slightly expanded comfort-zone of the current transportation paradigm with some bus plans that the pavement lobby can live with. On the other hand, mobilization of the public will be needed to dismantle the strait-jacket of pavement addiction. Doing that with the necessarily fast turnaround requires a dogged approach. Your bus plan may not be sufficiently bold and appropriate for future needs, and thus a distraction from where we need to go. Tony has little patience with that, and I'm in agreement with him. <br /><br />If you want to do something quick and remain acceptable in the eyes of the pavement junkies, then continue with the bus idea with its non-sustainable pavement addiction. If the "S" in your acronym really means "sustainable", then be bold, risk pissing off the pavement lobby, and put existing rail corridors to work linking Portland with not just Lewiston-Auburn but also with the commuter traffic nodes along route 1 Falmouth-Yarmouth plus Yarmouth village and the Pineland Center. And get started now.<br /><br />As for comparing the Portland north bus/train situation to the Portland-Boston situation -- bus and train co-exist to Boston because Portland-Boston is a bigger market draw than Portland-L/A, because the train cannot get to South Station in Boston whereas the bus can, and because Logan Airport is a big piece of Concord Trailways' Portland to Boston sustenance. <br /><br />Rail offers a far better lifestyle for Greater Portland's future, but it needs a courageous push. Bus might give your organization an easier short-term feather of accomplishment in your hats. But the courageous push requires a dogged approach. So how about going after true sustainability and hopping on the train with us? It's gathering momentum. Don't let it leave without you...<br /><br />Thanks for listening and seeking better trans with trains!<br /><br />On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Paul Weiss <weissp@hotmail.com> wrote:<br />Gary,<br /> Excellent insight and commentary. I am in complete agreement. Buses are a short term fix that helps the highway lobby while short changing our long term future. It puts us more dependent on a method of travel and urban sprawl that is completely unsustainable. It is hard to imagine an organization that touts itself as "green" and supports more pavement. These roadways are bankrupting cities and towns across the state and will be only costing more and more every year. Rail is much cheaper to maintain in the long term and less expensive to build if you consider the entire life cycle of highways (repaving every 7-10 year). Think of the enormous amounts of oil to pave every few years and all that oils eventually ends up in our rivers and lakes, and air. That is the same oil that leaked from a wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico. Imaging clean fast green electrified passenger rail? <br /> Given proper funding, we could have commuter rail service set up with 6 stops within 1 years time. It is doable and would change forever the economies of the entire region and make it a much better place to live.<br /> If we keep investing in roadways and highways, we will be squandering money for the "perceived" short term fix. In the mean time you will have lost forever the true high speed, "green" connectors of towns and cities in Southern Maine, the railways. This is why policy decision are so important. They will shape entire regions and economies for not only decades but centuries. If we continue down our path of highway building we will set up the entire region for a failure on a grand scale. Imagine the world with 6-10 dollar gasoline. How many buses and highways are going to be repaved at that price? This is not so far off. <br /><br />Paul Weiss<br />Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br /><br />THE EXCHANGE ENDED WITH THE MaST FELLOW SAYING SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF OUR "GENERATION" SITTING AROUND DRINKING BEER AND NOT BEING PRODUCTIVE. THE INTERESTING PART IS THE SOURCE OF FUNDING THEY HAVE FOR BUS FOLLOWED BY HOW IT WILL FUND THE DOWNEASTER. AS FOLLOWS:<br />In the next decade, the only place where Maine might have the money to expand highways is on the Maine Turnpike, which has its own dedicated and reliable source of funds (tolls). The Turnpike is Constitutionally prohibited from spending any of its toll revenues on rail, or on any infrastructure more than 5 miles away from the Turnpike (they've helped finance some connector roads any bypasses in the past, like Rand Road in Portland). But the Turnpike CAN spend toll revenue on bus services (like the ZOOM). Here's what we'd like to happen:<br />Get the Turnpike to fund more local and regional bus services connecting to and along the Turnpike corridor. <br />Thanks to 1), local bus services in Portland, Lewiston, and Biddeford, which are primarily funded from local property taxes, would have more farebox revenue and lower expenses, to free up $1-$2 million a year in unrestricted municipal funds. <br />A portion of those local property tax savings in those communities could then be re-allocated to supporting the Downeaster and commuter rail service. <br />So this is a way to get the Turnpike Authority - with its massive revenues - to INDIRECTLY fund better rail service, even though direct funding is prohibited in the constitution, to the tune of $1-$2 million a year. That's four times as much as the Turnpike currently spends on bus services. If you have a more realistic way to boost funding for new transit services, I would love to hear it. But based on our preliminary conversations with lawmakers and lobbyists, this has a very good chance of happening. We could potentially have commuter rail between Biddeford and Brunswick next year - but only if you get over your hangups over the possibility of having more buses on the roads as well. <br />You guys are free to protest this plan. But if you do, those Turnpike revenues will probably be shunted over to the state's road maintenance backlog instead of to buses, and then we'll be right back where we started, without any dedicated or long-term funding for rail services in Maine, and more money for roads. By saying "no" to buses and not offering a realistic plan of your own, you're saying "yes" to this bullshit status quo we're dealing with.<br />I'll reiterate that it all comes down to funding - the studies are irrelevant unless someone puts up the money. You guys are from a generation when state and federal governments were happy to spend trillions on expanding our infrastructure, but those days are over. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-20167278405826653002010-08-10T06:07:00.000-07:002010-08-10T06:08:46.401-07:00www.pressherald.com/opinion/editorialsPosted: August 10<br />Updated: Today at 7:46 PM <br /><br />Our View: Foot paths<br />should not replace rail development<br />Both transportation alternatives have value, but one should not supplant the other.<br /><br />The hardest policy questions don't balance good against bad, or even the lesser of two evils: The thorniest issues are the ones that pit one good option against another<br /><br /><br />There is such a conflict emerging in transportation planning circles regarding the expansion of walking and biking trails on unused railroad rights of way.<br /><br />There have been very successful projects in which these strips of land have been transformed into urban trails that not only facilitate human-powered transportation, but provide recreational options that help people improve their health and make an area a more attractive place to be.<br /><br />Portland Trails' eastern waterfront trail, that links the Back Cove to Marginal Way, Congress Street (via Cutter Street) and Commercial Street is a great example of how an unused rail bed can become a civic asset.<br /><br />But just because rail beds are not being used now doesn't mean that they will never be needed. It's important to remember that while converting a rail line to a bike or walking path is valuable, it should never preclude a return to passenger or freight rail, which could be a key part of our transportation future.<br /><br />Under current conditions, reviving rail often looks like a too-costly option, but that will not necessarily always be true. Gas prices are currently depressed by an international recession that has lowered demand for petroleum. A recovery in Asia could change that dramatically, making alternative transportation much more attractive.<br /><br />While many rail-to-trail projects give the pathways temporary use of the right of way, reserving them for future redevelopment as rail lines, the pathway conversions can make it more expensive to turn the right of way back to its original use. It also creates a constituency of people who like the trail and want to keep it.<br /><br />That why rail supporters fought a grant proposal by Portland Trails, which was seeking federal support to rebuild the abandoned rail trestle between Portland and Falmouth.<br /><br />Policy makers should take careful notice. Recreational facilities are valuable, but they should not preclude another form of transportation that could reduce the number of vehicles on our roads and better service our economy. When possible, new trails should coexist with rails, and only replace them when there is no foreseeable future for a return to trains.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-10836352751755881832010-08-10T06:04:00.000-07:002010-08-10T06:06:56.874-07:00letter to Sec. of US DOT LaHoodMaine Rail Transit Coalition<br />27 Riverview St<br />Portland, Maine 04102<br />Telephone: 207-774-6732<br />Mobile: 207-329-673<br /> Fax: 207-766-2367<br />Mailto: TDonovan@Maine.rr.com <br />WWW.MaineRailTransit.Org <br /><br />Build trains, not lanes!<br /><br />RE: TIGER II Discretionary Grant Application submitted by PACTS, in Portland, Maine<br /><br />August 3, 2010<br /><br />Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary<br />United State Department of Transportation<br />1200 New Jersey Avenue SE<br />Washington DC 20590<br /><br />Dear Secretary LaHood:<br /><br />The MRTC’s mission is to elevate railway transportation to its proper balance in transportation investments planning and decision-making. We are committed to the preservation and restoration of railway transportation corridors for the purpose of moving people and goods as an alternative to transportation requiring roads and highways. Our organization along with coalition partners have been engaged in educating policy-makers, consumers and government institutions on railways in and connecting to Maine. We believe that investments in railway transportation will lead to new and enhanced economic opportunities around transit sites, including new and better jobs, affordable housing and energy efficiency. We believe that passenger and freight rail will reduce the household consumer costs associated with transportation and taxation and will better achieve goals required for projecting our natural environment. <br /><br />The purpose of this letter is to express our strong opposition to the grant application for TIGER II funding, submitted by the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportations Systems (PACTS) to fund planning for a Greater Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Project. <br /><br />Our organization was an early and strong supporter of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. We believe that the Obama Administrations Livability Principals are the first opportunity in generations for our nation to address its addiction to oil and at long last to restore our railway transportation system that was once the most developed in the world. <br /><br />However, railway transportation corridors are highly endangered, primarily by the notion that these critical corridors are no longer viable for their intended purpose and that they can be and are being converted to recreational trails for bicycles and pedestrians. Maine over the past few years has successfully sought abandonment of the only two railway corridors serving the Portland Peninsula and has converted one of the corridors to a taxpayer funded $6+ million dollar paved recreational trail. In addition the State has allowed railway corridors, including a critical link between the state’s two largest employment centers in Augusta and Bath, (BIW) to be converted to paved bicycle routes. Railway corridors leading out of the City to the west have also been converted. In each case these corridors were purchased by the state for the purpose of rail transportation.<br /><br />The PACTS grant now seeks to convert the last preserved railway corridor linking downtown Portland with Maine’s second largest metro center in Lewiston and Auburn to a trail. The applicants may deny that is their intent, and they may claim as in the past that the trail is “only interim until rail is restored”. But we have learned the hard way that railway corridors cannot be reclaimed after a bike/ped path is established.<br /><br />We are suggesting that if rail is considered as a viable alternative transportation mode for meeting the principals of more transportation choices, economic competiveness and expanded choices for people of all ages, income and races, then this “single-mode” study should be withdrawn and the applicants be required to collaborate on transit-oriented, mixed use development that revitalizes our communities and is a more efficient use of Federal funding of public works investments.<br /><br />We have proposed to the applicants that the use of TIGER funds would best be suited to a study of the established Portland Transit facilities on the Eastern Waterfront that not only have received millions of dollars in FTA money to create a viable transit center, but that also lays fallow as the state and city grapple with how this critical waterfront transportation site might best be used. We are suggesting that the cost and benefits of a fully multi-modal transit center, enhanced by the restoration of the railway corridor that extends from here to Montreal Canada, is a better choice than a non-motorized recreational trail that takes away such a critical rail link north and west. <br /><br />The MRTC membership participated in just such a grant application in June 2009. Although the proposal to fund a multi-modal study of the same corridor was ranked highly by PACTS staff, the Policy Committee of that organization rejected the proposal as being too early. Now it appears we are too late. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Our apologies for the length of this correspondence as we often find that when the discussion turns to rail, that it is a lengthy and involved topic. On behalf of those of us who fully support the Sustainable Partnership, we respectively request that the US DOT and Department of HUD turn this grant application down. In turn, our organization will actively reach out to our legislators and agencies seeking a collaborative approach to leverage these new Federal initiatives designed to meet the needs of communities such as we have here in Maine.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Anthony J. Donovan<br />Founding Member<br />Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br /><br />For additional information please visit our website WWW.MaineRailTransit.org , or contact any on the following members.<br />Anthony J. Donovan - TDonovan@Maine.rr.com<br />Paul Weiss - Weissp@hotmail.com <br />Gary Higgenbottom - GHiggin2@earthlink.net<br />Susan Davis - Susandavis@mngrr.org <br />Ann Adams - annadams10@hotmail.com <br /><br />CC: Maine 1st Congressional district Representative Chellie Pingree<br /> Maine Governor John Baldacci<br /> Maine State Senator Margaret Craven<br /> Portland City Councilor David Marshall<br /> PACTS Executive Committeemelikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-26691477612451620632010-06-17T03:58:00.000-07:002010-06-17T04:02:32.914-07:00FTA Schedules Outreach Sessions for New Starts/Small Starts Rule ChangeFor those of you concerned/interested in the outcome of the Portland North Alternative Modes project study - consider commenting to this rule-making<br /><br />www.fta.dot.gov/news/news_events_11721.html<br /><br /> Changes Will Spotlight Economic Development and Environmental Benefits<br /> <br /><br />Building on a policy shift announced earlier this year by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the Federal Transit Administration today asked for public comment on how to change the way major transit project proposals seeking federal funding are rated and evaluated.<br /><br />“Today, we begin seeking ideas that will improve our current rating and evaluation process to ensure we invest wisely in public transportation infrastructure projects of national importance,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We must fairly evaluate all advantages that a transit project may offer, including economic development opportunities and environmental benefits.”<br /><br />The FTA published the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on Thursday, June 3, 2010. In doing so, the agency seeks public comment on how best to evaluate significant transit infrastructure investments by looking for ways to measure cost-effectiveness, including broad public benefits such as economic development, land use and environmental impacts in the evaluation process.<br /><br />“Major transit improvements are at the center of President Obama’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower oil consumption, and improve our quality of life,” said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. “The Administration is developing criteria that will appropriately measure all of the benefits these projects bring to their communities. We need the public’s input to help get it done.”<br />The rule is part of an ongoing effort to change how projects are selected to receive federal financial assistance in FTA’s New Starts and Small Starts programs. The first step in this initiative came in January, when the FTA rescinded budget restrictions issued by the Bush Administration in 2005 that focused primarily on how much a project shortened average commute times in comparison to its cost. The goal of the action being announced today is to take into consideration the many benefits that transit can provide where the investment would make communities more livable such as underserved areas or those with the densest population and employment.<br />In addition to soliciting public input on the federal government’s docket website, <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480afab90" target="_new">Regulations.gov</a>, ( <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480afab90"><a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480afab90">http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480afab90</a></a>) the FTA is planning to hold a number of public listening sessions. Information concerning specific dates and locations of these listening sessions will be issued in a future Federal Register Notice. Input received from these meetings will be incorporated into a future proposed rulemaking, before the rule becomes final.<br />FTA will host numerous ANPRM presentations throughout the country. <a href="http://www.fta.dot.gov/news/calendar/news_events_11733.html">Click here </a>for dates and times of the outreach sessions.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-43790565646832870432010-06-17T02:48:00.000-07:002010-06-17T02:49:31.236-07:00Maine Rail Transit Website www.mainerailtransit.orgTesting accessmelikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-67573346956774608362010-05-13T04:25:00.000-07:002010-05-13T04:28:53.893-07:00May 19 Rail Forum - "Linking Livability, Sustainability, and Transit in the 21st Century"May 19 Rail Forum - "Linking Livability, Sustainability, and Transit in the 21st Century"<br /><br />Wednesday May 19th<br />6 - 9 PM<br /><br />Lee Room, Wishcamper Center<br />USM Portland<br /><br />Moderator - Tony Donovan - Maine Rail Transit Coalition (WWW.Manerailtransit.org)<br /><br />Sustainable Communities Partnership<br />Featured Speaker - Noah Berger - Program Manager Federal Transit Administration<br /><br />Maine Livability Project- Island Explorer, Acadia<br />Sue Moreau- MDOT Public Transportation Director<br /><br />Status of Federal Transportation Authorization<br />Office of Congressman Michael Michaud <br /><br />Balancing our Investments in Rails and Roads<br />Paul Weiss - Sierra Club - Maine, Energy and Transportation Committee<br /><br />Panel Discussion with Q & A to follow<br /><br /><br />Sponsored by: Sierra Club Maine Chapter, Maine Rail Transit Coalition, Maine Eastern Railroad, US Rail Car, Maine Narrow Gauge Railroad, Lewiston-Auburn Railway<br /><br /> Free and Open to the Public<br />Light Refreshmentsmelikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-47985186126938978172010-04-27T14:01:00.000-07:002010-04-27T14:06:17.891-07:00Public Meeting Announcement Portland North Small Starts StudyPublic Meeting Announcement<br />Portland North Small Starts Study<br />Room 109 of the Abromson Center at USM in Portland<br />6 to 8 PM on Wednesday, April 28th<br /><br />The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) is considering implementing either rail or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service between Portland and destinations north of Portland. This Public Meeting will give the latest update on the study and provide an opportunity for public comment.<br />Agenda<br />1. Summary of process to date<br />a. Process<br />b. Alternatives considered<br />2. Results of Phase 1 Analysis<br />3. Overview of Phase 2<br />4. Next Steps<br />5. Schedule Update<br /><br />To find out more about the Portland North Small Starts Study, go to the Maine DOT website at: <a title="http://www.maine.gov/mdot/portlandnorth/" href="http://www.maine.gov/mdot/portlandnorth/">http://www.maine.gov/mdot/portlandnorth/</a>melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-56966620232243881952010-02-11T14:26:00.000-08:002010-02-11T14:57:56.284-08:00GET THERE - Our answer to Portland NorthWell, for those of you who may be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">following</span> this blog - I just found it again. Seems google changed the way to log in and for the life of me I could not figure it out. I have plenty of patience when it comes to riding a train. But none when it comes to technology....<br /><br />THE GOOD news . The Maine Rail Transit Coalition is now a Mine registered Not For Profit Corporation. And, today we presented to the City governments of Portland, Lewiston and Auburn a strategic plan for <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">the restoration</span> of the St. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Lawrence</span> and Atlantic railway <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Transportation</span> corridor from Portland's ocean gateway to the Auburn-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Lewiston</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Municipal</span> Airport. The next step on the route to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Canada</span> and to real rail transit for the commuting population of southern-central Maine.<br /><br />Next Post I will <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">attached</span> the full report GET THERE: Constructive Transportation for Portland North. But for now, here is the Executive Summary. Thanks to all those who contributed to this <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">excellent</span> report...<br /><br /><br /> <br />GET THERE: Constructive Transportation for PORTLAND NORTH<br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">“. . . to elevate rail transportation to its proper balance in transportation investments, planning and decision-making.”</span></em><br />February 11, 2010<br />by the Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />Executive Summary<br />"THERE: Constructive Transportation for Portland North" presents a strategy to maximize Maine's response to key opportunities for transit investments north of Portland.<br /><br />Economic and environmental considerations are driving the U.S. Federal government rapidly back toward rail transportation to move people and goods, and the Maine Department of Transportation (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">MDOT</span>) is responding with the statewide Maine State Rail Plan and with the Portland North Project Alternative Modes project study to assess transit alternatives to automobile travel north of the City of Portland.<br /><br />Maine has impressed the nation with our <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Downeaster</span> passenger rail success, proving that rail passenger service works in mid-sized metropolitan areas – and that it works in Maine. Thus, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Downeaster</span> rail service will be expanded and further Maine passenger and commuter rail services must be quickly and seriously evaluated. .<br /><br />The Portland-Auburn region is blessed with rail corridors, some of which have been well maintained and preserved – including the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway (SLR) corridor from downtown Portland all the way to Montreal, Canada – a rail corridor that links Portland with towns to the north over a clean route relatively unencumbered by road crossings and by other rail traffic.<br /><br />The convergence of these circumstances makes a strong case for re-establishing passenger commuter rail service on the St. Lawrence and Atlantic rail line linking the multi-modal downtown Portland transit area at Ocean Gateway/Maine State Pier with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Yarmouth</span> Junction and with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Lewiston</span>-Auburn Regional Airport and rail <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">intermodal</span> facility. This in turn creates the base for direct rail transportation linkage with the large metropolitan market area to the north – Montreal.<br /><br />This rail development will serve the need for a Portland North commuter transit alternative while simultaneously laying the groundwork for further SLR service enhancement for the passengers, freight and economy of the 3-county region – Cumberland, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Androscoggin</span> and Oxford. <br /><br />Federal Transit Administration (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">FTA</span>) “Small Starts” funding is appropriate and potentially available for this development. Under new federal administration, Small Starts funding criteria shifted away from simply short-term cost effectiveness and toward long-term environmental protection, economic development and congestion relief. The SLR opportunity now becomes very compelling based on service quality to commuters, operational economics and safety, environmental considerations, economic development opportunities and the very significant issue of transportation linkage between Maine's two largest economic and population areas – Portland and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Lewiston</span>-Auburn.<br /><br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 1 Background and Objectives<br />The State of Maine has achieved widely recognized success investing in railway corridors and rail services including the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Downeaster</span> service, procurement and maintenance of railways, plus planned future rail investments in Southern and Central Maine to advance freight, passenger and commuter transportation service at the metro area, statewide and regional levels including connections to Canada.<br /><br />Maine's success with rail makes Maine people, communities, state government and federal agencies supportive of further rail development progress in Maine. <br /><br />The best opportunities to further rail progress are being clarified now through two rail planning initiatives:<br /> * The Maine State Rail Plan to prioritize railway corridors for investments, and<br /> * The Portland North Alternative Modes Project study, a Federal Transit Administration (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">FTA</span>) analysis of commuter transit alternatives to alleviate congestion on highways north of Portland that deals with alternatives for moving people in and out of Portland.<br /><br />This Maine Rail Transit Coalition's report summarizes how the combined objectives of the Portland North Project, the State Rail Plan, plus sustainable economic develop objectives of three counties (Oxford, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Androscoggin</span> and Cumberland), are strongly and perhaps best served by focusing on commuter rail service for the Portland-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Yarmouth</span>-Auburn SLR corridor.<br /><br />Upgrading this Railway Transportation Corridor for passenger service at reasonable speeds gets the region to the commuter service future envisioned by the Portland North Project and at the same time positions Maine for Boston-Portland-Auburn/<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Lewiston</span>-Montreal rail service– a very valuable linkage of 4 urban areas plus Maine's Oxford County important recreational regions. <br /><br />The SLR route provides connectivity to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Downeaster</span> Amtrak service at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Yarmouth</span> Junction, to ferry and cruise ship business at the Ocean Gateway Center in downtown Portland and to air transportation and further rail linkages at the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Lewiston</span>/Auburn Regional Airport.<br />Our objective is to add to the Portland North analysis with additional considerations around commuter passenger rail and how transportation, energy and environmental policies impact the real lives of people in a world where gasoline/automobile dependency must diminish.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-37805858599810260522010-01-12T04:45:00.000-08:002010-01-12T04:46:24.870-08:00Taken for a Ride - GM and the RailYou may reject the following video presentation, or you may not. But from the perspective of the MRTC, this is what we are up against. Nothing necessarily against these fine gentlemen from Detroit and Washington for building an industry that resulted in the employment of tens of thousands of workers, and of course enormous financial returns, nothing against them that is if their business model held up. But, reality is, the global dependence on the single-occupancy vehicle, powered by an internal combustion engine, or the imagined electric "Volt", we now have a system of transportation that is neither efficient, nor economical and is doing great environmental damage as it drains the pockets of consumers and taxpayers.<br />In our humble opinion, this story says it all. Think Train Time<br /><br /><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2486235784907931000">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2486235784907931000</a>#melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-43464438804474300002009-12-18T05:50:00.001-08:002009-12-18T05:50:50.950-08:00Portland GreenStreets Newsletter<a href="http://portlandgreenstreets.org/?p=1254">http://portlandgreenstreets.org/?p=1254</a>melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-5729770790590599162009-12-10T18:21:00.000-08:002009-12-10T18:22:34.245-08:00Commens to the Dec 7 Rail Plan Public ForumMemo<br />To: State of Maine Rail Plan<br />From: Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />Anthony J. Donovan, Member<br /><br />Date: December 07, 2009<br />Re: Maine Rail Plan Draft Recommendations<br />Compliments to Nathan Moulton and the team he assembled with the HNTB and HDR consulting group. And to the Morris pubic relations firm for the fine work we have to date. There have been more than a few of us who have been advocating for a comprehensive plan for Maine’s rail corridors for many years. It appears that we are close to having a tool for stepping into a 21st century transportation system.<br />I have had the pleasure of attending the rail plan Technical Advisory Committee meetings and there too we have as team of some of the best minds in state and industry rail. One recommendation that comes to mind is that we might formalize this type of team for on-going sharing of information on policy initiatives, technical developments and innovative implementation methods for rail.<br />RECOMMENDATIONS<br />1. Protection of Corridors. State Railway corridor acquisition should be done for the purpose of passenger and freight transportation purposes. Non-motorized use, paving corridors for bicycles and trails alongside and crossing the rails are undermining the current and future economic potential of these lines. Our group believes that the current practice of allowing trails such as the Kennebec River Trail and the Sebago to the Sea are examples of investments by State transportation planners that are undermining the corridor use and should be put on hold until a clear economic and environmental cost/benefit analysis is completed.<br /><br />2. Planning and Investments in State-Owned Corridors for Passenger Rail. The current recommendations to expand intercity passenger rail service north of Portland should specify that the railway routes with State investments be used. That would include<br />a. A commuter passenger service from the section of the State-owned railway corridor beginning at the Maine State Pier and running along the Saint Lawrence and Atlantic Railway to Yarmouth Junction with investment in, or acquisition of, the corridor continuing to Auburn, Oxford County and on to Montreal.<br />b. From Yarmouth Junction the passenger rail service could connect at the PanAm mainline to the State-owned rail in Brunswick, to Bath, Lewiston, Rockland and Augusta.<br />c. In Lewiston/Auburn local and regional investments should be made in the Lewiston Branch connecting Auburn Airport to Downtown Lewiston.<br />d. The Mountain Division current investment plans should include local and regional planning for upgrades of the rail between Portland and Standish for commuter rail service.<br />e. In other parts of the state there are certain corridors that should be identified for longer range passenger service planning including the Calais Branch between Bangor and the Acadia Park region, the Belfast and Moosehead Railway and the Montreal Maine and Atlantic railways.<br /><br />Portland Passenger Terminal Location. Reconsider planning to relocate the train station in Portland. The Thompsons Point site serves the region very well, connecting 3 to 4 regional rail routes at an easily accessible highway interchange. This site has the potential for significant economic benefits from a Transit Oriented Development, as referenced in the 2008 NNEPRA Downeaster Economic Impact Report. Urban passenger stations in Portland, Auburn and other towns benefiting from railways, should be located as part of municipal land-use planning for a system of seamless integration of intercity and inner-city connections via bus, taxi, pedestrian and bike routes.<br />3. The Maine Passenger Rail Authority. The Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) must function as the primary agency responsible for implementing new or enhanced passenger rail service throughout the State.<br /><br />4. And finally: Let’s drop the notion of “it takes 20 years” Thanks to Wayne Davis and the successful efforts of Trainriders Northeast to restore passenger rail service to Maine - a foundation of passenger rail operations has been established in Maine, and we are ready for passenger rail service now. Thanks to the Downeaster management team of Patricia Quinn and her predecessors, we have a successful model for public and private shared use of the railway corridors that can be applied now. There is no reason to procrastinate for 20 years. If we think it is going to take 20 years, most among us will just wait to act. If we know we can do it now, most of us will act.<br /><br />Train Time.<br /><br />Thank you<br />Anthony J. Donovan<br />Maine Rail Transit Coalition<br />Mailto: <a href="mailto:TDonovan@Maine.RR.com">TDonovan@Maine.RR.com</a>melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-89653256242175333272009-12-06T07:04:00.000-08:002009-12-06T07:07:59.344-08:00Rail Plan ForumsDear Maine State Rail Plan Interested Party:<br />Earlier in the fall, MaineDOT hosted four meetings around the state to get the public's feedback about setting state rail priorities in order to develop a State Rail Plan. The thoughts and comments collected during that process have contributed to a set of draft recommendations for state rail investment that will be presented at meetings this December. The meeting schedule is:<br />- Portland: Monday, December 7th, 6-8 pm at the South Portland Community Center, 21 Nelson Road<br />- Bangor: Tuesday, December 8th, 6-8 pm, at the Bangor Motor Inn, Hogan Road<br />- Auburn: Monday, December 14th, 6-8 pm, at the L/A Museum 35 Canal St. in the Bates Mill Complex.<br />- Presque Isle: Tuesday, December 15th, 6-8 pm, at the University of Presque Isle<br />We look forward to sharing findings and recommendations with as many folks as possible in order to get final feedback on the Rail Plan, scheduled to be completed in January.<br /><br />For those who are interested, we have been posting public feedback on the MaineDOT Rail Plan website. You can read public meeting reports as well as see the comments received via email. You can access the site at <a title="blocked::http://www.maine.gov/mdot/railplan" href="http://www.maine.gov/mdot/railplan">http://www.maine.gov/mdot/railplan</a>.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8309763846232030084.post-64185661873949193652009-11-20T16:42:00.001-08:002009-11-20T16:43:29.803-08:00I asked the State MDOT about Railways (& Trail)here is a responce I recieved - no author, no date.....<br /><br /><br /><br /> Re: Friday October 23, 2009 Comment Posted to the MaineDOT Rail Plan Website<br /><br />Dear Mr. Donovan,<br /><br /> Thank you for the comments you posted recently on the MaineDOT Rail Plan Website. Like you, the Maine Department of Transportation’s Office of Freight Transportation is committed to creating an efficient, cohesive rail transportation system throughout the State. Comments like yours are invaluable in helping Department of Transportation work toward achieving its goals. <br /><br /> In your posting, you posited the query “What is the Law?”, regarding the promotion of rail transportation in the State of Maine. The answer is that the State has taken a two prong approach to the promotion of an effective rail transportation system in-state. The first of these prongs is the preservation of the existing rail lines and corridors throughout the State. The second of these prongs is the promotion of future rail service of these preserved rail lines and corridor by private operators. The Legislature has enacted a comprehensive set of statutes in furtherance of these goals.<br /><br /> As a threshold matter, the Legislature’s commitment to effective, efficient rail transportation in Maine is clear from the statements of public policy embedded in the State’s railroad statutes. In the State Railroad Preservation Act, 23 M.R.S.A. §§ 7101 to 7156 (1992 & Supp. 2008), the Legislature proclaimed that “a viable and efficient rail transportation system is necessary to the economic well-being of the State.” 23 M.R.S.A. § 7102. As part of the same Act, the Legislature recognized that “the State must take active steps to protect and promote rail transportation to further the general welfare.” Id. In addition, the Maine Legislature created the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority for the “general purpose of promoting passenger rail service” throughout the State. 23 M.R.S.A. § 8111 (Supp. 2008). <br /><br /> Current Maine law allows for the preservation of rail lines and corridors within the State in a multitude of situations. The Railroad Preservation Act vests in the Department of Transportation the authority to temporarily lease and rail lines and make contracts for the continuation service where preservation of the railroad line is necessary to protect the public interest. 23 M.R.S.A. § 7105(2). The Act also vests the Department with the authority to purchase or lease certain rail lines or corridors, under the right of first refusal, before the termination and/or abandonment of rail service or offer of sale of the rail line. 23 M.R.S.A. § 7105(3)(A). Lastly, the Railroad Preservation Act protects existing railroad rights-of-way from abandonment by providing that the end of railroad service does not mean or infer abandonment of the right-of-way property interest when there is interest in the eventual restoration of rail service by private or public entities. 23 M.R.S.A. § 7105(3)(B). In fact, the Act acknowledges that “it is in the best interests of the State to retain” these railroad rights-of-way “intact”. This is all part of a comprehensive effort by the Legislature to prevent the extensive in-state network of railroad lines for vanishing. In doing so, the Legislature has recognized how daunting the task of replacing these lines in the future would be. <br /><br /> By way of example, the Downeast Sunrise Trail represents a coordinated effort by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Conservation to preserve these unused railroad corridors for future rail use under the statutes identified above. The Downeast Sunrise Trail’s purpose is to permit a limited alternative use for the Calais Branch rail corridor, which the Department believes with benefit the populace and the economies of Hancock and Washington Counties, while preserving its future rail use. Future rail use remains the priority. As you astutely noted in your comments, the Legislature enacted 23 M.R.S.A. § 7108(2) providing that “[t]he Department of Transportation reserves the right to terminate at any time the use of the Calais Branch rail corridor for recreational purposes and to use the Calais Branch rail corridor for railroad purposes.”<br /><br /> The issue then becomes finding private operators to reinstate rail services on these lines. Although the Department of Transportation is plainly in favor of reinstated rail service, it is prohibited by law from operating a railroad. “In no event may the department or any other unit of State Government directly operate a railroad over a railroad acquired under this Chapter. The department may own the railroad line and lease or otherwise contract for its use by a private operator.” 23 M.R.S.A. § 7155. Rather, the State is limited to providing incentives to private entities to reinstate service, such as the Department’s use of the funds from the Railroad Preservation and Assistance Fund to purchase and maintain railroad lines, or the Department use of the Fund to provide financial assistance to short line operators. In fact, the reconditioning of the Calais Branch rail corridor through the Downeast Sunrise Trail project is itself serves as an incentive to private short line operators because it rehabilitated what was in many respects a dilapidated, cost-prohibitive corridor. <br /><br /> In the recent past, the Department has issued requests for proposals for reinstatement from short line operators for reinstatement for railroad service on several rail lines, but these efforts have been largely unsuccessful due to insufficient demand and the costs of reinstating service. However, the Department remains committed to its mission of creating a network of short line operators providing efficient, cohesive rail transportation system throughout the State. <br /><br /> Again, thank you for your comments and your efforts to provide effective, efficient railroad service in Maine.melikesrailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637551655244601148noreply@blogger.com0