Maine Rail Transit

Beware of Certain Bike/Ped Plans

2011-12-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

Understand 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:

Well at the known level of risk I take in raising the ire of so many I must lend my 2 cents worth.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?).

I have to go to work, of which there is not much of these days.

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?

Tony Donovan

Train Time

Mainer’s enthusiasm for passenger rail has not waned

2011-10-27T14:59:00.000-07:00

Only 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anthony J. Donovan, President
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Portland Maine
WWW.MaineRailTransit.org
Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org
or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com

"Build Trains not Lanes

Portland Press Herald "Rails to Trails" ; 3/4/11

2011-03-04T13:59:00.000-08:00

Funny 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:

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Channel 6 Rails to Trails Feb 28

2011-02-28T15:45:00.000-08:00

It 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.
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:
**********
Regarding the Caroline Cornish Story

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
make their nature walks on this corridor.

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.

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.

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.

Train Time

Tony Donovan, Pres.
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Portland Maine
WWW.MaineRailTransit.org
Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org
or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com

"Build Trains not Lanes"

An Interesting E-Mail Exchange w a Critic

2011-01-20T16:30:00.000-08:00

As 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:

---------------------
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:32 PM, George wrote:
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.
***************
From: Ben Chipman [mailto:votechipman@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:43 PM
To: George
Cc: Tony @ Home Office; Gary Higginbottom
Subject: Re: Railroads

Hello George,
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.

Ben Chipman, State Representative
-----------------------------
From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:56 AM
To: George; Ben Chipman
Cc: MRTC
Subject: RE: Railroads

Mr. Colby,
Cc. Rep. Chipman

Dear Mr. Colby:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Sincerely, Tony Donovan, President Maine Rail Transit Coalition
*************************
From: George [mailto:gcolby@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:29 AM
To: 'Tony @ Home Office'; 'Ben Chipman'
Cc: 'MRTC'
Subject: RE: Railroads

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.

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?

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.

Thank You for the response
George Colby
-----------------------------------
From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:19 PM
To: George; 'Ben Chipman'
Cc: 'MRTC'
Subject: RE: Railroads
Dear George:

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.

So moving beyond that aspects of our communications, please consider the following:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

- 85% of the wear on our highways is caused by trucks.
- One 80,000 lb truck does as much damage to the highway as 10,000 cars.
- One train can replace 280 to 500 trucks, since each wagon can carry on average 100 tons vs 56 ton max on a truck.
- 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.

Just a few of the benefits that would result from replacing as much of the trucking industry with rail as possible:
- Significant reduction in wear and maintenance costs associated with highways.
- Less maintenance and less trucks on highways means less traffic jams, which cost an estimated 100 billion yearly to the US economy.
- Using less fuel to ship goods would lower dependency on foreign oil and help reduce emissions for the environment.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 ).
- 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.
- Trains are constantly evolving, and even today's diesel locomotives are far superior technologically than their truck counterparts.

Always a pleasure to have someone like you causing us to think, research, analyze and respond. Thanks again for your commentary.
******************************
George wrote:
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.

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.

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
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail.html?sub_id=161898
http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Business/Twin-Rivers-Paper-to-use-Canadian-railroad,160865
Thanks George
-----------------------------
From: Tony @ Home Office [mailto:tdonovan@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:56 AM
To: George
Cc: MRTC; Ben GreenIndy Chipman
Subject: RE: Railroads

Mr. Colby:
In the articles you provided;
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. "
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

TD
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Portland Maine
WWW.MaineRailTransit.com
Mailto: Info@MaineRailTransit.org
or TDonovan@Maine.RR.com
"Build Trains not Lanes"
----------------------------
From: George
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:52:06 -0500
To: "'Susan S. Davis'"
Subject: RE: Railroads
Can you tell me exactly how much it cost to reconstruct 1 mile of railroad bed and 1mile of roadway please. Thanks
*************************
From: Susan S. Davis [mailto:susandavis228@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:10 PM
To: George; Anthony J. Donovan; 'Ben Chipman'
Cc: 'MRTC'
Subject: Re: Railroads

George,

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.
Regards, Susan, MRTC

Ohio truckers thank Norfolk Southern for boosting business http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/AivkdRaMxMdjzOvwfDamhsfCLRkq?format=standard>
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
-----------------------
From: George
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:10:46 -0500
To: "'Susan S. Davis'"
Subject: RE: Railroads

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.
Thanks George
--------------------
From: Susan S. Davis [mailto:susandavis228@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:30 AM
To: George
Subject: Re: Railroads

George,
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.

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!
Best regards, Susan
----------------------
From: Susan S. Davis [mailto:susandavis228@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 10:35 AM
To: George
Cc: Ann Adams; Anthony J. Donovan; Gary Higginbottom; Joan Saxe; Joane Saxe; Mark Sengelmann; Mark Sengelmann; Paul Weiss; Susan S. Davis
Subject: Re: Railroads
George,

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.

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.

We’ve pulled together our statistics using the Freedom of Information Act as often as not. Let’s see what others can add.

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.
Best regards, Susan
----------------------------
George wrote:
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.

I added a comment to your signature. ("Build Both")
Thanks George
***
'nuf said (4 now)

An interesting discussion on Rail by Bus Advocates

2010-09-14T07:40:00.000-07:00

The discussion began with a report from the Portland-based Mane Assoc for Sustainable Transportation as follows:
"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.

FOLLOWED BY THE FOLLOWING RESPONCES:
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:46:17 -0400
From: ghiggin2@earthlink.net
To: c.neal.milneil@gmail.com; hilary@theleague.com
CC: tdonovan@maine.rr.com; weissp@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: MAST Steering Meeting Friday

Christian and Hilary,

Since you're still copying me on MaST Steering Committee communications, some reactions to your last meeting's notes...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

This all makes MDOT's Portland-L/A passenger rail project look like a token effort -- thus a dogged response is justified.

So back to Tony's approach --
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.

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.

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.

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...

Thanks for listening and seeking better trans with trains!

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Paul Weiss wrote:
Gary,
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?
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.
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.

Paul Weiss
Maine Rail Transit Coalition

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:
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:
Get the Turnpike to fund more local and regional bus services connecting to and along the Turnpike corridor.
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.
A portion of those local property tax savings in those communities could then be re-allocated to supporting the Downeaster and commuter rail service.
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.
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.
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.

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

www.pressherald.com/opinion/editorials

2010-08-10T06:07:00.000-07:00

Posted: August 10
Updated: Today at 7:46 PM

Our View: Foot paths
should not replace rail development
Both transportation alternatives have value, but one should not supplant the other.

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

There is such a conflict emerging in transportation planning circles regarding the expansion of walking and biking trails on unused railroad rights of way.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

letter to Sec. of US DOT LaHood

2010-08-10T06:04:00.000-07:00

Maine Rail Transit Coalition
27 Riverview St
Portland, Maine 04102
Telephone: 207-774-6732
Mobile: 207-329-673
Fax: 207-766-2367
Mailto: TDonovan@Maine.rr.com
WWW.MaineRailTransit.Org

Build trains, not lanes!

RE: TIGER II Discretionary Grant Application submitted by PACTS, in Portland, Maine

August 3, 2010

Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary
United State Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington DC 20590

Dear Secretary LaHood:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Donovan
Founding Member
Maine Rail Transit Coalition

For additional information please visit our website WWW.MaineRailTransit.org , or contact any on the following members.
Anthony J. Donovan - TDonovan@Maine.rr.com
Paul Weiss - Weissp@hotmail.com
Gary Higgenbottom - GHiggin2@earthlink.net
Susan Davis - Susandavis@mngrr.org
Ann Adams - annadams10@hotmail.com

CC: Maine 1st Congressional district Representative Chellie Pingree
Maine Governor John Baldacci
Maine State Senator Margaret Craven
Portland City Councilor David Marshall
PACTS Executive Committee

FTA Schedules Outreach Sessions for New Starts/Small Starts Rule Change

2010-06-17T03:58:00.000-07:00

For those of you concerned/interested in the outcome of the Portland North Alternative Modes project study - consider commenting to this rule-making

www.fta.dot.gov/news/news_events_11721.html

Changes Will Spotlight Economic Development and Environmental Benefits

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.

“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.”

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.

“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.”
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.
In addition to soliciting public input on the federal government’s docket website, Regulations.gov, ( http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480afab90) 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.
FTA will host numerous ANPRM presentations throughout the country. Click here for dates and times of the outreach sessions.

Maine Rail Transit Website www.mainerailtransit.org

2010-06-17T02:48:00.000-07:00

Testing access

May 19 Rail Forum - "Linking Livability, Sustainability, and Transit in the 21st Century"

2010-05-13T04:25:00.000-07:00

May 19 Rail Forum - "Linking Livability, Sustainability, and Transit in the 21st Century"

Wednesday May 19th
6 - 9 PM

Lee Room, Wishcamper Center
USM Portland

Moderator - Tony Donovan - Maine Rail Transit Coalition (WWW.Manerailtransit.org)

Sustainable Communities Partnership
Featured Speaker - Noah Berger - Program Manager Federal Transit Administration

Maine Livability Project- Island Explorer, Acadia
Sue Moreau- MDOT Public Transportation Director

Status of Federal Transportation Authorization
Office of Congressman Michael Michaud

Balancing our Investments in Rails and Roads
Paul Weiss - Sierra Club - Maine, Energy and Transportation Committee

Panel Discussion with Q & A to follow

Sponsored by: Sierra Club Maine Chapter, Maine Rail Transit Coalition, Maine Eastern Railroad, US Rail Car, Maine Narrow Gauge Railroad, Lewiston-Auburn Railway

Free and Open to the Public
Light Refreshments

Public Meeting Announcement Portland North Small Starts Study

2010-04-27T14:01:00.000-07:00

Public Meeting Announcement
Portland North Small Starts Study
Room 109 of the Abromson Center at USM in Portland
6 to 8 PM on Wednesday, April 28th

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.
Agenda
1. Summary of process to date
a. Process
b. Alternatives considered
2. Results of Phase 1 Analysis
3. Overview of Phase 2
4. Next Steps
5. Schedule Update

To find out more about the Portland North Small Starts Study, go to the Maine DOT website at: http://www.maine.gov/mdot/portlandnorth/

GET THERE - Our answer to Portland North

2010-02-11T14:26:00.000-08:00

Well, for those of you who may be following 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....

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 the restoration of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic railway Transportation corridor from Portland's ocean gateway to the Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport. The next step on the route to Canada and to real rail transit for the commuting population of southern-central Maine.

Next Post I will attached 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 excellent report...

GET THERE: Constructive Transportation for PORTLAND NORTH

“. . . to elevate rail transportation to its proper balance in transportation investments, planning and decision-making.”
February 11, 2010
by the Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Executive Summary
"THERE: Constructive Transportation for Portland North" presents a strategy to maximize Maine's response to key opportunities for transit investments north of Portland.

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 (MDOT) 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.

Maine has impressed the nation with our Downeaster passenger rail success, proving that rail passenger service works in mid-sized metropolitan areas – and that it works in Maine. Thus, the Downeaster rail service will be expanded and further Maine passenger and commuter rail services must be quickly and seriously evaluated. .

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.

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 Yarmouth Junction and with the Lewiston-Auburn Regional Airport and rail intermodal facility. This in turn creates the base for direct rail transportation linkage with the large metropolitan market area to the north – Montreal.

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, Androscoggin and Oxford.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) “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 Lewiston-Auburn.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 1 Background and Objectives
The State of Maine has achieved widely recognized success investing in railway corridors and rail services including the Downeaster 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.

Maine's success with rail makes Maine people, communities, state government and federal agencies supportive of further rail development progress in Maine.

The best opportunities to further rail progress are being clarified now through two rail planning initiatives:
* The Maine State Rail Plan to prioritize railway corridors for investments, and
* The Portland North Alternative Modes Project study, a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 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.

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, Androscoggin and Cumberland), are strongly and perhaps best served by focusing on commuter rail service for the Portland-Yarmouth-Auburn SLR corridor.

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/Lewiston-Montreal rail service– a very valuable linkage of 4 urban areas plus Maine's Oxford County important recreational regions.

The SLR route provides connectivity to the Downeaster Amtrak service at Yarmouth 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 Lewiston/Auburn Regional Airport.
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.

Taken for a Ride - GM and the Rail

2010-01-12T04:45:00.000-08:00

You 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.
In our humble opinion, this story says it all. Think Train Time

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2486235784907931000#

Portland GreenStreets Newsletter

2009-12-18T05:50:00.001-08:00

http://portlandgreenstreets.org/?p=1254

Commens to the Dec 7 Rail Plan Public Forum

2009-12-10T18:21:00.000-08:00

Memo
To: State of Maine Rail Plan
From: Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Anthony J. Donovan, Member

Date: December 07, 2009
Re: Maine Rail Plan Draft Recommendations
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.
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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.

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
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.
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.
c. In Lewiston/Auburn local and regional investments should be made in the Lewiston Branch connecting Auburn Airport to Downtown Lewiston.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

Train Time.

Thank you
Anthony J. Donovan
Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Mailto: TDonovan@Maine.RR.com

Rail Plan Forums

2009-12-06T07:04:00.000-08:00

Dear Maine State Rail Plan Interested Party:
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:
- Portland: Monday, December 7th, 6-8 pm at the South Portland Community Center, 21 Nelson Road
- Bangor: Tuesday, December 8th, 6-8 pm, at the Bangor Motor Inn, Hogan Road
- Auburn: Monday, December 14th, 6-8 pm, at the L/A Museum 35 Canal St. in the Bates Mill Complex.
- Presque Isle: Tuesday, December 15th, 6-8 pm, at the University of Presque Isle
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.

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 http://www.maine.gov/mdot/railplan.

I asked the State MDOT about Railways (& Trail)

2009-11-20T16:42:00.001-08:00

here is a responce I recieved - no author, no date.....

Re: Friday October 23, 2009 Comment Posted to the MaineDOT Rail Plan Website

Dear Mr. Donovan,

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Again, thank you for your comments and your efforts to provide effective, efficient railroad service in Maine.

Rails - Not Trails

2009-10-18T16:31:00.001-07:00

The Maine Rail Transit Coalition is an assembly of individuals and interest groups whose goal is to increase Transit Options and Mobility by mobilizing citizens to press for sensible public policy to define and implement the appropriate role of commuter rail in Maine
My name is Anthony Donovan. I am a planner, transportation specialist, certified economic developer with a Masters Degree in Public Policy and certificate of Urban Planning from the University Of Maine Muskie School Of Public Service. I currently practice my profession as a commercial Realtor © specializing in site location of development on railways – specifically focused on Transit Oriented Development land use. The Maine Rail Transit Coalition exists primarily due to my dogged pursuit of good rail planning for Maine.

We are faced with a serious dilemma regarding the future of transportation in this country and a decision needs to be made immediately in Maine. Over the past 20 plus years, the State of Maine has invested a substantial amount of taxpayer money into the acquisition and restoration of state railway corridors. The opportunity presented by this investment for moving goods and people in an economical and environmentally friendly manner is significant.
However, while Maine Transportation officials plan on the one hand consider investments in making rail an effective transportation method, on the other hand (often another department) the state is spending more tax dollars on conversion of these same rail corridors into recreational trails. There is no data available on the impact of these decisions, and in fact there were no true analytical reports on the economic or environmental impacts of trails vs. rails done prior to construction of these trails.

A Transformation in Transportation
Over the past 18 months our coalition has been active in educating people, institutions and towns on the potential for use of railway corridors, for rail, in Maine and throughout the northeast. We have a vision for rail transportation that, based on existing corridors, can save money for households, municipalities and the state, while at the same time bringing substantial economic activity to the state, while reducing the impacts of transportation on the environment.
We offer a model for railway corridor transportation that could be applied to regions around the country and for example we offer the following concept for investing in commuter passenger rail service for the Portland region and its suburbs. There are 3 railroad corridors that we will reference. All serve Portland; one from the south, one from the north and one from the west.
The southern route is the PanAm Mainline, owned by Guilford Transportation, a privately held company managed in most part by its president David Fink. The mainline currently is used by PanAm for freight operations and is leased to the Maine rail authority (NNEPRA) for operation of Amtrak passenger service between Boston, MA and Portland, Me with plans to extend service to Brunswick. To use a highway analogy, the mainline could be called the “Interstate Highway” as it is a major arterial serving interstate transportation needs for Maine, NH and Massachusetts.

The northern route, the St. Lawrence & Atlantic railway (SLR) is owned by the State of Maine. Operations on this line are under contract to the state. The corridor intersects with the PanAm Mainline in Yarmouth, Maine and traverses the state from Portland, at the Maine State Pier to NH on a route to Montreal Canada. Towns in Maine served by the SLR include Bethel, Auburn, aforementioned Yarmouth, Falmouth and the City of Portland. The distance between Portland and Yarmouth junction with the PanAm Mainline is approximately 14 miles. Amtrak passenger rail service is expected to pass through this junction within 24 months.

The western corridor, the Mountain Division, is also owned by the State of Maine, with the exception of 4-5 miles owned by PanAm from the Portland Transportation Center, where the Amtrak service operates from, west to the Sappi paper firm in Westbrook. There are currently no operators beyond Westbrook. However, the State DOT has recently completed a study on the restoration of railway service on this line and has budgeted over $35 million dollars in the next round of the state Bi-annual Transportation Improvement Plan (BTIP) for this work. A grant has also been submitted to the federal transit administration (FTA) for funding through the American Economic Recovery Act. This route also goes to Canada, though NH and VT to St. Johnsbury. Towns in Maine served by this corridor include the City of Portland and its suburbs of Westbrook, Windham, Gorham and Standish. It intersects with the PanAm Mainline at the Portland Transportation Center.

Based on knowledge of passenger railway services in other parts of the country and the historical use of rail corridors, it is our belief that the SLR and Mt. Division have the potential to provide regular commuter service to and from the city of Portland. These corridors are capable of operating a double-track system, served by a train composed of a single or multiple DMU railway cars. This type of operation has the capability of moving more than 100 passengers at a time, at speeds of over 100 MPH, although realistically we recognize that 60 mph is adequate. We believe this service can significantly reduce the number of cars commuting daily in and out of Portland. There are estimates that from the north alone, 35,000 cars enter the city every morning.

A real need for real-time data
There is little data to support this investment in alternative transportation in Maine. Too often the Dot’s reject this concept out-of-hand due to demographic standards for railway investments used by the FTA. And, in our automobile-centric society the concept of rail service to replace autos is hard to grasp. Yet, no data has been used to determine if the railway corridors currently being converted to recreational use are in the best interest of the public taxpayers.
We would suggest otherwise and we are calling for a full determination by the State of Maine into how these decisions are being made. We are requesting a determination of what the economic and environmental impacts are on the uses, and if in fact state law allows these railway transportation corridors to be changed to trails. We need data collection and analysis on all aspects of the uses of these corridors. And we are asking that the state policy for expenditures on the acquisition of railway corridors clearly define the intended uses of these corridors.

What is the Law?
The State Railway Preservation Act[1] does not reference conversion of the rail corridors to any use other than rail, other than to state that “…the MDOT 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”. [2]
At the Federal level, the law allowing the use of railway corridors for trail use specifically references that the use of trails are a mechanism for preserving railroad rights-of-way for future rail service. The law allows inactive railroad corridors to be used by qualified trail mangers on an interim basis “…until such time as these rights-of-way are needed for future rail service…”[3]

This week the MDOT is hosting a “celebration” of the paving of over five miles of the Mt. Division Trail at a cost to taxpayers of over one million dollars. That celebration is followed by a public presentation by a trails group of their plans for conversion of the entire length of the corridor to a paved bike and recreational trail. Railway corridors serving Augusta, Bath and Bangor to name a few have already been converted to paved recreational routes. Plans for the Auburn corridor are in the works. Portland is currently building a six million dollar paved trail on the only surviving corridor that served the center of the city.

At the same time the state is engaged in a rail plan. The Governor has submitted a new transportation plan for ports and rail, one of the largest rail way companies in Maine is fighting for survival business and the state has submitted grant applications to the federal government for almost $150 million in railway improvements.

· What is the law and what is the policy?
· What is best investment of public funds for the most number of people? and
· What is the best use of tax dollars for transportation?

We are faced with a serious dilemma regarding the future of transportation in this country and a decision needs to be made immediately in Maine.

__________________________________________________________

[1] Maine Revised Statute Title 23 Chapter 615
[2] Although the Calais Branch has been turned over to trail use, and the rail, rails and ballast have all been removed, we assume this branch will never be restored due to the economics of the conversion. But, our findings are that the Mt. Division trail and other trails on state –owned railway corridors are being built in a similar fashion that will prevent the return of rail at any time, or it will be prohibitively expensive.
[3] THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT (P.L. 90-543)(16 U.S.C. 1241 et. seq.) as amended through P.L. 103-145, November 17, 1993

Comments to the State Rail Plan Sept. 29, 2009

2009-10-18T16:30:00.000-07:00

The Maine Rail Transit Coalition is an assembly of individuals and interest groups whose goal is to increase transit options and mobility by mobilizing citizens to press for sensible public policy to define and implement the appropriate role of commuter rail throughout the Northeast.

My name is Anthony Donovan. I am a planner, transportation specialist, certified economic developer with a Masters Degree in Public Policy and certificate of Urban Planning from the University Of Maine Muskie School Of Public Service. I currently practice my profession as a commercial Realtor © specializing in site location of development on railways – specifically focused on Transit Oriented Development land use. The Maine Rail Transit Coalition exists primarily due to my dogged pursuit of good rail planning for Maine.
· In 2008 I partnered with the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club to sponsor forums around the state to educate and inform residents and policy-makers on railway transportation corridors.
· During the last State legislative session I led the successful effort to pass a bill, LD 2019 that created a mechanism for funding capital and operating investment in rail.
· I have been involved in PACTS, advocating for rail over the best part of the last decade, I have attended years of meetings on the Portland North studies, the Brunswick extension, the State rail Plan, the Mt. Division and the Calais branch. I have contacts throughout the State who are advocates for railway corridor restoration.
· I represented the Maine Street Station Transit Oriented Development in Brunswick, and consulted with property owners of railway sites in NH, NY and Florida, and of course in other Maine locations.
· I currently represent the owner of Thompson’s Point, the 30-acres adjacent to the Portland Transportation Center. My firm has developed a proposal to redevelop this site for mixed used, transit-oriented development, leveraging local state and federal resources with private development interests. And, yes I may personally benefit from this site becoming a Transit Oriented Development. However, the concept is based on a the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority study projecting billions of dollars in benefits from proper development of station sites along the Downeaster railway corridor (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2008).

Together with more than 20 years of involvement in the study of Maine’s railways, and from the rail forums we conducted over the past year, it is my professional opinion that;
1.) The Maine State Rail Plan must determine commuter rail markets radiating out along all of the existing rail corridors.
2.) There is a need to educate the populace on the locations, routes, sites along the routes and the cost & benefits of railway corridors.
3.) Once people learn about the resources a railway transportation corridor has to offer – right in our own backyards – they are very interested in how we might use these resources better.

The State Rail Plan needs to lead to better policy procedures in regards to decisions impacting the long-term viability of railway corridors including:
a) Rails with Trails, how they are engineered, and whether the economic benefit of recreational use of these corridors is in the best interest of the public.
Specific to Portland, there are railway transportation corridors that serve southern Maine and the Portland metro region which are owned in most part by the State of Maine. The Downeaster operates on the PanAm –owned Mainline, which can be compared to the Interstate Highway system. This major arterial can be fed by local railway “arterials”; the Mountain Division, the SLR, the Rockland Branch, the Augusta Lower Roads and connections to Lewiston/Auburn and Pineland. These corridors provide an opportunity to transform how we live, how we travel, how we create jobs, how we do land-use, and our methods of addressing congestion and environmental protection.

This rail plan should recognize that the Mountain Division and St. Lawrence & Atlantic railway corridors must first of all be preserved against obstacles that prevent the corridors from being used to their highest and best potential.
- We need a state policy on Rails with Trails and cost-benefit analysis of their impacts on rail.

- Roadway reconstruction projects that impact railway corridors must analyze the long-term impact of those decisions on freight and passenger use of the railway corridors.

- State, local and county plans for land-uses of railway sites should carefully consider the potential economic impacts.

Our coalition wants the State of Maine Rail Plan to address rail as a method of getting us where we need to go. We believe that the potential exists for using the Mt. Division Railway Corridor at least as far as Standish for commuter rail. We also believe that the SLR railway corridor could be used for commuter rail service to at least Yarmouth, and possibly serving Auburn and Augusta.

· A regional planning effort should be conducted as soon as possible (NOW) to provide a realistic assessment of the benefits, costs and potential of these railway corridors.
· A public visioning should take place, including a program of educating residents, policy-makers and property owners on these railway resources.
· We are advocating for a determination of ridership, commuter and land use patterns in areas currently adjacent to these railway corridors.
· We are advocating for an analysis of the various revenue sources for funding rail transit that are currently used around the country and the impacts of funding for rail operations and capital improvements through a tax on the consumption of gasoline and through a collection of tolls on the Maine Turnpike.

“Think of this as simply changing your perspective, accepting that the world is not precisely as you imagine. Historically every major breakthrough began with a simple idea that threatened to overturn all our beliefs. The simplest statement “the earth is round”, was mocked as utterly impossible because most people believed the oceans would flow off the planet. Small minds have always lashed out at what they don’t understand. There are those who create … and those who tear down. That dynamic has existed for all time. But eventually the creators find believers, and the numbers of believers reaches a critical mass, and suddenly the world becomes round… Perception is transformed, and a new reality is born.” (Brown, 2009)

Observations for the Maine Rail Plan Technical Advisory Commitee

2009-10-18T16:29:00.000-07:00

Submitted by: The Maine Rail Transit Coalition
Contact: Tdonovan@Maine.RR.com

· Portland - Maine's largest city has approved a transit plan for its downtown area and financial district—a plan and strategy that can have a substantial bearing on public transportation, including commuter rail passenger service, throughout the Greater Portland region—and a plan that wants to substantially limit the impact of automobiles on downtown human livability.
· Without non-automobile commuter transit to Portland, the visions of the Portland Peninsula Transit Study, the Franklin Street reconstruction and other human-scale planning efforts may falter or fail completely.
· Six existing transportation rail corridors radiate out from Portland, South Portland and Westbrook—corridors primarily owned by the State of Maine. Used properly, these corridors can create more efficient, pleasant, economical, environmentally sound and humanly civil transportation to and from major nodes of activity in Portland and surrounding towns.
· The Maine Legislature established the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority and gives the authority the rights and responsibilities to "...take all actions that are reasonably necessary to initiate, establish or reinitiate regularly scheduled passenger rail service between points within this State and points within and outside this State", and it "is a body both corporate and politic in the State established for the general purpose of promoting passenger rail service.
· The Rail Authority appears to view commuter rail service along the Portland to Standish segment of the Mountain Division line - and perhaps along other rail lines radiating out from Portland into the suburbs – as having insufficient ridership markets to warrant attention by the Maine State Rail Plan process. The Rail Authority and MDOT appear to have no market-analysis statistics to justify such a view. Rather than as synergistic, the Authority considers other rail corridors as competitive.
· Perceptions of markets for commuter rail service may be based on the original Mt. Division study completed in 2007 that focused on commuters from the western Sebago watershed area. This is dated and geographically limited data, and does not reflect the massive urban sprawl that has occurred over the last 10 years in an arc from Buxton and Gorham to Standish, Windham and Raymond.
· With 8,000 to 10,000 cars daily on the River Road, and equal volumes on at least five other major roads (routes 302, 25, 114, 202 and 22) towards Portland, there seems to be more than adequate volume to warrant commuter passenger rail serving the Portland suburbs to the west. In addition, the commuters from Portland’s northern suburbs may be an additional 30,000 per day.
· It is reasonable to expect that the $28 million TIGER Stimulus grant application for upgrade of the Mountain Division rail line will be funded. This would provide the basis for restoration of this rail corridor, giving us the basis for constructing that rail link to standards for commuter rail service from Portland to Westbrook, Windham and possibly the Sebago lake area. This creates commuter rail access for a market that could be in the tens of thousands of daily commuters.
· There are many advantages to the Mountain Division as a commuter rail line. The corridor is “shovel-ready” for service offering environmental advantages, congestion mitigation, economic development, and an opportunity to showcase alternative transportation for Maine residents. Commuter rail offers the opportunity to move thousands of cars off the roads before they arrive in Portland. In addition, the Mountain Division upgrade grant application references a connection to Amtrak service in Portland as part of a state plan to link Maine rail to national destinations.
· To be fully functional, a commuter rail system must be connected to key employment and destination nodes such as downtown Portland, Maine Medical Center, Unum, Fairchild, IDEXX, National Semiconductor and the Maine Mall. Further bus and fixed Guideway transit connections would make these connections.
· If the state could purchase the former right of way of the old Portland to Rochester Railroad, the rail connection from downtown Gorham could extend to Buxton and beyond to Sanford. It is not too late for this to happen; this rail right-of-way is still mostly clear.
· In addition to the Mountain Division rail line, the State of Maine also owns the St. Lawrence & Atlantic railway corridor (SLR) offering further potential to serve the communities northeast of Portland in conjunction with expanded rail passenger and commuter service to Brunswick.
Conclusions:
· To adequately assess the biggest passenger rail market in Maine, the Maine State Rail Plan must determine Portland metro commuter rail markets radiating out along all of the existing rail corridors from Portland, South Portland and Westbrook. From that data the Rail Plan must create an informed commuter transit vision.
· The City and citizens of Portland should reasonably expect Maine’s only passenger rail authority—the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority—to work in a manner that is consistent with such a constructive commuter rail vision and to provide an objective market analysis of commuter rail transit within the Greater Portland region.
· The Federal government in Washington recognizes that aggressive rail restoration is necessary to move people out of cars, reduce carbon emissions, reduce oil consumption, reduce highway congestion and make our cities more livable. By passing the Portland Peninsula Transit Study, the City Council of Maine’s largest city has recognized the need to accomplish these objectives. Therefore, MDOT’s rail plan and Greater Portland’s regional transportation strategy must move in this same direction. If the US Government is finally moving on rail, MDOT’s plan cannot cause Greater Portland to be left behind.
· If we snooze, we lose.

comment

2009-09-27T15:12:00.000-07:00

"To adequately assess the biggest passenger rail market in Maine, the Maine
State Rail Plan must determine Portland metro commuter rail markets
radiating out along all of the existing rail corridors from Portland, South
Portland and Westbrook, and from that data the Rail Plan must create an
informed commuter transit vision."

Up coming Meetings of Interest

2009-09-27T09:22:00.000-07:00

Upcoming meetings of interest :

Tuesday, September 29 from 6:00-8:00 pm: Public forum on the State Rail Plan at the Glickman Library, 7th floor, University of Southern Maine Portland campus. http://www.maine.gov/mdot/railplan/

Thursday, October 8, 6:00-8:00 pm: Public forum on the Gorham East West Corridor Study at the Gorham Municipal Office, 75 South Street (off of Route 114) http://www.gorhamcorridor.org/

Tuesday, October 20, 8:30 am-12 noon: Workshop on the future of Maine’s international ocean and rail logistics capacities hosted by the Maine International Trade Center at the Glickman Library, 7th floor, University of Southern Maine Portland campus. http://www.mitc.com/Email_Templates/Logistics09.htm

Wednesday October 28, 5:30-7:00 pm: Public forum on the Sebago to the Sea trail at Westbrook High School, 125 Stroudwater Street, Rm 114. http://www.sebagotothesea.org/

Editorials: Want more trains? Show up Tuesday

2009-09-26T15:45:00.000-07:00

Let's give the Maine Department of Transportation an earful at the University of Southern Maine on Tuesday.
MDOT has not yet widely publicized the fact that it is currently spending eight months to plan the future of Maine's rail transportation system – the Maine State Rail Plan.
Well, Maine, unless you look forward to another 50 years complaining about being at the end of the line, you should come and tell the state how to modernize rail and get more efficient transportation for Maine people and products.
States to our south are restoring more rail service, and our Legislature has come to realize that Maine roads can no longer be kept in repair under the current gas tax funding arrangement.
Yet people out in Windham and beyond hope that MDOT will rebuild the narrow and dangerous River Road for their daily commutes in individual automobiles from rural serenity to the city.
But unused rail corridors stretch from Portland to Windham, Westbrook, Falmouth, Cumberland, Yarmouth and other suburbs. Greater Portland can either clog up its communities with cars or restore rail service through these corridors like other U.S. metro areas are doing.
Whatever people's opinions, Maine's rail planning needs public input, not just analysis by a batch of "experts."
MDOT's public meeting for the Maine State Rail Plan happens Tuesday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Glickman Library's University Event Room on USM's Portland campus.
Be there, or stay stuck in traffic.
Gary Higginbottom
Portland

Copyright 2009 by The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram. All rights reserved.

Sebago to the Sea? or Portland to North Conway? or both?????

2009-08-28T15:22:00.000-07:00

Sebago to the Sea Trail Public Meeting
Wednesday, September 9th, 5:30-7:00 pm
Standish Town Hall, 175 Northeast Road (Rte 35)

The Sebago to the Sea Trail vision is to establish a contiguous trail from Sebago Lake to Casco Bay connecting Standish, Windham, Gorham, Westbrook, Portland and Falmouth. Beginning at Sebago Lake, the Sebago to the Sea Trail will follow primarily the Presumpscot River, ending at Casco Bay. Approximately 18 miles of the envisioned 27.5 miles of trail is already in place, including the 10-foot wide bicycle and pedestrian trail along the Mountain Division Rail Corridor and trails that are part of Portland Trails’ 32-mile network. The Standish end of the trail is envisioned on Portland Water District’s Sebago Lake Land Reserve. Join us at the Public Meeting to learn more and provide your input! As I read this I was thinking you and I might have a conversation to help me understand the role of the Trails coalition referenced below. It is clear that they trails folks will be using the Mountain Division Railroad right of way for the purposes of non-motorized transportation and pedestrian, primarily recreational use. www.sebagotothesea.org

you think so?
As I read this invitation, it raised the question as to whether a railroad transportation operation, preferably commuter rail, but for now excursion and freight, can co-exist with the trails. I should make that a question. My problem is I am a strong advocate of both methods of transportation, rail transit and bike/ped access. But, I am of the opinion that a railway operation will not be able to reach it's highest economic potential if it is limited by the use for a trail. We need to look to the long-term. Real commuter rail will need to travel more than 60 mph, maybe up to 100. ..................................

I thnk this is an answer that has to be resolved soon. The State of Maine has already turned whole corridors into trails, some still preserved for future rail Calais & the Sunrise Trail), some never again (portland's Uion Branch) , and they have built trails on rails at the Mt. Division, the lower roads to Augusta and on Portland's Eastern Prom. The state says it has a policy about distance, but I have heard that it is not up to national insurance standards for railroad operators.

I just think there has to be a clear understanding about this. There are many miles of Maine that make great trails. We spend a lot of money on roads that can accommodate bike commuters. We have a lot of sidewalks also. But there are limited railway corridors and, in my humble opinion , we need to be perfectly clear as to the limits of their use. The trail policy may be putting at risk the ability to raise the money for higher class rail, if it is been converted to shared use.

One thought I have is to take the question to the Technical Advisory Committee for the State Rail Plan whe itmeets in Sept. A clearly stated, acceptable and undertood policy might be useful.

Would you like to discuss this and other aspects of rail corridor restoration?

I am fairly flexible.

Thanks-
Feel free to share this with others.

Tony D

Portland North Study Update

2009-07-22T15:36:00.000-07:00

Much of the discussion on rail transit in Maine is of course about the Downeaster Amtrak passenger rail service to Boston. How do we pay for it? How do we connect to the Rockland Branch in Brunswick? For those familiar with the issues, what route do we take? The PanAm mainline? Or can we take the Maine-owned St. Lawrence & Atlantic RR (SLR)?

Well, the state is conducting a study (one of a few) funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under a program called New Starts http://www.gobrt.org/FTASmallStarts.pdf which is considering alternative transportation methods for alleviating the traffic on roads leading into Portland from the North http://www.maine.gov/mdot/portlandnorth/projectinfo.htm

The interesting aspect of this study is that according to the original timeline, it was supposed to have been completed in 18 months - from Oct. 2007. Obviously it was not a priority. But after some gentle prodding (from yours truly) the State got the study back on track (pun) and last February 2009 there were 2 meetings with the Boston consulting team http://www.aecom.com/About/36/89/index.html that was hired to conduct the $900K+ study (80 feds/20ME). One took place in Auburn and one in Portland. Great meetings, great company to work with and very good feedback from those in attendance.

Since the Feb. meetings however, not much else. The website was update in early March and there have been no public notices of meetings.....

Is this important? Well, the SLR offers great opportunity for a rail transit service between the Portland waterfront/financial district, to the suburbs of Falmouth, Cumberland and Yarmouth and - from Yarmouth Junction we could go to Boston ( on Amtrak mainline route) Rockland, via Freeport and Brunswick, and even better we could go to Auburn, Bethel, western Maine ski areas and onto Montreal Canada. Walking distance from the financial center of the largest city in Maine.

So let's ask MDOT for an update. And here it is for your reading pleasure and hopefully blogging comments.

as follows: (My inquiry, followed by MDOT response)

From: Tony Donovan [mailto:tony@fishmanrealty.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:03 PM
To: Moreau, Susan
Cc: Tony @ Home OfficeSubject:
RE: Portland North Study
Importance: High

Hello Susan:

I have not heard back from you with an update on the Portland North Small Starts Study. I was thinking it was due to my sending the request from my home PC. So I am trying again from my office.

Are any public hearings scheduled for this study? The last one was in Feb. and there were 2, one in Portland, one in Auburn. We spoke at the time about a need to have both groups meet together. In addition, town planners from Portland and Auburn were not present at either meeting, an over sight on their part I am sure.

Plus there has been no new information on the website. Which leads me to believe that the study which was supposed to be completed in 18 months from Oct. 2007, may be delayed once again. I believe that the railway corridor that is between Portland and Auburn could benefit from some of the activity-surrounding rail right now.

Perhaps I should get in touch directly with the consultant? I could write down my thoughts if that would be of any assistance.

Thanks.
I look forward to your reply
Tony Donovan

From: "Moreau, Susan"
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:12:38 -0400
To: Tony Donovan
Subject: Portland North Study
RE: Request to Meet regarding Thompson's Point
Tony,
Possibly from a stakeholder observation, the study may appear that it is not progressing. However, the team has met over the past three months with Pan Am and the St Lawrence & Atlantic railroad; as well as, individual meetings with city planners, economic development directors, selectmen & councilors from the City of Portland, Lewiston, Auburn, Brunswick, Freeport, Yarmouth, Falmouth and Cumberland. (We are currently setting up meetings in Gray, New Gloucester and Pineland)

Our objective at these meetings was to brief the community leaders on the project and discuss potential station locations/route, service barriers & objectives, and updates on economic development within each of those communities/cities. These meetings were also were focused on individual community needs and concerns relating to commuter rail or BRT.

Except for the recent meetings that I indicated, all meetings have been open to the public. At the upcoming public meeting in either August or September, we will offer the three (from the six original) route alternatives that were selected for further study. Ultimately, one route will be selected for the New Starts application to FTA.

Regarding the scope & timeline, the Department is satisfied with the work that has been accomplished and the pace of the study. Please feel free to contact Jay Duncan with questions on the study.

Sue

Street Blog

2009-07-10T04:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/07/transit-hater-randal-otoole-gets-no-love-at-senate-hearing/

A New Blog for Supporting Rail Transit in Maine

2009-07-01T04:15:00.000-07:00

A good friend and colleague recommended that we start a blog about revitalization of railway corridors. Although this is Maine-based, rail corridors, like the weather, do not begin or end at borders. Our purpose is a strong network of passenger rail transit services connecting our communities, as an alternative transportation choice.

More later.

Have a nice day