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"
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
An Interesting E-Mail Exchange w a Critic
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)
---------------------
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:32 PM, George
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)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
An interesting discussion on Rail by Bus Advocates
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
www.pressherald.com/opinion/editorials
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.
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
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
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
Thursday, June 17, 2010
FTA Schedules Outreach Sessions for New Starts/Small Starts Rule Change
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
