For those arriving on this page today expecting to see Transit In Utah...surprise this blog has a new name to go along with some change in focus in the next few months and some changes in my personal life.
As I mentioned a few months ago I tried to expand the focus of the blog from covering happenings in Utah but also covering areas of interest across the United States and Canada especially in the cities I have good familiarity with such as Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, Utah, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Portland, Spokane and Seattle.
I might move the blog to a different platform once I study more on the different options and I have registered the follow url: http://www.urbanplanningandtransportation.com which is directing to this page at the present time and the forcible future.
The main reasons for these changes is that there is going to be a major change in my personal life over the next 4 months. While I have kept my personal life and this blog separate since its inception, this blog is actually driving some of the changes in that life.
While I do have a degree in Business Management (a two year degree) and tons of experience, the last few years have been difficult. Before I attended Railvolution in October, I was thinking of returning to school but was torn because Utah schools would not accept most of my credits so was looking at moving back to Spokane where my credits were earned. However, our first choice was to move to either Portland or Seattle and after talking to Portland Community College I found out they would take my existing credits which is great since I only need a few classes to get a transferable degree.
From there I plan to apply and attend Portland State University to get degrees in Urban Planning and Economics.
In May I will traveling up to Portland in order to find a place to live. My goal is to find a place with easy transit access to the PCC campuses and PSU. There is some other changes going to take place in March that is going to affect the type of apartment I can find. I hope you enjoy reading of my adventures of trying to find a place to live that meets these requirements.
In my years doing this blog we have seen a lot of changes both good and bad both in Utah and across the nation. I hope to make it back down to Salt Lake in August for the opening of the new TRAX lines since I have been watching progress on the these lines since they were first proposed but am not sure at this time.
To my regular readers, I hope you will continue enjoying this blog, I plan to continue providing observations on urban planning and transportation.
How do you build a better place? It takes effective transportation solutions, good Urban Design, good planning, and the political will to make it happen.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
This Week in Amtrak
This week a tale of caution, a tale of woe, a tale of passenger rail investment in our 21st Century.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences
Basic physics teaches us that for every action there is a reaction. The sociologists tell us such reactions may bring unintended consequences; unanticipated and potentially undesirable outcomes. It is widely held that such unintended consequences fall into one of three categories: Positive, negative, and perverse (wherein the results of the reaction are opposite to what was intended). Prominent sociologist Robert Merton cited numerous reasons for this lack of foresight, but perhaps the most dangerous in the political arena is the “imperious immediacy of interest” wherein “…paramount concern of the immediate excludes consideration of further or other consequences …”
At this time last year, passenger rail was garnering more than its usual share of the public eye. This was entirely due to the Administration’s said goal of building “High-Speed Rail” projects all around the country, even likening these to the Federal Interstate Highway program of the 1950s. As a result, many states pulled their decades-old dreams for intrastate passenger trains off their respective shelves, shook off the dust, and slapped on “High-Speed Rail” labels. One of these was the state of Ohio which wrote, in part, in its High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Application of October 2009:
"During the past 35 years, the State of Ohio has continued planning for the reinstitution of passenger train service on its Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati corridor and vested several state agencies with that responsibility. In 1973, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC) moved to ‘study the feasibility’ of establishing a rapid transit system connecting Ohio’s ‘major cities’ in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. In 1977, the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority (ORTA) was created by the Ohio General Assembly to continue feasibility planning. In 1979, the Ohio legislature passed a law urging neighboring states to join them in exploring the potential for the development of a regional rail system within the Great Lakes Region. Following the 1982 defeat of a statewide sales tax initiative to advance high speed rail service, ORTA was abolished and its staff moved to the Ohio Department of Transportation.
“The initiative advanced in 1991 when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was enacted funding safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings on corridors that were ‘designated’ as high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors based on their present utility and their potential for future development. It was in 2000 that the FRA designated the 3C Corridor as an extension of the Chicago Hub network and included the primary points or cities along the line: Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.
“Subsequent and current initiatives to advance passenger rail service in Ohio have been the responsibility of the ORDC, which was established by the Ohio General Assembly in 1994. In 1996, ORDC joined the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), which calls for the development of a ‘Chicago Hub’ a system envisioned as a 3,000-mile rail system with eight passenger corridors serving 60 million people in a nine state region. The most current Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) Plan report was issued in October 2004.”
Another of these was the state of Wisconsin. Although its rail aspirations were not as long-lived as Ohio, Wisconsin did bring its checkbook. In July 2009, the state entered an agreement with Talgo America to purchase two train sets for $47 million. As part of that agreement, Talgo would establish an assembly plant within the state’s borders. In doing so it would set the standard for the Midwest. Its High-Speed plan, also of October 2009, was the guideline for reintroducing service of some 85 miles between the state capital of Madison and Milwaukee. Although tagged with the “High-Speed” label the proposed service would never have exceeded 110 mph. The plan read in part:
“WisDOT is the lead state for the [Midwest Regional Rail Initiative] and will manage the efforts of the Steering Committee to identify the preferred train set equipment type. WisDOT also is involved in the nationwide effort to identify and acquire the preferred train set equipment through their involvement in the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Committee (mandated by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Section 3605).”
Talgo, for its part, kept its end of the bargain. They set up shop in the former Tower Automotive facility in Milwaukee with the promise of jobs in an area perpetually hit by hard times. The train sets to be delivered are of the new Talgo Series VIII, which are to be fully FRA-compliant and needing no waivers. The two sets ordered in 2009 will be placed in service on the existing Chicago - Milwaukee Hiawatha service. (The state of Oregon also ordered two sets, also to be built in Wisconsin.) It was initially hoped that two more train sets would be ordered for the expanded Madison - Milwaukee service. Ultimately, a new maintenance facility would be established in Madison.
At face value, this seemed like a good idea; a state connecting its largest city to its capital. New Mexico accomplished the same in 2008 when it connected Albuquerque with Santa Fe; however, the New Mexico Rail Runner has the look and feel of a commuter train, and has a total length of 97 miles. Recently the Commonwealth of Virginia announced its intention to connect its second largest city, Norfolk, with the state capital of Richmond, a distance of 109 miles. At no time in either case was the moniker “High-Speed” ever used or applied.
As with most parties these days, however, after the champagne stops flowing and the music stops playing, comes the stark dawn of day. The HSR party was no different. This ersatz High-Speed Rail was deemed as grossly indulgent in an era of austerity. New regimes elected to high office in Ohio and Wisconsin view HSR as too rich for their blood. Both new projects have been canceled, and the Federal monies reallocated to other states.
Talgo, for its part, will continue to hold up its end of the bargain; however, instead of filling the 125 positions originally projected, it will fill just 65. The four train sets on order for Wisconsin and Oregon will be completed by 2012. If no new orders are secured by then, the Milwaukee plant will only be used as a maintenance base for Wisconsin’s equipment. [As we go to press it has been reported Talgo shall move its operation to Illinois. Details of this shall be forthcoming.]
It was believed by many that these projects of Ohio and Wisconsin were reasonable -- and realistic -- due to their basic nature. Despite the “High-Speed” label, they were really in fact just a return to the past, with schedules that would not have been out of pace just two or three generations ago. Since these were really conventional trains and not the gold-plated fast trains of another continent, it was hoped those in charge would see past the HSR-“imperious immediacy of interest“; however, this was not to be. Even though all that glitters is not gold if it is perceived by the public to be gold, then it is a target. And whereas the call was for “High-Speed Rail” to be built around the country, it appears its collapse will doom many conventional rail projects as well. Can any other reaction be more “perverse?”
Thursday, February 10, 2011
UTA TRAX S70 cars

On Monday UTA held a press photo event to see the new Siemens Low Floor S70 light rail vehicles now testing on the Sandy line. UTA also announced that the cars should enter regular service in the spring.





Thursday, January 27, 2011
This Week in Amtrak
From the Editors…
Something is turning 40, and oddly enough someone wants you to know about it. This and other more somber milestones are covered this week.
Of Time and (Wall) Space
If you are not already aware, Amtrak intends to make very sure you will be: On May 1, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (NRPC) -- yes, that is still Amtrak’s legal name -- will achieve 40 years of existence. According to its internal newsletter, Amtrak Ink, there are numerous outlets planned to observe this latest milestone. There will be a commemorative book for which Amtrak has already canvassed its employees for pictures. There will also be a video by “an Emmy award-winning producer.” Also, “Beech Grove is renovating surplus equipment and restoring one F-40, one P-40, three baggage cars, and an Amfleet food service car for a special 40th anniversary `museum train' that will travel across the country to many employee locations.” Since when has Amtrak had “surplus” equipment?
One thing is for certain, this year’s Amtrak wall calendar makes the pronouncement loud for all to hear: “AMTRAK CELEBRATES 40 YEARS OF SERVICE.” Superimposed over a map of the original route structure are over a dozen snapshots from those early years of “rainbow consists” and '70s fashion sense. The lovely Patty Saunders is captured in her go-go boots and early Amtrak uniform. The first Amtrak-painted locomotive is seen in a one-of-a-kind design of black with a wrap-a-round pointless-arrow logo. (Mercifully, that was not repeated.)
It is a wonder to contemplate the journey of the last four decades; yet, this wall hanging of 24 by 33 inches is quite the reminder of an uncertain era not that long ago. On the original system map, in the lower left corner of the montage, is the directive, “Service from Fort Worth to Houston will be shifted from Temple route to Dallas route as soon as possible after May 1, 1971.” Imagine, direct service between Houston and the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex. In the lower right of the map is seen the line and station stop for Wildwood, Florida. Just above that, between snapshots of the original Metroliner and a bedraggled Coast Starlight, is the line depicting the service we once enjoyed between Chicago and Florida. Today both of those are distant memories, as service to the Sunshine State has been continuously marginalized over 40 years. Was it something Florida said?
Perhaps most telling is the stylized logo all the way in the lower corner of the montage. As a depiction of motive power progress, five caricatures are arrayed from left to right, displayed in five different paint schemes. On the left is an Amtrak-painted GG-1 electric, internationally recognized as the finest example of electric traction ever to see service under wire. Designed by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1934, the GG-1 fleet would serve her masters and successors until the 1980s. On the right of the lineup is depicted an Acela Express train, the antithesis of the GG-1.
On this calendar, Amtrak touts itself as “America’s Railroad,” but wait -- there is a picture used in the ad campaigns from its formative years, showing an employee (not a model) standing between the gauge of the rails, holding a large-scale replica of a passenger rail car. The tag line for the ad was the vow to “make the trains worth traveling again.” In 1971, the year the NRPC (now Amtrak) was created, the trains already were worth traveling. Crowds showed up to ride in the peak of summer, 1971; then again in winter, 1971-72. Amtrak did not have the wherewithal to keep up with such demand. When the railroads, in their original role as sole source contractors, did what they could to keep up, the pushback to stop doing that came from inside -- Amtrak! It was a downhill slide from there. After 40 years of false starts and unfulfilled promises, is it not time to hold Amtrak to its word?
In Memoriam
As we muddle our way through the winter season, we wish to pause for a moment to reflect on the lives of three men who, in their own separate ways, left their mark on American railroading:
Eugene K. Garfield worked for the Johnson Administration in the 1960s as Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation, Alan S. Boyd, in the then newly-minted U.S. Department of Transportation. It was during his tenure that a feasibility study for an auto-ferry service between the Northeast and Florida was conducted, and concluded that the service would be potentially profitable but best left for the private sector. After returning to the private sector in 1968, Garfield set about making that study a reality, and from 1971 to 1981 he ran the private Auto-Train Corporation. The original Auto-Train eventually succumbed to financial troubles and the infrastructure was purchased by Amtrak. Garfield died at the age of 74 on December 26, 2010, in Hollywood, Florida. Reflecting on his life reminds us that the entrepreneurial spirit in transportation in not dead, but merely dormant, in a generation that has been taught otherwise.
James A. (Jim) Boyd was a prolific railroad photographer and writer. Much more that just the average railfan, Boyd worked for the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors as a field service representative. In 1972, Boyd began his long association with Carstens Publications, eventually becoming editor of Railfan (later Railfan & Railroad) magazine from 1974 to 1998. Additionally, he authored many Trains magazine articles as well as dozens of books. Boyd brought a sense of discipline and decorum to the railfan ranks. His guiding influence will be sorely missed. Boyd died at the age of 69 on December 31, 2010, in Newton, New Jersey.
Robert G. (Bob) Lewis was that rare, perfect blend of knowledgeable railfan and professional railroader. Between 1934 and 1941 he worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad, and briefly for the Bessemer & Lake Erie. Following the war and a brief return to railroading, he joined the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation. He worked in various editor positions for Railway Age magazine until 1956, when he was named Magazine Publisher. He retired in 1995, but maintained the title of Director of Special Projects. All through his professional travels, he had his camera with him, and amassed an impressive collection of photographs of America’s railroads.
Bob died at the age of 94 on January 5, 2011, in Ormond-by-the-Sea, Florida, but not before this author had the opportunity to meet him at the High-Speed Ground Transportation Association convention in 1996. Lewis was as congenial and approachable as anyone could be.
Later, as a result of merciless prodding by his former co-workers, a number of his photos were published in book form in Off the Beaten Track -- A railroader’s life in pictures (Simmons-Boardman, 2004). Having obtained a copy, this author made an appointment to stop by and garner an autograph. The welcome was warm and sincere. The meeting was as touching as it was informative. Lewis said the real reason behind starting the publication of International Railway Journal in 1961 was just to have an excuse to travel the world. We discussed the issues of the day including, of course, what to do about Amtrak.
With the completion of these distinguished runs the sun shines less brightly over the railway; reminding us of our own finite existence and the need to make our remaining days count. All too soon, the weeds will overgrow and obscure our tracks.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
A Transit Day for all weather...
Took my first transit trip of the new year yesterday. I started off at the intersection of California Avenue and Pioneer. I had originally planned to take the route 232 to downtown but because of the rain I was running late and just missed the bus heading to downtown.
I decided to walk down to 1700 South since I could catch either a 232 or 248 and thought that a 248 would come around 8:48. As I was walking down to 1700 South the weather changed from rain to hail.
Just a couple of minutes after I arrived at the first stop for the 248 a 1999 Gillig Advantage pulled up with a couple of passenger and we headed to the Ballpark TRAX station.
UTA is finally putting in a permanent bus shelter in at Central Station which should do a pretty good job of keeping customers out of the elements while waiting for bus. While I was walking around the station I also saw the new Gillig Advantage BRT Hybrid buses were in service on routes 2 and 550.
While at the station I also walked over and check out the new bicycle center. While the center looks nice there was not a single bike in the bike parking area. While I don't know how it is doing overall, you have to wonder if it is not suffering from the poor location of the station.
From Central Station I rode some of the "getto" UTDC ex-San Jose VTA cars that are usually running on the University line. While the cars could have used a good interior revamp when they were refurbished, they are still in better shape than bus would be of comparable age.
As usual the train was packed by the time it left Gallivan Plaza but I got off at Library to spend some time doing paperwork at the Downtown Library. From there I did some walking around the south downtown area before taking TRAX and route 232 to my starting point.
Oh and the weather changed again. When I arrived at the Library it started to snow but by the time I left it was sunny but cold. It then clouded up during the rest of the trip. A little bit of weather for everyone...
Well it wasn't an exciting trip report but it there will some good ones coming up in a few months. In May I will be making a trip to Portland and all my travel in Portland will be on Tri-Met and after June 15th I will be riding transit almost every so I should have some interesting comments then.
However, on this trip I did get a few ideas for upcoming postings so look for them soon.






I decided to walk down to 1700 South since I could catch either a 232 or 248 and thought that a 248 would come around 8:48. As I was walking down to 1700 South the weather changed from rain to hail.
Just a couple of minutes after I arrived at the first stop for the 248 a 1999 Gillig Advantage pulled up with a couple of passenger and we headed to the Ballpark TRAX station.
UTA is finally putting in a permanent bus shelter in at Central Station which should do a pretty good job of keeping customers out of the elements while waiting for bus. While I was walking around the station I also saw the new Gillig Advantage BRT Hybrid buses were in service on routes 2 and 550.
While at the station I also walked over and check out the new bicycle center. While the center looks nice there was not a single bike in the bike parking area. While I don't know how it is doing overall, you have to wonder if it is not suffering from the poor location of the station.
From Central Station I rode some of the "getto" UTDC ex-San Jose VTA cars that are usually running on the University line. While the cars could have used a good interior revamp when they were refurbished, they are still in better shape than bus would be of comparable age.
As usual the train was packed by the time it left Gallivan Plaza but I got off at Library to spend some time doing paperwork at the Downtown Library. From there I did some walking around the south downtown area before taking TRAX and route 232 to my starting point.
Oh and the weather changed again. When I arrived at the Library it started to snow but by the time I left it was sunny but cold. It then clouded up during the rest of the trip. A little bit of weather for everyone...
Well it wasn't an exciting trip report but it there will some good ones coming up in a few months. In May I will be making a trip to Portland and all my travel in Portland will be on Tri-Met and after June 15th I will be riding transit almost every so I should have some interesting comments then.
However, on this trip I did get a few ideas for upcoming postings so look for them soon.






Tuesday, January 18, 2011
This Week in Amtrak
Image by Madbuster75 via FlickrFrom the Editors…
And now a (highly) condensed look at the year past through the eyes of This Week at Amtrak.
2010, A.D. [Amtrak Defined]
As we enter our eighth year of publication, we find the world of passenger railroading in a greater-than-usual state of flux. Obviously, the biggest curveball thrown may be summed up in three little words: High- Speed Rail. After the “Vision for High-Speed Rail” and High-Speed Rail guidelines of 2009, we waited in expectation for January 28, when $8 billion worth of specific American Recovery and Reinvestment Act rail projects would be announced. It took months for the euphoria to subside. Then came reality; mid-term election candidates began to run on platforms advocating stoppage of HSR projects in their respective states. Freight railroads found the punitive federal guidelines “surprising” and “frightening.”
Then things got interesting.
On January 5, after an initial one-year term as President, Joseph H. Boardman was granted (by the Amtrak Board) a permanent position. On January 11, an Amtrak press release announced, “AMTRAK READY WITH BIG PLANS FOR 2010 -- New Year brings major projects and new initiatives.” This was hardly the first announcement heralding “big plans.” As with so many other forward-looking statements of years past, this was generally received with a sigh. As events would later prove, however, some rather big things did actually happen.
March 6 saw the first Town Hall meeting co-sponsored by Amtrak and Trains Magazine. Well-attended and featuring the presence of Amtrak Chairman Tom Carper, as well as Joe Boardman, there were those inside the corporation who decried this “foamers’ forum.” Even so, there was positive dialogue about photography and updates on equipment rebuilding at the Beech Grove Repair Facility, using stimulus money. A train of three cars and a locomotive were on display for all in attendance to tour (and photograph).
March 31 was the end of an era at Amtrak. Cliff Black, long-time (and long-suffering) Chief of Communications and employee since 1981, retired. For years, it had been his quotes, his voice which represented Amtrak to the general public. Through each change of leadership at Amtrak, and there were several, the one constant had been Black's deft handling of the news media. Any of us seeking good honest information knew Cliff Black was the man to see. While keeping on-message for his employer, he never led the news media astray; an amazing feat in today's world of journalism. Suffice it to say, this is a retirement well earned and richly deserved.
July 23 brought what was perhaps the biggest, most jaw-dropping initiative undertaken by Amtrak all year, and possibly all decade: The order for 130 new Viewliner 2 single level cars with an option for 70 more to replace the remaining Heritage baggage cars and diners. Was this shocking turn due to a previously-unrealized corporate need? No. As far back as 15 years ago, Amtrak's then-president Thomas Downs described the remaining Heritage cars in service as “junk.” Was this, then, as a result of a sudden jump in demand for sleeping car space on eastern trains? No. Sleeper space has been at a premium, especially in the East, since the retirement of the last Heritage sleepers in 2006. Ever since the 50-unit fleet of Viewliner sleeping cars entered service in 1995-96, we have been waiting for the rest of the Viewliner fleet to supplant the last of the Heritage fleet. We have waited… and waited… and waited. When Amtrak announced, on January 11, “a comprehensive and detailed plan to replace and expand its fleet of locomotives and passenger railcars” they could have warned us that this time they really meant it.
The Washington Times of September 12 reported on a Congressional probe of the sudden ouster of Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold, the previous year. Quoting from draft copy, “Because of his expertise, the [Amtrak] Board viewed Weiderhold as a threat.” Also found were “excessive fees” paid to outside law firms by Amtrak’s Law Department and, due to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Weiderhold’s departure, “It was not a truly voluntary resignation as Amtrak management had suggested in public statements.” There was some attention given in the Halls of Congress which, thus far, has amounted to nothing beyond lip service. But as Chicago Cubs fans are used to saying, “maybe next year.”
On October 16, a Norfolk Southern freight train departing Enola Yard across the river from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, en route to Hagerstown, Maryland and points South, derailed in downtown Harrisburg. The rear of the train was still west of the Amtrak station, precluding the eastbound Pennsylvanian from entering. Many will use such an incident to demonize the freight railroads and to call for building separate tracks. Ironically, that is exactly what NS has been attempting to accomplish in the area for a number of years. Currently, when freight trains to or from the south enter or depart Enola Yard, they are required to cross the Susquehanna River twice (and pass the Amtrak station), a process which adds hours to transit times. NS has been working with the State to rebuild a former connection on the south side of Enola Yard at Lemoyne. The process has been held up for the usual political reasons (concerning which a boxcar could not care less). Until this has resolution, efficiency will suffer. Passenger rail will suffer. Egos will continue to be stroked. A similar incident occurred July 2, and for what? For less than 1,300 feet of track. Sometimes the answer really is that simple.
Also in October came an admission of the obvious. One year earlier, the contract to run the Virginia Railway Express commuter service, held by Amtrak for 18 years, was awarded to the French company Keolis. Amtrak did not like this intrusion into its turf. As documented by veteran reporter Don Phillips, “The battle then turned bitter, and Amtrak and its unions turned nasty. Union officials made it clear to employees that if they signed with Keolis, they would be fired immediately by Amtrak and permanently blacklisted. Crews who agreed to stay with Amtrak not only received a $5,000 bonus but were guaranteed a job. Amtrak, meanwhile, even tried to hire crews laid off from New Jersey Transit who had been approached by Keolis. The idea was to prevent Keolis from hiring enough crews to run the system by takeover day, June 28.” Yet, in spite of all the chicanery and dirty tricks Keolis did begin service (albeit delayed) and continues to operate. By October of 2010, Amtrak President Joe Boardman finally admitted, “We know we did not provide the right answers,” and “I see a lot more competition coming forward.” Amtrak considers itself to be the sole keeper of American passenger railroading. Considering its isolationist history, this is understandable; however, the word is getting around that there are others willing to ante up to the table. Amtrak has promised to behave. Will it?
Finally, on December 20, Norfolk Southern and the Commonwealth of Virginia entered an agreement to reintroduce passenger service to Norfolk. This is funded by “an $87 million Rail Enhancement Fund grant” which, when translated into English, means these are state monies, not Federal or ARRA grant. Yes Virginia, there really are states who take the initiative in their passenger rail programs.
2010 promised to be the year of “High-Speed Rail.” Ultimately, it came in like a lion and went out like a lamb. HSR was touted as the savior of our economy; an engine for creating jobs in much the same way as the Interstate Highway System of two generations ago. Rhetoric was thick. Substance was lacking. The proposed fast trains look sleek and sexy, but where is the business case to justify them? No one is against creating jobs, but with at least $8 billion in the offing, the question is begged: Is this a good, sustainable transportation policy?
Perhaps the biggest story in passenger rail is the one that did not happen.
Amtrak’s manifesto of January 11 predicted, in part, “the purchase of several hundred single-level and bi-level long distance passenger railcars and more than a hundred locomotives.” New Viewliners were ordered in July, followed by a contract for new electrics in October. Unlike many of the HSR initiatives, these orders have had no political opposition. Yet as 2010 wrapped up, there were no “bi-level long distance passenger railcars” on the horizon. As pointed out by Andrew Selden, URPA Vice President, “This is the one application of capital available to Amtrak that promises a quick and positive return on incremental invested capital. No other investment opportunity, honestly accounted for using GAAP measures, offers anything even close to this. Yet Amtrak refuses to pursue it.”
As the year has drawn to a close, the same basic route map remains in place. Apologists are grateful the map has not shrunk any further. Advocates wonder why, in an era of so much talk of rail, the map is not growing. The Sunset Limited still does not venture any further East than New Orleans, and is carried on Amtrak’s daily status as "Hurricane`Katrina' Aftermath & Service Adjustments - Sunset Limited: Normal service resumed 03Nov05, with the exception of Trains 1 and 2 between Orlando and New Orleans."
True, there was much more talk about passenger rail this past year than in recent memory. The small order for equipment was positive, yet after so many years of benign neglect, this can hardly be counted as a fresh start. “What is needed most in 2011, following what happened in 2010, is a better, more rigid plan for creating new trains which have a higher guarantee of success and financial reward, instead of becoming yet another burden on the overburdened taxpayers,” said Bruce Richardson, URPA President.
As the afterglow of the latest surge in HSR interest fades into memory, it is clear that sleek, fast trains do not exist in a vacuum. Around the real high-speed world, fast trains succeed as part of a vast integrated network; the trains, by themselves, would be nothing more than pricey tourist attractions. Amtrak would appear to have figured this out, as evidenced by its current equipment orders, and wish list from last January. Unless projects of this type are embraced, to build upon the few successes of this past year, then the whole enterprise is for naught; hopefully, it will not be too little, too late.
Related articles
- Amtrak Reports Record Passenger Numbers (dailyfinance.com)
- Amtrak's Quiet Car service coming to Harrisburg (pennlive.com)
- Amtrak Engine Fire Delays Train Near Schenectady (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- Amtrak Won't Revive Trans-Hudson Rail Tunnel Project (newyork.cbslocal.com)
Monday, January 17, 2011
What I have ridden over the years...
Matt over at the Track Twenty-Nine blog showed a listing of the rail systems he has ridden over the years in his posting
Making a List, Checking it Twice
and I thought it would be interesting to see how many I have ridden in comparison. While I have not traveled on as many systems as he has, I know have a challenge to try to ride more of the systems around the country.
First I will do something different from Matt and show the Amtrak trains I have ridden over the years:
Coast Starlight: Both directions twice plus multiple times on the California Section
San Joaquin's: Multiple times except Sacramento-Stockten which I have done only once in one direction
San Diegans (now Surfliners): Multiple Times
Southwest Chief: Los Angeles to Flagstaff Round Trip
San Francisco Zephyr: One way from Denver to Sacramento
California Zephyr: One Roundtrip from Salt Lake City to Denver and one way trips from Denver to Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City to Reno
Desert Wind: Two one way trips from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City and multiple trips on the segment from Los Angeles to San Bernardino.
Pioneer: One way trip from Salt Lake City to Portland
Empire Builder: Two one way trips from Portland to Spokane and both directions for Seattle to Spokane
Cascades: Multiple Trips
Sunset Limited: One way trip from Alhambra to Phoenix
Spirit of California: Several Times
As you can see all of my train riding has been on the west coast but I hope to be taking more trips in the future. I have not counted the several special trains I have been on over the years.
Now on to transit systems:
Heavy Rail:
- San Francisco Bay Area - BART (multiple times over the years)
- Washington DC - Metro(1980)
- New York- Subway (1980)
- Los Angeles - Metro Rail (several times)
- Miami - MetroRail (2007)
- Atlanta - Marta (not ridden yet)
- Boston - "T" (not ridden yet)
- Chicago - "L" (not ridden yet)
- Baltimore - Metro Subway (not ridden yet)
- Philadelphia - SEPTA (not ridden yet)
- Philadelphia - PATCO (not ridden yet)
- New York/New Jersey - PATH (not ridden yet)
- San Francisco - Muni (multiple times)
- San Diego - Trolley (multiple times)
- Portland - MAX (multiple times)
- Los Angeles - Metro (multiple times)
- Sacramento - Light Rail (1999)
- Salt Lake City - TRAX (multiple times)
- Denver - The Ride (2006)
- Seattle - Central Line (October 2010)
- Pittsburgh - "T" (not ridden yet)
- Boston- "T" (not ridden yet)
- Dallas - DART (not ridden yet)
- Baltimore - Light Rail (not ridden yet)
- Philadelphia - Light Rail (not ridden yet)
- Camden - River Line (not ridden yet)
- Newark - NJ Transit (not ridden yet)
- San Jose - VTA (not ridden yet)
- Minneapolis - Light Rail (not ridden yet)
- Charlotte - Lynx (not ridden yet-did not exist when I lived in Charlotte)
- Jersey City - Hudson/Bergen Line (not ridden yet)
- Oceanside - Sprinter (not ridden yet)
- Buffalo - Metrorail (not ridden yet)
- Cleveland - Light Rail (not ridden yet)
- Houston - MetroRail (not ridden yet)
- Phoenix - Valley Metro (not ridden yet)
- St. Louis - Metrolink (not ridden yet)
- Norfolk - Tide (opening 2011)
- San Francisco - Caltrain (multiple times)
- Los Angeles - Metrolink (multiple times)
- Miami - Tri-Rail (2007)
- Salt Lake City - Front Runner (multiple times)
- Portland - WES (2010)
- Washington DC - MARC (not ridden yet)
- Dallas - Trinity Railway Express (not ridden yet)
- Chicago - Metra (not ridden yet)
- Philadelphia - SEPTA (not ridden yet)
- Washington DC - VRE (not ridden yet)
- New Jersey - New Jersey Transit (not ridden yet)
- San Jose - ACE (not ridden yet)
- Nashville - Music City Star (not ridden yet)
- New York - Metro North (not ridden yet)
- New York - Long Island Railroad (not ridden yet)
- New Haven - Shore Line East (not ridden yet)
- Boston - MBTA (not ridden yet)
- San Diego - Coaster (not ridden yet)
- Seattle - Sounder (not ridden yet-although have traveled both routes on Amtrak)
- Chicago - South Shore (not ridden yet)
- Austin - Capital Metro (not ridden yet)
- Minneapolis - North Star (not ridden yet)
- Albuquerque - Railrunner (not ridden yet)
- Dallas - A Train (opening 2011)
- Seattle - Seattle Monorail (1999)
- Las Vegas - Monorail (2005)
- Miami - Metromover (2007)
- New York - JFK Airtrain (not ridden yet)
- Morgantown - WVU PRT (not ridden yet)
- Detroit - People mover (not ridden yet)
- Las Colinas (Dallas) - PRT (not ridden yet)
- Jacksonville - Skyway (not ridden yet)
- Newark - Airtrain (not ridden yet)
Streetcars are noted as being a heritage line, modern streetcar or original streetcar line. I have ridden all the modern lines that are currently open but have not ridden none of the heritage or original lines.
- San Francisco - Cable Cars (multiple times)
- Portland - Portland Streetcar (multiple times)
- Tacoma - Link (2004)
- Seattle - Seattle Streetcar (October 2010)
- Dallas - McKinney Ave Trolley heritage line (not yet ridden)
- San Francisco - F Line (not yet ridden formal F-line but have ridden most of the route)
- Charlotte - Charlotte Trolley heritage line (not yet ridden)
- Kenosha - Kenosha Streetcar heritage line (not yet ridden)
- Little Rock - River Rail Streetcar heritage line (not yet ridden)
- Memphis - MATA Trolley heritage line (not yet ridden)
- New Orleans - original streetcars (not yet ridden)
- Philadelphia - Girard Line original (not yet ridden)
- Savannah - River Street Streetcar original (not yet ridden)
- Tampa - TECO heritage line (not yet ridden)
- Los Angeles - RTD/Metro
- San Francisco - San Francisco Muni
- Spokane - Spokane Transit Authority
- Salt Lake City - Utah Transit Authority
- Seattle - King County Metro and Sound Transit
- Portland - Tri-Met
Friday, January 14, 2011
Oregon Bill Caused Uproar in Bicycling Community
There has been a huge uproar in the Portland Area and around the net with the introduction of a bill in the Oregon Legislature that would ban anyone under 6 years old from being carried on a bike or a bike trailer.
Representative Greenlick who introduced the bill seems to have good intentions with the introduction of the bill. He is a professor of Public Health at Oregon Health Sciences University and is reacting to a report on the number of injuries on bicycles.
Here is some articles about it from Bike Portland:
Oregon House bills would prohibit wearing headphones, carrying kids under six while biking - Updated
Rep. Greenlick says safety concerns prompted child biking bill
Greenlick child biking bill reaction roundup
Mia Birk asks Greenlick to withdraw bill, says he "misinterpreted" bike injury study
Rep. Jules Bailey works to amend Greenlick bill - Updated
Monday, January 03, 2011
Welcome to the New Year
For my first posting of the year I was planning on going over some of the big transit projects that were planning to be opened or started this year but the Transport Politic has already posted a great listing that shows not only what is opening and starting but also ones that are under construction and will be opening in future years:
Opening and Construction Starts Planned for 2011
Streetcar News:
Start by looking at the projects expected to get started this year, 50% of them are streetcar projects. Cities looking to add new streetcar lines including Atlanta, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Tucson. Three of those cities will be new to modern streetcars including Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Salt Lake City while Tucson will add a modern streetcar to its already existing historic streetcar line.
In addition two projects are under way will put the first modern streetcars into Washington DC and add to Portland's existing network in 2012.
While it is great news so much progress has been made over the last couple of years thanks to Tiger grants and other stimulus money, you have to wonder how many more streetcar lines we will see under construction two years from now unless they are 100% locally funded.
Light Rail:
In 2011 we will see a city open its first light rail line and that is Norfolk, Virginia. The city that will see the biggest openings in 2011 will be Salt Lake City on August 7th when Utah Transit Authority opens two light rail lines at once. The West Valley and Mid-Jordan will add 15.7 miles to its existing network.
Meanwhile another huge opening this year will be the Expo Line in Los Angeles. While there has been some questionable opposition from some corners, the line will be the first phase of a vital link that will eventually link Los Angeles and Santa Monica via the University of Southern California.
Beyond that there will be a couple of minor extensions of existing light rail lines. However, several major projects will open in 2012 and 2013 in the cities of Calgary, Dallas, Houston, Denver and Salt Lake City.
However there is only two projects in the pipeline to start construction in 2011 when it comes to light rail. One is the controversial Milwaukie Light Rail line in Portland and the Woodward Avenue line in Detroit. I will be watching with interest the project in Detroit not only because it was once the home of automobile manufacturing in the United States, but it has been the home of my father's family since the mid 1850's.
Commuter Rail:
We will see one major commuter rail opening in 2011 and that is the A-train in Dallas which will connect with the Green Line light rail line which opened last year. In addition we will see a small extension in Rhode Island of Boston's commuter rail network.
Two projects will be getting started in 2011 in Florida and the San Francisco Bay Area. Both of these lines have had their share of controversies and will probably continue to do so.
The first one is SunRail in central Florida that will travel through the Orlando area. It will include moving most of the CSX freight trains to another route to the west. The other line will operate in the Bay Area in Marin County from Cloverdale to Lakespur.
Questions are arising on both of these networks on the cost for the number of passengers that will be carried the respective lines. It also needs to be answered how well these new networks will be integrated into the existing transit network and how well the respective agencies will work together to design a system that will provide the maximum benefit to the customer for the dollar.
New lines or extensions already under construction and opening in 2012 or beyond including Front Runner South in Utah, a new line in Montreal's network, a 8 mile extension of Sounder to Lakewood in Washington, eBart in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the East Line in Denver that will link Union Station and the Denver International Airport.
Metro/Heavy Rail
For many years Metro style rail has been missing in action from construction news except for minor extensions here and there, but there is several projects in the pipeline over the next few years that should be making some news.
While no openings will occur in 2011, we will see a major project get under way in Honolulu and possibly one in Vancouver BC if the funding all comes together. In addition there is already projects under way in Miami (only 2.4 miles, the rest of the project is dead at this time), BART to Warm Springs, Toronto, the Dulles extension to the Washington Metro system, and in New York City we have an extension of the 7 subway line and probably the longest waited transit project in history the Second Avenue Subway.
What about the future?
Of course the big question is what will the future bring especially with the new Republican majority in the House? Well, for the next two years I do not see a lot getting done beyond political infighting and lots of yells of "we have a mandate!".
We may see a fight for more bus projects like during the President Bush years, but we shall see. I will continue to advocate for improvements to existing bus infrastructure over Badly Repackaged Transit (BRT).
Hope everyone has a Happy New Year and some great projects come down the pike...
Friday, December 24, 2010
This Week in Amtrak
We are privileged to present the following commentary by Russ Jackson. Russ is a decades-long URPA vice president. He is also a founding member and Secretary of the Rail Passenger Association of California (RailPAC); the largest, most active rail passenger advocacy group in that state. Russ regularly attends and reports on state rail meetings of the San Joaquin, Coast Rail, and Capitol Corridors.
The passenger trains operated by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway between Chicago and the West Coast are the stuff of legend. Their post-war fleets of stainless steel trains were, and are, considered the gold standard for American passenger railroading. Everybody knows the Super Chief ran over Raton Pass. They forget that the El Capitan was a separate train for most of its existence, but they vaguely remember that there was a different train called the Chief that also ran over Raton Pass. They remember that the San Francisco Chief ran through Amarillo, but they forget that the line through Amarillo also saw half of a train called the Grand Canyon; the other half of the Grand Canyon ran over Raton Pass!
Something else that apparently few people remember is that right up until Amtrak, the Santa Fe served Denver directly, with service between Denver and La Junta. In fact, there were two round trips per day until 1967. There were two trains a day through Amarillo before the Postal cuts in 1967, and there was one train daily right up until Amtrak.
It has been proposed that the one remnant of this once-proud lineage, Amtrak’s Southwest Chief, be rerouted some 790 miles off its current route through Raton Pass to the prominent BNSF Railway transcontinental mainline through Amarillo. This week, Mr. Jackson examines this proposition.
What Happens if the Southwest Chief is Rerouted?
Commentary by Russ Jackson, RailPAC
Every once in a while, the rerouting of Amtrak Trains 3 and 4, the Southwest Chief, off the traditional line from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Hutchinson, Kansas arises, because the line has virtually no BNSF freight traffic in Colorado and New Mexico any longer. That is a true statement. The railroad no longer uses the Chief, and has diverted through freights to the soon-to-be fully double-tracked "Transcon" line, farther south. This was the historic route of Santa Fe's San Francisco Chief prior to Amtrak. In recent months, Amtrak has been forced to add 40 minutes to the Chief's schedule due to a BNSF lowering of the speed limit on the very rough trackage in western Kansas and Colorado, such that Train 4 now departs Los Angeles at 6:15 PM. The BNSF has offered to move the train to the Transcon line, which as we will see, is more populated. The State of New Mexico now owns the line within its borders and runs the very successful Railrunner trains on the portion south of Santa Fe to Albuquerque. The BNSF still owns the rest.
Well then, what would happen if Amtrak had to abandon the line?
Would New Mexico pay to maintain the line through Raton Pass? Would Colorado step up and pay to maintain their portion of the line? Would Kansas pay? Would a "short line" purchase it, knowing there are almost no freight customers? Would Amtrak pay a higher share of the maintenance? Would anyone pay to rebuild it? Would the BNSF pay for a portion of an abandoned line? The answers to these questions are likely to be "No."
All right, then what would be lost in a reroute?
Certainly, there is the loss of the "absolutely spectacular and incomparable" scenic route through Raton Pass, as stated by URPA's Bruce Richardson, "but how many millions of dollars a year in track maintenance is that scenery worth?" In this case economics will eventually govern the results, even though Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman has said he is "not interested in" moving the train.
Here are the FY ‘09 Amtrak ridership and revenue statistics for the abandoned towns; but not including Albuquerque, as that ridership could be largely retained by having the Railrunner act as a shuttle to Belen, thereby avoiding Amtrak’s having to back up into Albuquerque.
Station FY09 Riders FY09 Revenue
Lamy, NM 13,012 $1,623,108
Las Vegas, NM 4,456 335,144
Raton, NM 15,066 1,572,789
La Junta, CO 6,809 658,928
Lamar, CO 1,722 162,363
Trinidad, CO 3,923 388,961
Dodge City, KS 4,248 429,647
Garden City, KS 6,930 712,501
Hutchinson, KS 4,045 396,749
Totals 60,211 $6,280,190
(Statistics found on Great American Stations)
To Amtrak Accounting, that might be "chump change," but to the people who live in those towns and use the train it can be a matter of life and death, just as was the case for the Empire Builder across North Dakota and Montana.
Yes, there is also a human cost. On my October trip to northern New Mexico, I stopped for a visit at the Las Vegas, NM, Amtrak station, which is not staffed by Amtrak but is the city's nicely-restored Intermodal Facility in the Historic Railroad District. Employees handle questions about Amtrak travel, and there is a Quik-Trak ticket machine.
Transportation Facility Manager Debra Trujillo was aware there was talk of a potential loss of the train, and expressed concern for her town's people, many of whom are senior citizens who would have no transportation alternative. Greyhound does not serve the town. She said many people ride the train to Albuquerque for medical appointments, or into Colorado to visit relatives. While dealing with Amtrak can be difficult, she is looking forward to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus-money-funded new, ADA-compliant platform; although as of the date of my visit, construction had not yet begun. I urged Manager Trujillo to let Amtrak and the political establishment know how important the train is to her city, and to muster the other cities on the route to do the same.
What would Amtrak gain by rerouting the train?
Many observers felt Amtrak should have also retained the San Francisco Chief when it began in 1971. To go into these towns now would mean they would be starting over, selling rail passenger service after 40 years of absence. Here are the current populations of the new station cities, not their metro areas. It is not a prediction of ridership, but one can certainly see the temptation to reach out to new customers. The towns listed below are not all the stations that were served by the Santa Fe's train, but are the most likely stops:
Station Population
Vaughn, NM (flag stop?) 463
Clovis-Portales, NM 45,124
Hereford, TX 14,455
Amarillo-Canyon, TX 200,183
(major university at Canyon)
Pampa, TX 17,204
Alva, OK 4,738
Woodward, OK 12,206
Wellington, KS 7,812
Wichita, KS 361,420
(Statistics from Rand McNally map book)
Eventually, the decision may be out of the hands of the cities, the railroad or Amtrak. That would be unfortunate and would probably be a big black eye for all. The BNSF's Joseph Faust told the Amarillo Globe-News on October 8 that Amtrak is free to use the freight tracks in Amarillo, but that option "would require a great deal of study." The historic passenger station is used by an auction house, but is still standing; as is the brick platform. Amtrak's Marc Magliari told the newspaper, "Right now (the delays) are not significant. Our intention is to stay on the current route."
This writer urges all parties to work to preserve this service area and work to restore the San Francisco Chief into the Amtrak long-distance system; yes, to San Francisco from Barstow, up the San Joaquin Valley. That would be a bonanza for Amtrak ridership and revenue. Years ago, the Amtrak agent in Stockton told me that he could fill a sleeping car on the train every day, in the old days. Think future, Amtrak!
Monday, December 13, 2010
This Week in Amtrak
With this edition, we conclude the coverage of this year’s Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads conference presented by Railway Age magazine.
How does one brake a high-speed rail?
By Daniel Carleton
For many years, two prominent gentlemen have always been a presence at these soirées to act as guiding lights and voices of reason: Gene Skoropowski of California’s Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, and Thomas Mulligan of Union Pacific. Today, both have retired from their long, distinguished careers; therefore, it was a real treat when they took the stage, engaging in a simulated freight/passenger negotiation session with a twist -- reversed roles. Skoropowski represented the railroad, and Mulligan the local municipality seeking to start a commuter rail service. Assisted by Kevin Sheys (Partner, K&L Gates LLP) and his two hats, the hour-long simulation was both humorous and sobering.
Many times railroads learn about plans of starting passenger service by reading about it in the newspaper. By the time they are invited to discuss the plan, the governing municipality has garnered numerous ideas about the railroad and its operations, most of which are completely erroneous. The railroad is left to quell these preconceived notions before the real discussion may begin. Any excess capacity on the railroad is owned by the shareholders. Liability costs must be borne by the new commuter entity.
The current Amtrak rates for track access to preexisting routes do not apply, and actual access fees will be some $7-10/train mile. Non-railroad capacity studies are “not worth the paper they’re printed on.” Railroads are receptive to incentive payments for service, but not penalties. Ultimately, the right business deal is needed to make such service a reality.
Martin Schroeder of American Public Train Association (APTA) addressed the gathering on safety standards development. Currently, APTA has over 200 standards in publication, and they are recognized by numerous professional and government agencies. The result of this proactive effort has been minimization of government regulation and an educated influence on the final outcome of said regulation. Fixed standards equal reduced liability for those adhering to them.
Alan Zarembski, President of Zeta-Tech Associates, spoke to us about engineering hurdles required for higher-speed corridors. Anyone looking to build or upgrade track for high- or higher-speed trains needs to enlist Zarembski’s expertise. Through numerous charts and graphs, he illustrated requirements for making a higher-speed corridor, as well as conflicts between the needs of freight and passenger trains.
Simply put, passenger track is expensive. For instance, a #20 turnout (a broad track switch) costs about $100-120K. A #30 turnout (an even broader switch) costs over $250K. In the U.S., track maintenance dollars are spent on rails and ties; in Europe, the resources go into right-of-way surfacing. When asked about the failures of concrete ties in the U.S., he stated that since the 1970s over 300 million concrete ties have been installed, and about 5-10% of these have suffered chemical degradation.
Rodney Case presented an outsider’s view of European freight and passenger operations. Europe does, indeed, have a mixed-operation network, and private investors are showing up in the European Union. He concluded by asking aloud if projects such as Access to the Region’s Core and East Side Access would not be fundamentally more attractive if jointly constructed to accommodate freight across Manhattan. He also asked, Why does the U.S. rail industry approach the government and stakeholders in such a fragmented approach?
Thomas Mulligan graciously received this year’s Graham Claytor Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation. A self-effacing man, he humbly summarized his railroad carrier. Early on, one of his superiors once declared him ambidextrous; he could not take shorthand with either hand! The ovation Mulligan received was well deserved, and we wish him the best that retirement can offer.
Over lunch, casual conversation turned to some quite shocking and virtually unmentioned facts about Positive Train Control (PTC). Overall PTC will make transit times longer. How can this be? Was not one of the touted benefits of PTC higher speeds? It was explained this way: Suppose a train is entering a 40 mph curve. Currently, the engineer may enter the curve at 41-42 mph with no discernable difference in train operation. This will not be possible with PTC. The train will have to be at 40 mph (or less) entering the curve, or there will be a penalty. That conversation ended with, “We’re still working on the algorithms.” It would appear Casey Jones truly is dead.
There was a panel discussion on U.S. high-speed rail initiatives. The panel Chair was Al Swift, former Representative from Washington State, who started the discussion with the admonition, “Advisory committees are there to be ignored.” He later made the salient point that we use the term “High-Speed Rail” indiscriminately, and we need to make some agreement on what it means. Art Guzzetti of APTA made the point that ARRA was a “jobs bill” and not a rail program. Currently, most intercity rail work is building back to a state of good repair and capacity expansion. Of note, one of the scheduled panelists, Drew Galloway of Amtrak, could not attend (as he was attempting to save the ARC program).
During the question/answer period, this author inadvertently kicked the hornet’s nest. The point was made that all true High-Speed Rail programs around the world began as augmentations or replacements of existing conventional rail systems. The two true HSR programs proposed in this country, Florida and California, are not replacing existing conventional corridors. Without a pre-existing rider base to naturally migrate from an existing service to an improved service, any new-start HSR service may not meet preconceived notions for ridership.
Would not such a failure on the national stage have long-lasting negative impact on operation/expansion of passenger rail in the U.S.?
There was a pregnant pause. A stunned backlash followed. One of the panelists responded, “I’m just a consultant.” The sternly-worded formal answer, from someone actively working on the Florida project, defended his efforts with the standard line, pointing to existing state-owned right-of-way and choice of station location as being surrounded by nothing but parking lots. The existing renovated station in downtown Tampa is purportedly unsuitable, as there is currently nothing near it.
The final presentation was an update on the higher-speed initiatives in Illinois. This primarily focused on the upgrade between Chicago and St. Louis, where speeds of 110 mph will be recognized. By that time, the majority of attendees had vacated, starting their way back from whence they came. How many traveled by train?
Epilogue
It has been less than two months since the conference, and yet it seems everything has changed. In the elections of last month many candidates ran, at least in part, on a platform of ‘stopping the train.’ Higher-speed plans in Wisconsin and Ohio may be cancelled. Even the true HSR project in Florida is in question. It would appear at least at this early date that passenger railroading in America has had yet another false start.
The first exposure this author experienced with passenger rail and politics was the High-Speed Ground Transportation Association convention of 1996. The crowd was huge. The air was electric. We were going to set the world on fire. Amtrak had officially signed to buy the American Flyer (later Acela) trainsets for the Northeast, and Florida was to get the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX). Before the end of the decade, the FOX was cancelled and Acela suffered setback after infamous setback.
Yet it is the same people from back in 1996 who have been coming again and again to Washington, and to similar meetings around the country. Now, with a probable payout for the first time in 14 years, they were practically tripping over one another to sell their wares. After 14 years, their angst is entirely understandable; so when the long-awaited call for “shovel ready” HSR projects came, about the best Florida could come up with was a dust-covered plan for the FOX.
But this is not 1996. The paradigm has most definitely changed. Is this really the best idea for denizens of the Sunshine State? The new anti-rail sentiment now threatens the future of SunRail, the Orlando area commuter rail system. Is the audacity of HSR such that it may endanger all potential rail projects in Florida? Instead of asking these and other questions, those would-be builders of HSR are running ahead full throttle. Their actions border on malicious compliance. High-Speed Rail is not the devil incarnate, as some politicians would contend; however, all successful HSR programs follow successful conventional passenger rail programs. This is something this country has not enjoyed for almost a half century.
Just as a baby learns to crawl before walking, we the people must learn (or re-learn) the basics of passenger railroading before contemplating moving forward. It is a generational arrogance that believes elementary steps may be skipped, yet viable results still be achieved. Seldom does arrogance go without receiving its due reward.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Transit Service, Transit Service Area and Equality
Image by shoseph via FlickrDoes a transit system provide service to the largest coverage area possible, or does it provide the most possible service to its highest ridership areas? In an perfect world a transit system would have the funding to do both. However, 75 years of government induced pro automotive growth has made it impossible for a transit system to do both.
At one time, most transit systems tried to provide service to the largest service area possible. While this allowed more people to use transit, the question had to be asked whether the transit system was loosing more passengers due to the lack of frequent service on its most important lines.
Over the last couple of decades transit systems have gone away from the philosophy of providing the maximum coverage to a system of maximum efficiency by providing more service and busy corridors and cutting service to outlining areas. The problem is that you leave some areas with only limited service and sometimes they do not feel they are getting their money's worth from their tax dollars.
This is a situation currently happening in Portland, Oregon. The city of Boring (yes, the town is called Boring), is not happy with the amount of transit service it is receiving from the local agency Tri-Met. The city of Boring contributes about $2 million a year in tax dollars to Tri-Met but only gets limited service primarily during rush hour.
It is easy to understand where the city of Boring is coming from. A large amount of tax money leaves the city and they do not see a lot of return from their investment. While it would be nice if they could see the big picture cities only look to their own self interest and over the next few years that may only get worse.
It is difficult for Tri-Met to justify increase spending to areas such as Boring. If you look at a map of the Boring area you would see that it is largely semi-rural exurb that is difficult to service with transit. One alternative Tri-Met could use for Boring would be to provide a cutaway van flex route that agencies such as the Utah Transit Authority and Denver RTD have implemented.
A few of Boring's Neighbors have chosen to leave Tri-Met and start their own transit systems. With the investment they are making in Tri-Met they could provide better service than they currently receive from the bigger agency which is what happened when Wilsonville, Oregon started its own transit agency.
The problem would be for the citizens that have to travel out of the Boring area into Portland proper. Wilsonville's SMART transit agency and Tri-Met do not accept the other agencies transfers which means riders have to pay twice to make a one way ride (however SMART is fare free so if you are using Tri-Met's WES commuter rail line you would only have to pay once but it runs during rush hours only).
Portland is not unique when it comes to having battles over the amount of transit service being received. Ultimately the area in question needs to decide for itself whether going on its own will out way the pitfalls of not having a single integrated transit system with the most service being provided where ridership is the highest.
Friday, December 03, 2010
The Balancing Act of Paratransit Service
I have commented many times on the difficulties presented to transit agencies with the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the biggest difficulties is the bill created an unfunded mandate that transit agencies need to provide services to those with disabilities but provided no money to actually provide the service.
Notice, I am NOT saying that people with disabilities should not have transportation however, what we have to recognize the the service is costly and the funding has to come out of a transit agencies operating budget which means that route service has to be cut to provide paratransit service.
Depending on the transit agency, the average cost to provide service is anywhere from $25.00 to $35.00 per rider which is several times higher than providing regular bus service or even more times higher per passenger for most light rail services.
However, the ADA did not just require transit agencies to provide a totally separate transit system. It also required transit agencies to make their regular bus service accessible. At first this included adding wheel chair lifts. For some agencies such as RTD in Los Angeles this was not a big deal since they started ordering buses with wheelchair lifts back in 1977 with the 200 buses they received from American Motors General.
Gradually transit bus manufacturers and transit agencies transitioned from high floor buses with wheelchair lifts to low floor buses. While the wheelchair lifts were expensive to maintain the low floor buses have their own disadvantages including lower passenger capacity and other design issues.
To reduce the cost of Paratransit service transit service has a couple of alternatives to make it more efficient.
Once solution that many transit agencies have done is contracting out Paratransit service to private operators. Of course transit agencies are ripped to shreds over the service provided by the contractors and how they do not care about the disabled. The question has to be asked, since the service is essentially a glorified taxi service and not true transit service, are transit agencies doing the right thing by contracting out the service.
Another way to reduce the price of Paratransit service is for agencies to limit those who ride paratransit service to those most in need. Those who do not meet the standards for Paratransit service then have to ride regular bus service. While that reduces cost it is also fodder for activist and also slows down regular transit service since it takes longer to get those people on and off the bus service.
A third way that transit agencies are reducing the cost of Paratransit service is to only provide service to the 3/4 of a mile limit from a regular bus routes that is mandated federally. Once again this is extremely controversial and is blasted by those located outside that service area.
Finally you have the Flex and Call N Ride routes that Denver and Salt Lake have implemented that provides both regular route and off route service with small vans that substitute for regular paratransit service.
Whichever route a transit agency decides to take to reduce the cost of Paratransit service, they will be criticized for the decisions they will make. However, transit systems have a fine balancing act of providing transit service to the maximum number of people possible with limited funds (that are even more limited during these economic times).
Of course the ultimate solution would be to build livable cities that someone with limited mobility can get the services they need without long trips. One of the often overlooked aspects of livable development is that if people with disabilities are able to live with easy reach of businesses and services they use frequently, they fewer trips they will need on Paratransit service.
Until then transit agencies will have to continue to do the balancing act will continue between cost and needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











