Iteris, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter Revenue of $16.4 Million

Iteris, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter Revenue of $16.4 Million

Iteris, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter Revenue of $16.4 Million

On January 28, 2009, the Company announced that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) authorized Metro’s CEO to negotiate a $4.5 million modification of its contract with Iteris, Inc. for further design development and engineering support services during construction for the Metro Orange Line (MOL) Extension Project, as well as for final design services to support acceleration of the MOL Extension Project. This modification increased the total contract value from approximately $6.0 million to $10.5 million.

Worlds apart: The moment the tallest man met the shortest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468172/Worlds-apart-The-moment-tallest-man-met-shortest.html

Nevada sends no representative to talk on high-speed trains

State sends no representative to talk on high-speed trains - Las Vegas Sun

State sends no representative to talk on high-speed trains
Proponents say it won’t set funding effort back

By Lisa Mascaro (contact)

Fri, Jun 5, 2009 (2 a.m.)
Sun Archives

Washington — Governors and transportation officials from across the country converged on the White House this week to discuss the future of high-speed rail with Vice President Joe Biden and the secretary of the Transportation Department.

Noticeably absent was anyone from Nevada.

Nevada has two proposed fast trains vying to whisk riders between Las Vegas and Southern California. The president has made $8 billion available for high-speed rail as part of the economic recovery package, and the Transportation Department will outline guidelines for states to apply in two weeks.

The developers of one of Nevada’s proposed rail lines, the privately financed Desert Xpress, have said they don’t want government money. But the other — the proposed maglev, or magnetic levitation, line — desperately does.

As governors and transportation officials from 24 states showed up to discuss high-speed rail with Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Nevada did not have a seat at the table. Half the other states in the nation did.

The governor’s deputy chief of staff, Mendy Elliott, said Thursday the office never saw an invitation from the vice president.

The state has been consumed with the end of the legislative session, which closed Monday, she said.

Invitations were e-mailed on May 26 from the vice president’s office to governors’ offices in all states. The event was held in Washington eight days later.

“Unfortunately, we weren’t aware of the meeting and were focused on Nevada’s current state of need,” Elliott said. She could not say whether the governor or transportation staff would have attended, saying she would need more information.

Promoters of the maglev train seeking federal money did not fret about a lost opportunity.

Nevada’s maglev developers spoke privately with LaHood in the spring, in a meeting arranged by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The developers told the secretary they were seeking $1.8 billion to develop the first leg of the train line, a 40-mile section from Las Vegas to Primm, at the state line. The money would also be used for planning the rest of the route to Anaheim, Calif.

Neil Cummings, president of the American Magline Group, the consortium that would develop the line for the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, along with commission chairman Bruce Aguilera, a casino executive at the Bellagio, were among those attending the April 1 meeting with LaHood and other department officials in Washington.

Cummings said he does not think Nevada’s absence from the White House meeting hurt his project’s chances for money. The Transportation Department said attendance was not a requirement for funding.

“What the administration has said, and we believe them, is that funding of grants will be based on projects,” Cummings said. “It’s too bad, but I don’t think it’s going to impact our chances.”

In addition to the $8 billion for high-speed rail in the economic stimulus, President Barack Obama’s proposed fiscal 2010 budget seeks $5 billion over the next five years for rail development.

The funding signifies a massive shift in federal transportation policy as the White House turns its attention toward rail development at a level unlike any in recent history.

For decades, rail enthusiasts on both sides of the Nevada-California state line have envisioned a fast train that could carry passengers along the heavily traveled route between Las Vegas and Southern California.

The California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission has proposed a $12 billion fast train between Las Vegas and Anaheim employing magnetic levitation, a technology unused in the United States that has both supporters and detractors.

More recently, the privately backed Desert Xpress project emerged. The $4 billion high-speed-rail project is backed by Nevada political mogul Sig Rogich and relies on more traditional steel-wheel technology.

The Desert Xpress train would run between Las Vegas and Victorville, Calif., in the high desert just above the Southern California basin. Developers envision Southern California passengers beginning their Vegas experience once they board in Victorville by pre-checking into their hotel and having onboard amenities, including food and drink — though no gambling is planned.

Reid has long promoted having a fast train between the cities, but remains agnostic on the competing rail lines in Nevada.

Reid spokesman Jon Summers said, “Whether it’s high-speed rail or maglev is secondary to the senator’s priority to complete a project that moves people quickly and safely between the two sta

California's high-speed rail could see federal stimulus money

California's high-speed rail could see federal stimulus money - LA Daily News

California's high-speed rail could see federal stimulus money
Daily News Wire Services
Updated: 06/04/2009 07:07:37 PM PDT


Vice President Joe Biden says California's high- speed rail project is well-positioned to compete for a significant share of the $8 billion that the Obama administration set aside in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for rail lines.

California officials will be vying against other states this summer to get funding for a high-speed rail corridor that would ferry passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in a 2-hour, 40-minute trip.

Voters approved $9 billion in bonds for the project in November -- and promoters hope the federal government and the private sector will kick in enough money to help them complete the $34 billion first phase.

Construction between Anaheim and San Francisco would take at least a decade, according to planners. Ultimately, proponents envision an 800-mile network -- costing at least $45 billion -- that would reach Sacramento and San Diego.

Biden told reporters in a conference call Wednesday that the administration wants ``to get shovel-ready projects out the door as quickly as we can. ...So California is in the game," especially since high-speed rail has been a priority of the governor and Legislature.

Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said that two sections of the project could meet the Recovery Act criteria for high-speed rail: of having contracts awarded by 2012 and work completed by 2017.

The sections would be those between Los Angeles and Anaheim, at a cost of
$3 billion, and between San Francisco and San Jose, at a cost of $4 billion to $5 billion.

Metro Crenshaw Transit Corridor - Taste Of Transit Tour

Metro Crenshaw Transit Corridor - Taste Of Transit Tour « Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas

Metro Crenshaw Transit Corridor - Taste Of Transit Tour



The Metro Crenshaw Transit Corridor Project Team invites you to a “Taste of Transit” tour on Saturday, June 13 from 9 am - 1 pm. We appreciate your involvement in the planning process for this proposed project and invite you to learn more about Metro’s transit systems. To register, please call 213.891.2965. Space is limited.

Meet at West Angeles Church Parking Lot (NE Corner of 30th St and Crenshaw Blvd). Free parking is available.

Our Metro bus will leave West Angeles and travel to the Metro Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley. After riding on the Metro Orange Line, our bus will take us to Pasadena where we will have lunch at Memorial Park and then board the Metro Gold Line for Union Station. At Union Station, our bus will pick us up and return to West Angeles Church.

Complimentary box lunch provided and there is no charge for the tour.

Tags: Crenshaw, Metro

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am and is filed under Crenshaw, Metro. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Gold Line Extension Opening Stalled on Its Tracks Until 'This Summer'

Gold Line Extension Opening Stalled on Its Tracks Until 'This Summer' - LAist

Gold Line Extension Opening Stalled on Its Tracks Until 'This Summer'


Photo by STERLINGDAVISPHOTOS via the LAist Featured Photos pool on Flickr

Transit projects are long-range, costly, and eagerly watched by Angelenos, and the MTA's Gold Line Extension is no exception. Years in the making, the six-mile stretch of tracks from Union Station to East LA is actually ahead of schedule, but also now behind. How's that?

Well, in recent months the projected opening date was June 19th, but now that seems to have been pushed back to June 26th or possibly even later, says CurbedLA. "MTA spokesperson Jose Ubaldo is now saying it's unlikely that'll the line will open in June, but says that'll open 'this summer.'" Incidentally, "Summer 2009" was the forecasted opening given by the MTA earlier this year.

So if you see a Gold Line car on the new tracks, don't run to try to make it just yet--they're still running training and testing but not calling "all aboard" to us just yet.
user-pic
By Lindsay William-Ross in News on June 3, 2009 11:30 AM

36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses

36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses » INFRASTRUCTURIST

Posted on Wednesday June 3rd by The Infrastructurist

portland-streetcar

If you want a system that really attracts riders and investment, many transit experts will attest that streetcars are the best dollar-for-dollar investment a city can make.

Of course, there are plenty of situations where old-fashioned bus service or newfangled bus rapid transit (which usually has dedicated lanes) are just the thing. But for cities facing a choice between building a streetcar system or high-end BRT–and the cost difference can be smaller than might think–it’s handy to know that transit riders overwhelming prefer streetcars. Well, overwhelmingly if the comments section from a recent story on this site can be taken as a fair sample. One reader posed the question, “buses or streetcars?” and the responses–from laypeople and transportation experts alike–came fast and furious. In the end, we were left with dozens of reasons why streetcars are superior, ranging from the obvious to the wonderfully creative.

As the comments added up, we became more and more intrigued. So we’ve edited the various reasons into a proper list. Did we miss anything? Do any of these not hold up? Disagree entirely? Let us know in the comments section and we’ll update the story–and the headline–as worthwhile additions come in.

1. New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.
2. Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement (and in Chicago we have plenty). Streetcars ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps.
3. Streetcars don’t feel “low status” to transit riders. Buses often do.
4. Mapmakers almost always include streetcar lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map.
5. The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.
6. There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.
7. Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.
8. Steel wheel on steel rail is inherently more efficient than rubber tire on pavement. Electric streetcars can accelerate more quickly than buses.
9. Streetcars don’t smell like diesel.
10. Streetcars accelerate and decelerate smoothly because they’re electrically propelled. Internal-combustion engines acting through a transmission simply cannot surge with the same smoothness.
11. The current length limit for a bus is 60 feet, but streetcars can go longer, since they are locked into the rails and won’t be swinging all around the streets, smashing into cars.
12. Streetcars have an air of nostalgia.
13. New streetcar and light rail lines usually come with an upgraded street experience from better stops, landscaping, new roadbeds, and better sidewalks, to name a few. Of course, your federal transit dollar is paying for these modernizations, so why wouldn’t cities try to get them!
14. Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.
15. Streetcars are light and potentially 100% green. Potentially they could be powered by 100% solar and/or wind power. Even powered with regular power plant-derived electricity, they are still 95% cleaner than diesel buses. [Source? -Ed.]
16. Streetcars stop less. Because of the increased infrastructure for stops, transit planners don’t place stops at EVERY BLOCK, like they do with buses (SEPTA in Philly is terrible for this). Instead, blocks are a quarter to a half mile apart, so any point is no more than an eigth to a quarter mile from a stop.
17. People will travel longer distances on streetcars. At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.
18. Buses are noisy. I ride them every day in Chicago, and I am constantly amazed at how loud a diesel bus engine is–even on our latest-model buses [and] the valve chatter is an irritant to the nervous system. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.
19. Technological advances already make the current generation definitely NOT your grandfather’s streetcar. Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.
20. Passengers can take comfort from seeing the rails stretching out far ahead of them, while ever fearing that the bus could take a wrong turn at the next corner and divert them off course.
21. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) streetcars are cheaper to maintain and last way the hell longer (case in point, streetcars discarded in the US in the 40’s, snapped up by the Yugoslavs, which are still running).
22. Streetcar tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.
23. People get notably more excited about the proposed extension of the streetcar system and expect revitalization of the neighborhoods around the planned stops.
24. Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.
25. Most European cities and countries kept investing in public transit during the decades when America was DISinvesting. Now I look across the pond and see dozens of European cities extending or building new rail transit systems, including many streetcar lines, and conclude: ‘They probably know what they are doing; we should do some of that too.’
26. You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?
27. Streetcars are faster than buses or trackless trolleys (aside from 2 lines in Philly, do any other cities run trackless trolleys, or trolley buses anymore?) because trams tend to have dedicated lanes. Even if they don’t, if they operate on streets with multiple lanes, people stay out of the tram lane, because it’s harder to drive a car along tram tracks (the wheels pull to one side or the other as they fall into the groove).
28. In buses you’re still jostled by every pothole and sway at every bus stop. I thought bus rapid transit would be a significant improvement - there’s still a bit of sway and they concrete was not installed as smoothly as line of steel rail.
29. With buses transit planners are pushed by funding formulas to capture every pocket of riders thus you can get a very wiggly route – something that’s less practical on a fixed rail system
30. Buses lurch unpredictably from side to side as they weave in and out of traffic and as they move from the traffic lane to the curb lane to pick up passengers. In streetcars turns occur at the same location on every trip, so that even standees can more or less relax knowing the car is not going to perform any unpredictable lateral maneuvers.
31. Most streetcar riders don’t consciously think about the differences between a bus ride and a streetcar ride. But their unconscious minds–the spinal cord, the solar plexus, the inner ear and the seat of the pants–quickly tally the differences and deliver an impressionistic conclusion: The streetcar ride is physiologically less stressful.
32. An internal-combustion engine is constantly engaged in hammering itself to death and buses tend to vibrate themselves into a sort of metallurgical dishevelment. Interior fittings–window frames, handrails, floor coverings, seats–tend to work loose and make the interior look frowzy and uncared-for. By age 12 the bus is a piece of junk and has to be retired. A streetcar the same age is barely into its adolescence.
33. Streetcar stops are typically given more attention than most bus routes and the information system is more advanced. In Portland, the shelters even have VMS diplays that tell you the times of the next two streetcar arrivals. This valuable information gives people the option to wait, do something else to pass the time, or walk to their destination.
34. One great advantage of streetcars is that the infrastructure serves as an orienting and wayfinding device. The track alerts folks to the route and leads them to stops. Because they are a permanent feature of the streetscape, the routing is predictable and stable (unlike bus routes). So unlike a bus, a streetcar informs and helps citizens to formulate an image of their city, even if folks don’t ride it. It is a feature of their public realm. Because of this, these streets get greater public attention.
35. When you ride one of the remaining historic cars in Toronto or San Francisco you can tell they’re “old” in the sense of “out of style,” but when you look around the interior everything still seems shipshape, nothing rattles, the windows open and close without binding. The rider experiences a sense of solid quality associated with Grandma’s solid-oak dining table and 1847 Rodgers Brothers silver. And that makes everybody feel good. Unlike, say, an aging bus.
36. For those of you who cannot see the difference between a bus and a streetcar, I suggest riding a streetcar when you get the chance. Then, if you can locate a bus that more or less follows the same route, give that a try. Compare the two experiences.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm and is filed under Uncategorized

27 Responses to “36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses”

1. Peter Smith Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:20 pm

i’m happy to see it being pointed out that the ride on a city bus is generally horrific. we deserve dignified transit, and buses just aren’t cutting it. and that goes for school buses — kids deserve dignified transit. they should be able to walk or bike, but if those aren’t feasible, then luxury coaches, short paratransit vehicles, streetcars, etc.
2. Eric Fredericks Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm

Great article! Just as a follow-up to point #27, yes several US cities (and international cities) use the trolleybuses. Here is the list according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus):

Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s Silver Line Waterfront service.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: SEPTA
San Francisco, California: San Francisco Muni
Seattle, Washington: King County Metro
Dayton, Ohio: Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority

I’ve been on the latter 3 systems, all three cities with some notable hills (not Dayton as much). I definitely prefer the streetcar. Riding the crowded trolleybuses on the hills is not much fun at all.
3. Woody Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm

Only 36 reasons why streetcars are better than buses? Gotta be more.

I’ve seen it said that two or three streetcars can be hooked together to run efficiently as a train with one driver during rush hour, while adding more buses each with its own driver inevitably leads to bunching up. But I’m not an operations guy, so I just pass this one on.

I am the guy who made ‘the French know what they are doing’ point. Since then I came across a great site, http://www.trams-in-france.net, with great descriptions of 31 French cities with streetcars. Er, trams. Almost all of them are new lines in old cities. Thirty-one cities, with plans for hundreds of miles of added tram lines in France within a decade.
4. Steve LaCroix Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Having spent some years living on Toronto streetcar lines, I’d offer two things:

Streetcars are part of the neighborhood fabric and ambience. They belong where they are, a real element of the place, like landscape and buildings. Buses are anonymous, transient, no attachment to place. They come, they wheeze and belch, they go, who knows where.

On crowded streets buses get trapped at the curb and have to muscle their way back into the traffic. Streetcars move down the middle of the street and marshal the traffic to suit themselves.

Toronto is planning a major expansion of its streetcar routes. I hope that happens soon.
5. alexjonlin Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:37 am

I agree with you about the streetcars, but just to let you know, Seattle has 14 high frequency ETB (electric trolleybus) routes, and San Francisco has 17. Dayton has 6, and Philadelphia has 5, too. But they do kind of suck.
6. Woody Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:57 am

Peter Smith makes an excellent point about schoolbuses. That is probably where the first indelible negative impression of riding the bus is formed. We force our kids to ride ugly, ungainly, uncomfortable, graceless schoolbuses and then we act surprised that everyone thinks the bus experience is not so nice. Well, duh.
7. John Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:35 am

These are basically 36 ways of saying people are racist against buses.

It sucks because if middle-class people rode buses they would make them good, because those riders would demand it and they have political influence, case in point go ride a bus in Berlin. The buses there are Mercedes brand. They are beautiful, quiet, and clean. Many are double-deckers which is really cool. They have LCD displays showing you the next three stops, and the three most important stops down the rode.

I was in a Canadian Cities class in Undergrad where we talked about why they tore up the streetcar in the 50’s. The prof was obviously nostalgic for Montreal’s old system. The real reason why they ripped them up wasn’t because of technology, or even (everywhere) because of the auto conspiracy. Everyone back then was for replacing them with diesel buses because they all dated back to the 20’s; there had been no major investment for decades. So most of them were rust buckets. Diesel buses were seen as the wave of the future.

We’re basically seeing this again now: buses are lower class, and there has been disinvestment in them. Any streetcar you see these days is new and fancy. So everyone associates streetcars with all that is good, and buses with all that is bad. When they’re old and in disrepair we’ll probably see the opposite movement.

Everyone who’s ever had to regularly ride the 501 knows that streetcars are in some senses actually less reliable than buses. But streetcars have steel wheels, and that’s what people are obsessed with for now. I’m sure we’ll see the backlash in a decade or two, but streetcars are in and that is that.

I wish everyone would just get a positive attitude about buses, so we could see a reinvestment in them and an end to racial and class disparity in transit mode, but I know that nowadays the people with influence over transit policy, aka upper-middle-class white people, only want streetcars. So I guess that is how it will be… streetcar neighborhoods will gentrify and poor people will be riding crappy busses.
8. Andrew in Ezo Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 7:43 am

@John
Though I don’t totally agree with you, it is probably true that buses in the U.S. are dirty, inconvenient and basically “rubbish” because they primarily serve the poor/disadvantaged in most major cities. You give an interesting example of the buses in Berlin and their amenities. Likewise here in Japan, buses are much easier to use than in the U.S., with both verbal announcements and LCD/LED panels showing stops., as well as fareboxes that give change(!). Why these simple enhancements can’t be done in the U.S. is beyond me.
9. 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses « CincyStreetcar Blog Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:22 am

[...] under Uncategorized No Comments The readers of the Infrastructurist blog drafted this list. There is no question that buses are an important part of any city’s multi-modal [...]
10. The Bellows » Streetcars Better, Different Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:44 am

[...] Infrastructurist provides a nice list of 36 ways in which streetcars are better than buses. It’s fine so far as it [...]
11. BeyondDC Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am

>These are basically 36 ways of saying people are racist against buses.

I’d like to hear your justification for how “streetcars are smoother”, “streetcars have higher capacity”, “streetcars cost less to operate”, “streetcars are more green” and “streetcars are more permanent” qualify as “racist agaisnt buses”.
12. Rockfish Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am

This is an interesting post in how it reinforces an implied “hierarchy” in transit where every tier feels compelled to trash the one below it, and everybody aspires to move up in tiers even though they haven’t optimizedthe tier they have.
So, from top to bottom, you get HSR, Rail, Light Rail, Trolley/Streetcar, BRT, Bus, etc. Bikes and feet are not on this list because they are individual transit, not “mass” transit, and there are lots of variations, like monorails and people movers, that blur the lines, but in general, this is the transit world.
So “Trolleys are better than buses” is the same argument as “HSR is better than Rail”, Light rail is better than trollies, etc.
A lot of this is a no brainer, and what is perpetually missing is that improving bus service can be accomplished at orders-of-magnitude less cost and time than installing trolleys. Want a shiny new hybrid bus? Get on the phone and it will be delivered in a couple months. Want to install a street-bed rail and overhead power network in an existing city? Good luck doing that inside of 10 years.
As is the case with HSR mania, we keep obsessing about the shiny new solution and missing the low hanging fruit.
I LOVE trolleys as an alternative to light rail (which suffers from its own mania) but there’s really no need to trash buses to advocate for it. In fact, BRT is a realtively quick, cheap and easy way to establish rights-of-way and infrastructure that can be upgraded to trolley over time. Tey are not mutually exclusive.
13. digamma Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:20 am

“At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.”

Really? What were the lines?
14. Streetsblog » Slow Ride, Take It Easy Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am

[...] tidbits that have flowed past us in the fast-moving Streetsblog Network news feed: The Infrastructurist posts 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses. Orphan Road writes about increasing density along [...]
15. Rockfish Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am

OK, this is so bad on so many levels we’ll have take them one by one:
Maybe if this were titled “One person’s opinion why they like new electric streetcars more than Chicago’s old diesel buses” this would be acceptable.

1. Absent stats, this is speculation
2. OK
3. This is totally dependant on the design and demographics.
4. Speculation
5. Absent stats, this is speculation
6. Contradicts #12
7. Subjective
8. Absent stats, this is speculation
9. Not all new buses are diesel, or smell.
10. Subjective. Also, not all new buses are ICE through transmission
11. This goes both ways, Extra lenght limits routes.
12 Contradicts #5
13. Speculative and subjective.
14. Rails are more permanent. However, development doesn’t automatically follow rails, Sometimes it avoids them.
15. Wrong. Streetcars are heavier than buses by a signifcant margin, and electicity is electricity. An electric bus is as green as an electric anything else.
16. This is a design and routing decision. It is not inherent or exclusive to streetcars. In fact, it applies equally to BRT, which the author seems intent on trashing.
17 Speculation.
18. Electric buses and streetcars are probably the same. Apple-to-oranges comparisons abound.
19. New buses posess many ofhthe same design improvements.
20. Subjective. Bordering on WTF?
21. Absent stats, this is speculation
22. Absent stats, this is speculation
23. Speculation
24. Speculation.
25. Factually correct, speculative conclusion
26. Subjective
27. Absent stats, this is speculation
28. Subjective.
29. Trolleys dont need funding?
30. Subjective
31. Absent stats, this is speculation
32. Apples to oranges, again. Also, part of streetcar’s substantial extra weight goes to durability, as their expense must be amortized over longer periods.
33. Not exclusive to streetcars
34. Speculative, and not exclusive to streecars
35. Comparing a tourist attraction to public transit? This crosses the line into WTF territory.
36. One last nonsensical subjective assertion.

OK, gotta get back to work now!
16. Peter Smith Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am

man, someone made the bus guy angry.

moving on…

This is an interesting post in how it reinforces an implied “hierarchy” in transit where every tier feels compelled to trash the one below it, and everybody aspires to move up in tiers even though they haven’t optimized the tier they have.

don’t agree with the ‘feels compelled to trash’ stuff — that’s just a bizarre statement. but there a transit hierarchy — implied and otherwise — it’s called the Green Transportation Hierarchy, and we should build our policy to match this hierarchy which seems to derive from natural law:

http://tinyurl.com/bjl4kn

:)

carry on!
17. tex Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am

noise, noise, noise.
that’s probably my #1 gripe against buses, and why i long for streetcars

noise pollution doesn’t get the recognition it deserves, and buses are a large cause
18. Eric Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:14 am

John,

There are advantages to streetcars over buses period (why bring race into this discussion?). To your point, I will say that the “upper middle-class white” commuters that are driving transit policy are quite happy here in Charlotte with their express bus services to the suburbs (although they would prefer to see more light-rail and commuter rail), and it is acutally the “lower class” communities of Charlotte that are clamoring for streetcar, because the streetcar is seen here as a positive improvement mobilizing their community identity and pride. The reason streetcar is going to these communities is to serve the largest transit dependent population of our city.
19. Are Streetcars Really Better Than Buses? | Only Hybrids Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am

[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
20. joeBoy Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Streetcars are safer for bicyclists, and other vehicles to commute with on the street.

Whenever I find myself riding my bike next to a streetcar, I am not concerned about it swerving to the side suddenly and killing me - whereas whenever I am cycling next to a bus, I know my life is in grave danger. Busses, with their many stops weave in and out of traffic constantly often behaving erratically and worse still - making sudden changes in course with little to no signal. On top of it Bus Drivers almost NEVER signal, and are among the most careless drivers on the street (probably because they do so much driving and are so much better protected in the event of an accident than other motorists and cyclists. Signaling with a streetcar is a non-issue, because I can see where the track is going, and I know which side of the streetcar to be on.

There is a slight issue with the streetcar rails being a hazard to cyclists, but no cyclist who is paying attention is going to ride into a rail gutter. That’s nothing a but of unfriendly pavement texture and bright yellow paint can’t fix.
21. Streetsblog » Slow Ride, Take It Easy Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

[...] Other tidbits that have flowed past us in the fast-moving Streetsblog Network news feed: The Infrastructurist posts 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses. Orphan Road writes about increasing density along [...]
22. Are Streetcars Really Better Than Buses? | InfoFork.com Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

[...] stuck in traffic on Queen Street, Toronto The Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few flaws. 1. they can’t [...]
23. GreenHubs.com » Are Streetcars Really Better Than Buses? Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
24. Urbanis Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

I wonder where subways fall in the mass transit hierarchy mentioned earlier?

I would say light rail/streetcars are my favorite mode of urban transportation because you get to remain above-ground and enjoy the daylight and city sights. There is also the comfort and aesthetic factors mentioned above. In New York, my primary mode of transit is the subway, which I am grateful for, but is lacking in aesthetics (deteriorating stations, noisy cars, and perpetual dark underground).

I’ve ridden trolleybuses and they generate a distinct electric whine when running that is not so pleasant.

Overall, I think the quality of one’s ride on a bus, streetcar, or other mass transit modes depends less on the inherent “virtues” of the mode and more on the care and expense lavished on the mode. For example, the express buses in New York can be very plush and comfortable to ride compared to being crammed on a packed and noisy subway car during rush hour. On the other hand, riding a Metro-North train can almost be a Zen experience.
25. The Bike Pittsburgh Blog Archives » The Headlines: 6.4.09 Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

[...] 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
26. Teresa Nielsen Hayden Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Streetcars aren’t nearly as prone to kill bicyclists.
27. Rockfish Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Not a bus guy at all. Just tired of hearing everybody say “their” way is superior to the “other” ways when what we need is in fact more of all modes of transit. It doesn’t further the discussion to argue for one versus the other, even though I do understand that resources are limited and decisions have to be made. But each individual case is so unique that making broad, general arguments for any one mode is not useful.

California's High Speed Rail Gets a Nod from Vice Prez Joe Biden

California's High Speed Rail Gets a Nod from Vice Prez Joe Biden - LAist

California's High Speed Rail Gets a Nod from Vice Prez Joe Biden


Vice President Joe Biden, center, flanked by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, left, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, speaks at a roundtable discussion to discuss high speed rail (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Today, the California High Speed Rail Board meets to discuss a number of things, but mainly the route between Anaheim and Union Station and up to the 134 Freeway, which could be on of the first legs to be built along with a leg between San Francisco and San Jose.

But yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden gave the project a boost, at least in morale as he suggested the possibility of federal stimulus money earmarked for rail coming to the project.

“The reason why California is looked at so closely -- it’s been a priority of your governor, it’s been a priority of your Legislature, they’ve talked about it, a lot of planning has been done,” Biden said a press conference yesterday in Washington. “And although I can’t answer with specificity, it’s possible some of these legs may be more shovel-ready than others.”

It doesn't hurt that voters passed Prop 1a last November either, authorizing around $9 billion in funding. If California's high speed rail project does it get funded, it will probably be the shovel ready components like buying right of ways, laying track, building bridges and tunnels.
user-pic
By Zach Behrens in News on June 4, 2009 9:23 AM

Ready to Go? Bob Davis, Shovel in Hand, Provides a Short History Lesson Posted by Albert

Ready to Go? Bob Davis, Shovel in Hand, Provides a Short History Lesson « I Will Ride Blog

Ready to Go? Bob Davis, Shovel in Hand, Provides a Short History Lesson
Posted by Albert

Rail fan, San Gabriel Valley native and train historian Bob Davis fills us in on a little history on the currently-unused tracks that are reserved for the Foothill Extension. Speaking of the Foothill Extension, can anyone dispute the notion that it isn’t “shovel ready” after looking at this picture? That’s him right there – ready to put the shovels into the ground the moment Metro decides to commit the Foothill Extension into the Long Range Transportation Plan.


Here’s one of the photos my wife took last month near the end of present track in Arcadia, to point up the “shovel ready” aspect of the Foothill Extension. The gravel platform is left over from the 1990’s, when Metrolink ran trains to this location for the Rose Parade, with buses filling the gap between here and Pasadena. Of course, nowadays, parade-goers ride electric trains to the big show. Behind where I’m standing was the spot where the Pacific Electric Monrovia-Glendora Line crossed the Santa Fe until Sept. 1951.

Bob Davis
San Gabriel Valley native

Shovel Ready” High Speed Rail? CA Is Ahead of the Game

Streetsblog » “Shovel Ready” High Speed Rail? CA Is Ahead of the Game

Shovel Ready” High Speed Rail? CA Is Ahead of the Game

by Damien Newton on June 4, 2009


Photo: Sacramento Bee

Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden, met with governors from eight different states that are competing for High Speed Rail funding. Streetsblog's D.C. Correspondent wrote a story about the national implications of the meeting available at our New York site. While neither Schwarzenegger nor another representative from California was present, there was good news for California. From today's Times,

"The reason why California is looked at so closely -- it's been a priority of your governor, it's been a priority of your Legislature, they've talked about it, a lot of planning has been done," Biden said in a conference call with reporters.

The vice president said the administration wants "to get shovel-ready projects out the door as quickly as we can. . . . So California is in the game."

In other words, because California has been working on the San Francisco to San Diego High Speed Rail Corridor, and because voters put up funds for the project in the form of bond money; we have a leg up in applying for federal funds as the Obama Administration makes them available.

And let's be clear, it's not as though the entire corridor were "Shovel Ready" but there are two sets of track that the California High Speed Rail Authority says are ready to go. The first is local, as the state could connect Los Angeles to Anaheim at a cost of $3 billion. The second corridor would connect San Francisco to San Jose at somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion.

Back when the federal stimulus was first passed, Ben Fried out of our New York office wrote a pretty brutal takedown of the final bill that I re-posted at the LA Streetsblog. Supporters of California High Speed Rail were upset for obvious reasons and I defended Fried's post in the comments section by saying.

But that so much of the negotition was done in Harry Reid's office (to the point that Pelosi actually pitched a fit about it according to Politico) and he's already talking about funding for the gamblin' train to Las Vegas, I am mighty sceptical that much, if any, of that money is going to end up being spent on the line we supported last fall. If it does, I'll do a mea culpa post and you can all "I told you so'd" me. I've certainly been willing to do them in the past.

Well, let's just say I'm not quite ready to eat crow just yet, but I got it marinating. In this case, the crow would taste awfully good.

2 Comments

Last comment by Andy K Leave a comment »

1.
Post Thumbnail
Gary Kavanagh

Choo choo!! I've had my moments of doubt, but I had high hopes for this and it looks like CA may well become home to the first proper high speed rail system in the United States. Woo hoo!
June 4, 2009 at 10:31 am Link # 1
2.
Post Thumbnail
Andy K

So, $8 billion for these first short segments, which leaves $32 billion for the rest of SJ to LA. Doesn't add up, does it? I know, these two segments are in urban areas, but even these cost seem unrealistic. At $5 billion, the SF to SJ segment is about $80 million per mile. Seems low - many bridges will need to be built, substations installed, etc, etc.

I'm all for improving our rail systems, however these unrealistic estimates do a real disservice. It makes it hard to make good decisions when estimates are so faulty.

Am I missing something?
June 4, 2009 at 11:11 am Link # 2

Windows 7 to launch October 22, 2009

Windows 7 to launch October 22 | Beyond Binary - CNET News

June 2, 2009 11:03 AM PDT
Windows 7 to launch October 22
by Ina Fried

Microsoft confirmed on Tuesday that it is planning for Windows 7 to hit retail shelves and start showing up on new PCs on October 22.

To reach that milestone, Microsoft plans to wrap up development of the operating system by the middle or end of next month, Senior Vice President Bill Veghte said in an interview.

"The feedback from the release candidate has been good," Veghte said.

Microsoft made the near-final release candidate version available last month. Shortly after its release, Microsoft finally confirmed that it was aiming Windows 7 for a holiday 2009 release, something that was widely anticipated, but not confirmed by those in Redmond.

In an interview, Phil McKinney, chief technology officer of Hewlett-Packard's computer unit, said that he feels good about Microsoft's launch date.

"We're locked and loaded for the launch," McKinney said. "The quality of code is just absolutely stellar."

The software maker also confirmed, without giving details, that it plans to offer some sort of "technology guarantee" giving those who buy Vista machines close to the Windows 7 launch a free or discounted copy of the new operating system. As with past similar programs, details on pricing will be up to individual computer makers, although Microsoft did say the upgrade program will apply to Vista Home Premium and higher-priced editions (meaning not Windows Vista Basic).

The tech guarantee program is not beginning immediately, but Microsoft did raise the possibility it will offer some sort of lower-cost upgrade to those who are already using Windows Vista.

I've gotten a lot of e-mails suggesting Microsoft do something along those lines, but its comments this week were the first time I had heard it acknowledge that it was considering such a move.

As for the technology guarantee program, it likely means that Microsoft will do some deferring of Vista-related revenue, though Microsoft again did not spell out details.

"Depending on when we do it there will be the associated accounting for it," Veghte said.

Microsoft has said that Windows 7 will come in five different editions in most markets--Starter, Home Premium, Professional, Enterprise and Ultimate. A "Windows 7 Basic" will also be sold in emerging markets, Microsoft said.

The software maker has yet to announce pricing for the product.

VP Biden hosts High-Speed Rail round-table with state leaders today

Welcome to the Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation: VP Biden hosts High-Speed Rail round-table with state leaders today

June 03, 2009
VP Biden hosts High-Speed Rail round-table with state leaders today

I'm looking forward later today to a round-table conversation on high-speed rail hosted by Vice President Biden.

President Obama has already made it clear that high-speed rail is part of his plan to transform the American transportation system. And there has been a great outpouring of political will around rail that tells us America can build and operate effective high-speed service.

Last week, I had the great pleasure of learning more about high-speed rail. I rode the AVE from Madrid to Zaragoza with Spanish Development Minister Jose Blanco. Do you know the Spanish have a goal of establishing high-speed rail stations within 30 kilometers of 90% of all Spaniards by 2020? Now, that's ambition.



I also rode the TGV in France from Paris to Strasbourg. And, at a conference in Germany, I was able to talk with German Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee about Deutsche Bahn high-speed rail.

You have never met a group of people so proud to talk about their rail systems, the environmental benefits, the mobility benefits, the job-creation benefits.

Several governors who are interested in establishing high-speed corridors in their regions will be at today's round-table with Vice President Biden. I'm very interested in hearing their vision of what high-speed rail can do in the U.S.

As we begin these discussions about the future contours of American high-speed rail, we'll have a lot to talk about. It's a conversation this Administration is ready to host.

Gold Line Extension Opening In June? Looking Dicey

Curbed LA: Gold Line Extension Opening In June? Looking Dicey

Gold Line Extension Opening In June? Looking Dicey
Tuesday, June 2, 2009, by Dakota


[Pico Aliso stop* along Gold Line]
A couple of months ago, the chatter was that MTA officials wanted the Gold Line Extension, the six-mile train which'll go from Union Station to East LA, to open on June 19th. MTA spokesperson Jose Ubaldo is now saying it's unlikely that'll the line will open in June, but says that'll open "this summer." As for the workers themselves, at least two workers in the last week have told us they're hearing a date of June 26th or the end of June. (Meanwhile, it's worth pointing out the train is ahead of schedule overall). One thing that is known: For about the last two weeks, it's been possible to see the train in action--it's been making regular trips (part of the action is due to training).


· Get Up, Lumbering Tower: Mayor's Coming to Ride New Gold Line [Curbed LA]

It’s On: Special Metro Board Meeting to be Held to Discuss Long Range

It’s On: Special Metro Board Meeting to be Held to Discuss Long Range Transportation Plan « I Will Ride Blog

It’s On: Special Metro Board Meeting to be Held to Discuss Long Range Transportation Plan
Posted by Albert

Last week, we said the $10 million win was just a toe (not even a foot) in the door towards our goal of getting the Foothill Extension constructed to Azusa in 2013. That door opened just enough that Metro will now consider putting up a real timetable and funding plan for the Foothill Extension – which brings us to the Long Range Transportation Plan (also known as the mother of all transportation plans).

The Metro Board of Directors is scheduled to host a Special Board Meeting on June 11 at 1 PM to discuss the LRTP and to receive input on what projects should be included. We’ll be there, of course, to cover the meeting on our Twitter feed @iwillride. But most importantly, we encourage every San Gabriel Valley student, teacher, worker, and resident to come and speak out in favor of the Gold Line Foothill Extension. We need Metro to commit to a continued stream of funding for the extension from 2010 through the end of construction, as the Measure R “contract” with voters outlines.

For the San Gabriel Valley residents who don’t know what the LRTP is, it’s basically Metro’s long-term plan to address the transportation needs of the entire county. That 210 freeway sure looks like it could use some help transporting SGV residents to and from work.

Metro CEO, Art Leahy, to Discuss Expanded Gold Line With TOWN HALL LA

Metro CEO, Art Leahy, to Discuss Expanded Gold Line With TOWN HALL LA | SYS-CON AUSTRALIA

Metro CEO, Art Leahy, to Discuss Expanded Gold Line With TOWN HALL LA

By: Marketwire .
Jun. 2, 2009 04:08 PM


LOS ANGELES, CA -- (Marketwire) -- 06/02/09 -- Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will speak to TOWN HALL Los Angeles about expanding the city's public transportation system "Striking Gold with Metro on the Eastside," Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel.

Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension is scheduled to open in East LA this summer. Its eight new stations will serve LA neighborhoods such as the Arts District, Little Tokyo and Boyle Heights, connecting the Eastside to downtown LA, Pasadena, San Fernando Valley, South Bay, Long Beach and points in between.

On plans to improve public transit Leahy said, "I am looking forward to helping deliver on the promise to voters when they supported Measure R -- to make transportation improvements by delivering more mass transit options, repairing streets, reducing congestion on freeways and maximizing carpool lanes."

The third largest public transportation agency in the US, Metro has a $3.4 billion annual budget and more than 9,000 employees. It operates 200 bus routes and five subway and light rail lines with a combined annual ridership exceeding 400 million boardings. In addition, Metro is the lead county transportation planning and programming agency for the funding of improvements.

Leahy assumed his current position on April 6, 2009. He returned to Los Angeles where he began his career 38 years ago as a bus driver for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. From 1997 - 2001, he served as general manager of Metro Transit in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Afterwards, Leahy was CEO of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). He led voter renewal of Orange County's Measure M, the $12 billion transportation sales tax measure to fund local highway and transit projects.

One of the Top 10 Leadership Forums in the nation, TOWN HALL Los Angeles has been a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization since 1937, supported by Angelenos, foundations and corporations who believe in open public discussion. To learn more about TOWN HALL Los Angeles visit www.townhall-la.org.

Council Unanimously OKs More Shopping for the Westfield shopping center in Century City. Westfield's plans call for designating a location for a subway stop should the Metro Purple Line, the Jimi Hendrix Line, be extended to the Pacific Ocean

Council Unanimously OKs More Shopping | NBC Los Angeles

Council Unanimously OKs More Shopping

Updated 1:30 PM PDT, Tue, Jun 2, 2009



This is the future you ... after tomorrow's Alice + Olivia trunk show, of course. Yes, you really will be that happy-go-lucky.


The expansion of the Westfield shopping center in Century City, a plan that calls for condominiums and more retail shops and parking, was unanimously approved Tuesday by the Los Angeles City Council.

The $800 million project, which calls for a 39-story tower with 262 apartments and condos, was given the OK without discussion between council members.

Westfield's plans call for moving Bloomingdale's to the condo tower, adding 1,900 parking spaces and designating a location for a subway stop should the Metro Purple Line be extended to the Pacific Ocean.
Related Stories

In 2005, Westfield made over the center's movie theaters, dining terrace and added retail shops to the second level of the mall.

Westfield expects the center to generate $8.1 million a year in tax revenue -- up from the current $6.7 million -- once the work is completed in 2013.


Copyright City News Service

Bush Transpo Secretary’s Biggest Disappointment: Bush

Streetsblog » Bush Transpo Secretary’s Biggest Disappointment: Bush

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 No Comments
Bush Transpo Secretary’s Biggest Disappointment: Bush

by Elana Schor on June 2, 2009
DC Velocity magazine has just released a lengthy interview with Norman Mineta, the Bush-era transportation secretary and former Democratic member of Congress.

Former U.S. DOT chief Mineta (r.), with his biggest disappointment. (Photo: Academy of Achievement)

In the interview, Mineta -- who now works on infrastructure at the consulting firm Hill & Knowlton -- spoke openly about the transportation funding crisis and called for the Obama administration to reconsider its opposition to a VMT tax:

I think the "Vehicle Miles Traveled" program ought to be seriously considered. Even if you go to a VMT, you still have some form of tax. But the beauty of the VMT approach is that all you look at is how many miles you travel on the highway. It captures activity regardless of energy source.

Mineta also showed refreshing candor in describing his biggest disappointment during five years at the Bush White House: the former president's staunch refusal to reform the gas tax. Mineta explained that he planned in 2001 to pay for a $330 billion federal transportation bill increase gas taxes by 2 cents per gallon in the first, third and fifth years of the six-year legislation. But here's what happened, per Mineta:

We went to the Oval Office, and after we went through the entire presentation, President Bush takes a marker, circles the gas tax increases, and says, "Norm, I don't want any of those tax increases. Get those out."

So Mineta pared his proposal back, suggesting merely to index the gas tax to inflation -- which has already worked for six state governments and could soon become law in Bush's home state of Texas. But alas, Bush couldn't let go of his fondness for running deficits in the name of "fiscal conservatism":

We returned to the Oval Office, went through the presentation, and afterward President Bush said, "Norm, that's a tax increase. Get that out." So I then took all the unobligated surplus, left $1 billion in the highway trust fund, and used the balance to build a $267 billion surface transportation program that Congress finally passed in 2005. Not long after, the administration asked for an $8 billion infusion of general funds into the highway trust fund so it wouldn't be running a deficit by 2007.

California High Speed Rail Blog: HSR Stimulus and Project Timetables

California High Speed Rail Blog: HSR Stimulus and Project Timetables

Monday, June 1, 2009
HSR Stimulus and Project Timetables

The CHSRA's recent application to the US Department of Transportation for federal HSR stimulus money may wind up causing construction on the HSR project to begin not in the Central Valley as was originally planned, but in the Bay Area and Southern California, as this article from the Valley Voice explains. Keep in mind though that this doesn't mean the Central Valley is being left behind, but only that construction will commence slightly later, and that the Valley is still the key to the whole system:

High Speed Rail Authority spokesperson Kris Deutschman said it is true that both the northern and southern segments of the rail system are further along in the planning stage than the Central Valley, but what actually gets built first is yet to be determined. At one time, it was believed the Valley segment would be one of the first constructed.

However, earlier this month, the Authority approved a list of shovel-ready construction projects likely to qualify for $8 billion in federal stimulus funding for high speed trains.

According to the Authority, one of the project elements selected was the entire Los Angeles-to-Anaheim and San Francisco-to-San Jose corridors, where the Authority is expected to have completed the project level environmental documents this year and qualified and selected design build teams to begin construction of the sections by the 2012 deadline.

The Authority also selected a second stimulus project that would be the identification, selection and negotiation of right-of-way acquisition in the Merced-to-Bakersfield section, including the system's planned maintenance facility, but not the rail system.


That Merced-to-Bakersfield ROW is key because that's where the all-important train testing will occur:

Georgiana Vivian, with the Authority, told members of the Tulare Sunrise Rotary Club that because of the federal stimulus funding, the projects first considered “shovel ready” must be built first. Right now, the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment is by far the farthest along, with the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim segment second.

Vivian said construction on the Central Valley segment may not begin for another seven years, but Deutschman said that does not mean that portions of the Valley line could not be built sooner and there is a key reason at least a portion of the Valley line is important.

“We need to test trains on long stretches of flat land and the Valley would be best for that,” she said. Vivian said the timetable is to begin testing trains by 2015 and that the Authority must test the trains and tracks for three years before passengers can be carried. That means the earliest riders will be able to get aboard the high speed rail is 2018.


I think what Vivian meant to say was that construction on the full buildout of the Valley segment might not happen until 2015 or 2016, but that a test track will be built much sooner. As I understand it, that's about the same as what occurred with BART, where an East Bay test track was built in the late '60s even though the first segments of the system did not open until 1972, with the full buildout (as of the 1970s) not occurring until 1974.

The article also examines the status of a Visalia-Hanford station (the CHSRA is studying it but isn't committing to anything yet) and notes that Castle Airport near Merced is likely to be the location of the primary maintenance hub, with two smaller maintenance facilities "at either end" of the line (i.e. somewhere in the Bay Area and somewhere in SoCal). As to what we can expect from the stimulus:

Deutschman said the Authority should hear by the end of June if it is going to get any stimulus money, but it is confident some will come. When asked how many dollars the high speed rail might get, she replied, “All I'm hearing are billions.”


That sounds about right, given what we've heard from Ray LaHood. Just how many "billions" it'll be is an open question. I'd like to see something in the vicinity of $3 to $4 billion.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 12:28 PM
Labels: Castle Airport, Central Valley, CHSRA, funding, HSR, maintenance hub, Merced, Ray LaHood, San Joaquin Valley, stimulus, test track, Visalia
18 comments:

Rob Dawg said...

That Merced-to-Bakersfield ROW is key because that's where the all-important train testing will occur:Only if you assume Merced is the master service node.

Everything involves "Bakersfield." Start there and build north and worry about the "split" later. Rails in the ground and a test track and everyone already agrees on this portion of alignments.
June 1, 2009 1:05 PM
caltrain rider said...

Hmm.. going ahead with building - without the testing.. and so what's the testing for?
June 1, 2009 2:06 PM
Joseph Eisenberg said...

Caltrain rider:
I believe the testing is necessary to prove that the system is "safe" for the feds to sign off. Even though the same trains will have run just fine in Europe or Japan for a decade. Sigh.
June 1, 2009 2:13 PM
Rafael said...

@ Joseph Eisenberg -

the FRA doesn't have any rules for letting trains run at 220mph. At all. That means the top speed HSR can currently run at anywhere in the nation is 150mph.

In addition, CHSRA needs FRA to sign off on mixed traffic in the Fullerton-Anaheim section and the final approach to the new SF Transbay Terminal.

The Obama administration is much keener on HSR than its predecessors, but even so, FRA will insist on covering its bureaucratic behind before signing off on commercial operation of the California network. One huge benefit of choosing steel wheels over maglev technology is that FRA will be able to crib heavily from the Japanese and the Europeans on many issues.

Without a domestic passenger train industry to protect, there's a chance they'll apply common sense and avoid creating a special standard just for the US. On the other hand, bureaucrats are always interested in justifying the existence of their fiefdom, cp. the Acela Express fiasco.

CHSRA's entire business plan hinges on FRA permission to use lightweight, proven, off-the-shelf trainset technology. An ornery FRA could torpedo the project's financial viability by imposing sky-high maintenance and electricity costs for no good reason.
June 1, 2009 3:11 PM
Alex said...
This post has been removed by the author.
June 1, 2009 3:24 PM
Alex said...

I know we already knew the timeline, but sill it is hard to see it again...
7 years before the central valley is ready!?
Did all the Palo Alto nimbys move out and become farmers? :-)

The time it takes to do anything in this country is insane.
June 1, 2009 3:26 PM
Tony D. said...

So let's see: major stimulus cash for the SF-SJ line, nearly 10 years of studying/debate of Bay Area/Central Valley routing, passage of Nov08 Prop. 1A with the knowledge of Pacheco Pass primary routing and FUTURE Altamont Pass HSR overlay. Looks as if that NIMBY/"I wanted Altamont!" frivolous lawsuit will be DOA soon. I know, I know, it wasn't dismissed and will be heard, bla bla bla. But I'm confident that whatever judge hears this crap will have a spine/brain and realize the aformentioned in making a decision.

Imagine this headline: "California lost out in nearly $4 billion in federal high-speed rail stimulus funds because a small group of NIMBY's/those not satisfied with the choice of routing got their way in court. This despite the fact that high-speed rail was supported by a majority of California voters and the primary routing into the Bay Area was the result of nearly a decade of study/debate."

YEAH RIGHT MORRIS!
June 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Morris Brown said...

The joint Assembly/Senate audit committee has passed on a bill to do a full audit of the Authority, which will start Sept 1, and will take 4 to 5 months and involve 1900 man hours from the audit office.

The audit will cover the full time frame that the Authority has been in existence, over 10 years.
June 1, 2009 4:28 PM
Clem said...

Sounds like a lot, but keep in mind that 4 or 5 months and 1900 labor hours is two to three people.
June 1, 2009 6:16 PM
Aaron said...

@Morris: From the ominous tone, one would think that we should be prepared to learn that the HSRA is actually simply a wing of the North Korean military or something.

"Ooh, an audit... we should all run for the hills before the spectre of true evil is raised!"

Maybe we can figure out where all of those missing paperclips went. ;p Personally, I can never find my paperclips...
June 1, 2009 6:51 PM
Alex said...

@clem

Is it really just a matter of only having a few people working on it?

Well, wouldn't hiring more people to hurry things up qualify as stimulus?
June 1, 2009 7:02 PM
Aaron said...

@Alex: I don't think the audit has a bearing on stimulus funding - it's kind of a sideshow.
June 1, 2009 7:04 PM
jim said...

Well it does make sense to get the urban ends done first for the simple matter that they will be the most complicated from the perspective of squeezing the train through congested areas, grade crossings etc. The valley will be a much easier stretch to catch up on later. No one expected to be riding trains before 2020 anyway.
June 1, 2009 11:24 PM
jim said...

Also the dtx and tbt construction is scheduled to be completed at the same time (construction 2012 thru 2019) Do the LA ANA and SF SJ and the yard at merced with test track. then while testing the trains, work on the northern and southern tunnel crossings. It could all come together nicely. That's if all goes well. i mean that is still a pretty tight timeline.
June 1, 2009 11:50 PM
Anonymous said...

Rrrgh. The crucial portion is Bakersfield-LA. How's *that* going? It's got every possible complication, including urban construction and the LA station.
June 2, 2009 12:26 AM
jim said...

Spain gives U.S. official peek at high-speed train system
ASTA SMARTBRIEF | 06/01/2009
Ray Lahood, U.S. secretary of transportation, and Jose Blanco, development minister for Spain, boarded a train in Madrid for a first-hand look at the Spanish high-speed rail system. President Barack Obama has hailed Spain's network as a model for the U.S. Lahood also rode one of France's TGV bullet trains and attended a conference on transportation in Germany. USA TODAY (05/29)
June 2, 2009 12:26 AM
jim said...

Isnt the LA palmdale section following the metrolink route? In any case it doesn't matter because the whole thing needs to be connected and tested before any one is taking any trips. How many years is the tunneling going to take? anyone know?
June 2, 2009 12:31 AM
BruceMcF said...

Thing about tunneling is sometimes it can throw up unpleasant surprises.

One contingency to cover an unpleasant financial surprise is to open some services on a portion of the route, to get the basis for issuing revenue bonds.
June 2, 2009 6:19 AM

BRENTWOOD NEWS | Westside Today 'Future of Mass Transit Status Update' A presentation by Jodi Litvack, Project manager, Westside Long Range Subway Extension.

BRENTWOOD NEWS | Westside Today

SOUTH BRENTWOOD WEST WILSHIRE CITY PRESENTATION

By Lynne Babbit | June 01, 2009

BRENTWOOD NEWS | Westside Today

'Future of Mass Transit Status Update' A presentation by Jodi Litvack, Project manager, Westside Long Range Subway Extension.
Four billion dollars are currently available for this subway going west due in part to the passage of Measure R. As the plans stand now it would travel under Wilshire and have four stops between the 405 freeway and the ocean. The first subway station on Wilshire west of the 405 could be at the Federal, the VA hospital, Barrington, or at Bundy.
Environmental and traffic studies are now in progress.
The Wilshire corridor will be moving a huge volume of people. This form of better transportation could possibly change the character of an area. Would the area concentrate on business, shopping, eating, etc? It is difficult to envision what balance will exist in the future. The reality is the subway probably will take 20 years or more to complete.
Recommendations will be presented next summer.

Questions and answers:
Our community’s frustration in the lack of enforcement of existing codes, our inability to learn what is being proposed and a feeling of not being included in land use decisions was expressed.
A suggestion was made that Wilshire Blvd. business and property owners be included in these discussions.

Many questions remain unanswered. Questions can be sent to:
Michelle Sorkin at michelle.sorkin@lacity.org or Susan Robinson at susan.robinson@lacity.org

The next step:
1. Several members expressed an interest in further meetings to provide input to the WLA Community Plan as it applies to West Wilshire Blvd. Jackie Raymond, Lauren Cole and Marylin Krell offered to be in the group. Others interested can contact Marylin.
2. A Scoping Meeting will take place June 16th at 6 PM.
The City of Los Angeles will be preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the New Community Plan and will hold a scoping meeting on June 16th from 6-8 p.m. to assist in identifying issues to be addressed in the EIR. The meeting will be held at HENRY MEDINA WEST LOS ANGELES PARKING ENFORCEMENT FACILITY, 2ND FLOOR, 11214 W. EXPOSITION BLVD, LOS ANGELES, 90064.
During the scoping meeting, participants will have the opportunity to provide input to the West Los Angeles Community Planners and consultants preparing the EIR.

Visit http://www.planning.lacity.org/ to stay informed of the Community Plan progress and view other opportunities to participate. Click on Plans and Ordinances, then New Community Plan Program, then West Los Angeles.

E-mail contact: planning@lacity.org

Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
(approximately 35 people present)


Respectfully Submitted,
Lynne Babbitt

Time For Feds To Fund Mass Transit Operating Expenses? 5 Responses

National Journal Online -- Transportation Experts -- Time For Feds To Fund Mass Transit Operating Expenses?

Monday, June 1, 2009
Time For Feds To Fund Mass Transit Operating Expenses?

Americans are using public transportation in record numbers -- taking 10.7 billion trips last year, an increase of 4 percent over 2007 -- yet because of declining state and local budgets, many mass transit systems are facing the prospect of raising fares, cutting service and laying off staff. Given the contribution that mass transit makes to relieving urban congestion and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is it time to overturn rules that only allow federal funding to be spent on capital projects and not on transit systems' day-to-day operating expenses?

-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com

Bookmark and Share
Leave a response
5 Responses

Expand all comments Collapse all comments

Responded on June 2, 2009 11:11 AM
Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com

Updated at 11:16 a.m. on June 2.

Under the heading of great minds thinking alike, I wanted to let everyone know that Secretary LaHood has posted an entry on his Fast Lane blog about the benefits of public transportation. Of course he isn't commenting on the policy question we're debating this week, but like us he is thinking about public transportation and the role it plays in our national transportation system. Click here to read LaHood's comments.
Link to this response: Print | Share | E-mail
Responded on June 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Ed Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Despite record ridership, mass transit systems across America are in crisis. When the cost of gas spiked last summer, ridership soared and high volumes have continued ever since. But the weak economy is causing huge shortfalls in state and local revenues. Transit agencies are facing the budget ax just when their services are in highest demand. In cities and regions across the country, mass transit agencies are being forced to not only cut jobs, but eliminate the services so many commuters need to get to their jobs. Employee and service cuts can easily translate into a corresponding number of commuters who can’t get to work. St. Louis’s Metro just laid off 550 employees and plans to eliminate a significant portion of its bus service. Cleveland’s RTA plans to cut 300 jobs. WMATA in Washington, DC is considering $13.5 million in service cuts. And in California, literally thousands of workers are at risk of being laid off and massive service cuts are imminent. The recently passed stimulus legislation didn’t solve this problem. The American Recovery...

Read More

Despite record ridership, mass transit systems across America are in crisis. When the cost of gas spiked last summer, ridership soared and high volumes have continued ever since. But the weak economy is causing huge shortfalls in state and local revenues. Transit agencies are facing the budget ax just when their services are in highest demand.

In cities and regions across the country, mass transit agencies are being forced to not only cut jobs, but eliminate the services so many commuters need to get to their jobs. Employee and service cuts can easily translate into a corresponding number of commuters who can’t get to work.

St. Louis’s Metro just laid off 550 employees and plans to eliminate a significant portion of its bus service. Cleveland’s RTA plans to cut 300 jobs. WMATA in Washington, DC is considering $13.5 million in service cuts. And in California, literally thousands of workers are at risk of being laid off and massive service cuts are imminent.

The recently passed stimulus legislation didn’t solve this problem. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included funds for transit capital projects, but not for operating assistance. Unfortunately, new buses aren’t going to expand capacity if there are no employees to drive them.

We fought for a provision in the Senate’s FY09 Supplemental Appropriations Act includes that would allow transit agencies to use up to 10 percent of their stimulus funds for operational expenses. Giving transit agencies this flexibility will help address widespread budgetary shortfalls – without any additional cost to the American taxpayer.

When the House and Senate meet this week to finalize the Supplemental Appropriations bill, Congress will decide what remains in the bill – and if public transportation systems can use some of their stimulus funds for operating assistance. This legislative remedy will avoid or minimize service cuts and save thousands of good paying transit jobs – while helping those who rely on mass transit to get to work.

Responded on June 1, 2009 3:07 PM
Phineas Baxandall, Senior Analyst, United States Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG)

Failure to support operating expenses is just another way that the federal transportation funding system is skewed against public transportation. Compared to highways, operating expenses comprise a much larger portion of total spending for public transportation. Transit agencies must pay for bus drivers, train conductors, station agents and a host of other operating expenses that don't exist on the highway side. The embedded bias against public transportation would be bad enough if it were not compounded by three other features in the current system that systematically discourage public transportation. The interaction of these biases with the lack of operating funds make world-class public transportation harder to achieve:

State gas taxes -- despite the fact that public transit relieves road congestion and makes it possible for road projects to comply with air standards, most state constitutions limit use of gas taxes to highways. Gas taxes are typically the largest source of state transportation funds. So not only are states forced to fund transit opera...

Read More

Failure to support operating expenses is just another way that the federal transportation funding system is skewed against public transportation. Compared to highways, operating expenses comprise a much larger portion of total spending for public transportation. Transit agencies must pay for bus drivers, train conductors, station agents and a host of other operating expenses that don't exist on the highway side.

The embedded bias against public transportation would be bad enough if it were not compounded by three other features in the current system that systematically discourage public transportation. The interaction of these biases with the lack of operating funds make world-class public transportation harder to achieve:

1. State gas taxes -- despite the fact that public transit relieves road congestion and makes it possible for road projects to comply with air standards, most state constitutions limit use of gas taxes to highways. Gas taxes are typically the largest source of state transportation funds. So not only are states forced to fund transit operations on their own; but their best and most sensible tool for doing so is placed off-limits. These states have no choice but to patch together agreements between local governments for new sales taxes or other fees. Revenue agreements between localities that badly want transit projects nonetheless often collapse because of disagreements over the proper share that each cash-strapped jurisdiction should pay.
2. Federal matching – While the federal government will cover 80 percent or more of highway projects, a new transit expansion is lucky to get 50 percent federal match. Transit starts at an artificial disadvantage because projects will leverage fewer federal dollars.
3. Uneven process – As other commentators have noted, the process for applying for federal transit projects is much more arduous, lengthy and uncertain compared to highway projects. States must pay up front for expensive additional studies, wait through long delays, and then compete against projects in other states – with no certainty that New Starts or Small Starts money will be forthcoming no matter how good their projects are.

Increasing the share of travel on public transportation should be an explicit goal of national transportation policy. That will be harder to accomplish without support for operations. Current policy is much like if the federal government were to ask states to foot the bill for national border crossings and then only paid for the toll booths and security signs. Making public transportation a priority will require support for major expenses, especially the operating bottlenecks that continue to stifle transit around the country.






Responded on June 1, 2009 9:01 AM
Anthony E. Shorris, Director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University

It's time to re-think the Federal government's failure to support mass transit operating expenses. The reasons are simple: the beneficiaries of mass transit ridership rider extend well beyond the riders themselves. Good old fashioned micro-economics would tell us that when people are affected by a transaction other than the buyer and seller, there need to be ways to capture the value and costs external to the deal. In the case of mass transit, the riders certainly benefit -- and should pay some portion of the cost -- but others benefit too: commuters who gain more road space when people use the train, families who breathe cleaner air, and a nation that finds itself a step closer to energy independence with every rider.

The only hard question becomes which level of government should provide what share of the operating subsidy appropriate for mass transit systems. Since some of the benefits accrue to commuters in the region served by the transit system, they should certainly chip in, as should residents of the areas served (a balance found in the thoughtful pro...

Read More

It's time to re-think the Federal government's failure to support mass transit operating expenses. The reasons are simple: the beneficiaries of mass transit ridership rider extend well beyond the riders themselves. Good old fashioned micro-economics would tell us that when people are affected by a transaction other than the buyer and seller, there need to be ways to capture the value and costs external to the deal. In the case of mass transit, the riders certainly benefit -- and should pay some portion of the cost -- but others benefit too: commuters who gain more road space when people use the train, families who breathe cleaner air, and a nation that finds itself a step closer to energy independence with every rider.

The only hard question becomes which level of government should provide what share of the operating subsidy appropriate for mass transit systems. Since some of the benefits accrue to commuters in the region served by the transit system, they should certainly chip in, as should residents of the areas served (a balance found in the thoughtful proposal for transit system funding made by former New York MTA Chair Richard Ravitch). But there is a national interest here too. First, since the communities that benefit from cleaner air and less crowded roads often encompass more than one state, there is a role for national government. Even more importantly, shifting riders from cars to transit makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign oil. And perhaps most important of all, a more just distribution of transportation services is an appropriate national policy goal, just as is the equitable distribution of educational or health care services. Indeed, as transportation has become one of the largest household expenses, mechanisms to reduce this cost while achieving other important national benefits may prove highly efficient uses of federal dollars.

One last point: the use of federal transit dollars solely for capital as opposed to operating expense can skew local decision-making away from core maintenance towards system expansion. The federal government should be using the power of its purse to encourage rational decision-making at the local level. While, in the end, all dollars are fungible, a more thoughtful use of federal funds could not only advance the national good by creating a more secure and just America over the long-term, but could improve the quality of our existing transportation systems today.


Responded on June 1, 2009 7:54 AM
William Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association

This week’s question is one that is timely and under much discussion in the public transportation industry. This is a time of great opportunities and great challenges for America’s public transit systems. Last year 10.7 billion trips were taken on public transit – the most in 52 years – and a modern ridership record. Since 1995, public transportation use has grown by 38%, a figure that is almost triple the growth rate of the population (14 percent) and up substantially over the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on our nation’s highways (21 percent) for that same period.

The paradox of this is that at a time of record demand for public transportation, state and local revenues are declining and many public transit systems are facing severe financial challenges, and America’s transit riders are paying the price. Raising fares and cutting service may seem an odd thing to do in light of record ridership, but fares, both here and abroad, cover only a portion of the cost of operating a public transit system.

Funding from all levels of government – federal...

Subway To Sea Stirs Up WeHo Trolley Memories

WeHoNews.com:

Subway To Sea Stirs Up WeHo Trolley Memories

Monday, June 1, 2009 – By Charles J. Forscher, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, California (Monday, June 1, 2009) - While attending a recent public forum about the planning for the Subway To The Sea through West Hollywood and Los Angeles, the subject of parking came up.


The Subway To The Sea is under development and might contain a WeHo spur. WeHo News.

A technical problem, it seems, is that many of the expected patrons of the projected subway lines will need a place to park their vehicles.

The two proposed subway routes passing through WeHo, both veering off Santa Monica Boulevard are, a route down La Cienega Blvd, and, a route, down San Vicente, both proposed routes to connect with the expanded Wilshire Boulevard line.

For either selection, a parking structure on a triangular parcel of vacant land near Robertson and Melrose Boulevards would assist the Metro subway dream into becoming a reality, more so if shuttle service could be provided between it and other parking structures, and the new subway station, either at San Vicente or La Cienega.

An April 27th letter to the editor about the pink line brought back sweet memories for me.


| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE


The original Pacific Electric line out of Hollywood ran over the hill from Hollywood and La Brea Boulevards, through an exclusive alley right of way, and connected with the other line at Fairfax and Santa Monica Boulevard. Photo courtesy “Images Of America: West Hollywood,” a history of WeHo. Arcadia Publishing. WeHo News.

In regards to building a light rail line in WeHo the original Pacific Electric line out of Hollywood ran over the hill from Hollywood and La Brea Boulevards, through an exclusive alley right of way, and connected with the other line at Fairfax and Santa Monica Boulevard.

Traces of the Cut Off (short cut) can be discerned in the odd driveways, tracts where apartment houses have been built, and a unique liquor store, the former P.E. station where the tracks intersected Fountain Avenue.

Despite this exclusive right of way, competition with automobile traffic on both Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Monica Boulevard in WeHo killed it and other such lines across Los Angeles County.



In the late 1940's the management of the Pacific Electric tried to sell the City Fathers into joining the P.E. in the construction of a series of subway lines into downtown Los Angeles, but the City Fathers wanted freeways.

I had a unique experience along the Cut Off.

Charles Forscher lives in LA a few miles outside West Hollywood, where he spent his youth and formative years. He contributes memories about growing to adulthood in WeHo. WeHo News.

I had been clamoring for a trolley car ride.

My father, being a rail fan also, surprised me and my mother one day after picking her up from a business appointment at the west end of Hollywood Boulevard, which at the time stood lined with old mansions.

Dad made a left turn at Hollywood Blvd. where a huge Temple now stands to cross the tracks.

Instead of crossing the tracks dad suddenly steered our post World War II-era Dodge onto the asphalt paved trolley tracks’ right of way, and traveled a few blocks west along it, a rubber-wheeled gas-powered auto carrying a delighted nine year-old, almost to the spot at which the tracks intersected Sunset Boulevard.

The Balloon Route trolley excursion once ran through West Hollywood (then named Sherman) past the Sherman power station and car yard at San Vicente & Santa Monica Boulevards. Photo courtesy “Images Of America: West Hollywood,” a history of WeHo. Arcadia Publishing.WeHo News.

The alley way smelled of axle grease and ozone from countless trolley poles sparking as they passed through electric junctions in the wire overhead.

T’was one of those moments that stay with you, a brief deliciously illegal and very dangerous moment I will treasure unto my (not that far off any longer) death..

While I'd love to see light rail in WeHo again, it is simply no longer an option.

The last open right of way was on Santa Monica Boulevard through the heart of WeHo and the vestiges of that vanished with the reconstruction of Santa Monica Blvd.

We would have already had a subway here if P.E. had been saved and not crushed in the late 1940s.

© 2005-2007 WeHoNews.com, All Rights Reserved.


WeHoNews is YOUR newspaper, West Hollywood.

Top 10 trains around the world

Top 10 trains around the world

Top 10 trains around the world


ReutersNovember 10, 2008



SYDNEY - Traveling by train can be a drag -- or convert you to rail travel for the rest of your life.

Web site Askmen.com has come up with a list of the top 10 trains around the world, rating them on attributes like amenities, comfort, convenient routes, reasonable fares, and technology. Reuters has not endorsed this list.

1. TGV, France

The French sense of style extends to train travel and the TGV is an acronym for "train grande vitesse" - or high-speed train -- which can travel at 357 mph while the passenger runs hit 200 mph. Top route: Lorraine - Champagne-Ardenne

2. Japan Railways Group, Japan

Japan's original 130-mph bullet train of 1964 has inspired imitators, but the country's high-speed trains are still among the fastest and most technologically advanced and are reliable, safe and fast. Passengers aren't treated to the same 361-mph top speed achieved in testing, but 186 mph still isn't bad. Top route: Tokyo - Shin-Osaka

3. Eurostar, England

There are Eurostar lines throughout the continent and they're some of the best ways to get around. The 1,290-foot trains cruise up to 186 mph in certain areas. But one route stands apart -- it's the trip through the Channel Tunnel, with the journey beginning at London's historic St. Pancras International train station and ending in Paris. Top route: London - Paris

4. ICE/NachtZug, Germany

Deutsche Bahn keeps passengers moving by day with their efficient and popular InterCityExpress, better known as ICE. For overnight trips, there's the inviting NachtZug, or Night Train, which is a refreshing trip. Top route: ICE "Sprinter": Berlin - Frankfurt; NachtZug: Hagen - Prague

5. TAV, Italy

Many Italians like traveling by car or plane but trains are gaining popularity beyond intra-city use and considerable efforts are being made to emulate and connect with Europe's finest. Top route: Rome - Florence

6. Russian Railways, Russia

If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can sit on a train for almost 6,000 miles on the Trans-Siberian Railway otherwise you can opt for a shorter trip to go between the Russian areas you'll want to cover on a visit. Top route: St. Petersburg - Moscow

7. KTX, South Korea

The Korea Train eXpress is a modern take on The Little Engine That Could. After the initial Seoul to Pusan route was finished in 2004, passenger numbers were short of expectations but there's progress with line expansion and ridership on the rise. Top route: Seoul - Pusan 8. AVE, Spain

Aan acronym for Alta Velocidad Espanla -- or Spanish High Speed -- service from Madrid to Seville is so consistent that fares are refunded if the train arrives more than five minutes late. Top route: Madrid - Seville

9. Great Southern Rail Limited, Australia

It's the best way to span the continental coast between Sydney and Perth and see a lot in-between with two of their three routes multi-day affairs, but with top accommodation and scenery.

10. VR, Finland

Finland is one of those countries that just works; it's exceptionally clean, efficient and trouble-free and the state-owned VR Group is no different. When you leave Helsinki, VR is probably the best way to take in the countryside.

(Editing by Sophie Hardach)