Nostalgic New Yorkers enjoy a special ride on a
This weekly post features news from other transit agencies and planners from around the world. Did we miss a good story? Let us know in the comments.
Ride to ballgame on vintage train transports fans to another era
The New York subway trains above enjoyed their heyday from the 1920s to the 1960s, but they’re always a popular attraction when New York City Transit rolls them out on special runs. The New York Times recounts a recent run to Yankee Stadium by a four-car “Lo-V” train — short for “low voltage” — that attracted transit riders hoping to recapture an experience that one might have had decades ago en route to see Ruth, Gerhig and Mantle. While it’s nice to connect with history, I’ve got to imagine that on a day-to-day basis, most New Yorkers would pick a modern train’s convenience (read: air conditioning), especially in the dog days of August.
Alameda–Contra Costa Transit begins fueling buses with hydrogen made from solar electricity and water
The nexus of public transit and energy is a huge one. Transit agency energy bills run in the millions annually, and transit vehicles can play an important role in improving air quality — assuming, that is, that the buses and trains run on clean energy sources, as L.A. County Metro’s entire fleet now does. The East Bay’s Alameda–Contra Costa Transit is going for a double-whammy: developing a system that allows the agency to use a clean fuel (hydrogen) generated from a clean system (solar power). Marketwatch (via PR Newswire) has the details on the agency’s new hydrogen-generating system, which will fuel AC Transit’s “twelve 40-foot hybrid-electric, zero-emission fuel cell buses.” The hydrogen generator and dispenser allows AC Transit to refuel its fuel cell buses just as quickly as it would a diesel bus — important for keeping buses on the road and serving customers. And thanks to a grant from the California Air Resources Board, one of these hydrogen fueling stations will be made available to the general public.
North Carolina state government OKs money for light rail extension
The Charlotte metro area’s transit expansion — we covered it last year — got a boost from the state government, which has agreed to kick in a quarter of the cost of a 9.4-mile light rail extension to the University of North Carolina’s Charlotte campus. The Charlotte Observer reports that half of the funding for the $1.2-billion project is expected to come from the feds, with the rest being covered by the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS). The extension will add another 11 stations to the existing Blue Line’s 15 stations. Construction is set to begin next year, with the extension’s opening scheduled for 2017.
Aging transit systems grapple with repair backlog
If anyone is still unconvinced that the nation needs to pass a comprehensive transportation bill — like, yesterday — this story from the Associated Press distills the bleak state of many of the nation’s older transit systems. One particularly eye-opening example: “In Philadelphia…commuters ride trains over rusty steel bridges, some of them dating back to the 19th century.” Meanwhile, a rebounding economy and high gas prices are driving national transit ridership to new records, which is being borne by local agencies grappling with their own funding problems.
Atlanta regional transit hub gets traction
The Georgia Department of Transportation is partnering with three private sector firms to develop a regional transportation hub in downtown Atlanta, dubbed the MultiModal Passenger Terminal (MMPT). The project’s website describes the aim as the following:
Current facilities in Atlanta for intercity rail, intercity bus and local/regional transit are inadequate, poorly connected and capacity constrained. Providing improved connections between the various existing transportation services is required to improve utilization of existing services as well as facilitate system expansion. The purpose of the MMPT is to replace these inadequate and disconnected transportation facilities, connect modes of transportation [e.g. bus, train, taxi, bike, foot, etc.] , increase transit ridership and facilitate and accommodate future transportation investments and economic development.
An Atlanta Journal Constitution column by Tom Sabulis notesthat part of the project would require utilizing tracks currently owned and operated by private freight companies CSX and Norfolk Southern — and that will require some careful negotiation. The other big hurdle is, unsurprisingly, funding needed to fulfill the public side of this public-private partnership. And that may come down to whether or not Atlanta-area voters approve a regional transit sales tax measure on the ballot this fall.
There are so many here who claim they are pro-transit, yet at the same time are just really slacktivists who only provides the freeloader solution of “increase taxes for everyone else but me.”
If you’re really are pro-transit, you should be in favor of Metro going public because it gives the chance for real pro-transit supporters to directly buy Metro stocks as an investment for the better good.
I also disagree with RB’s comments that going public will lead to fare hikes. If that were true, every company that are listed on the stock market would sell their goods at a higher price so that only the wealthy could afford. On the contrary, it’s the exact opposite. Costs for many things like computers, laptops, cell phones, cars, etc., all of which at one time were considered exclusive items for the rich, have come down dramatically for everyone to afford. Why should mass transit be any different should they go public?
If anything, going public opens more opportunities for Metro to gather desperately needed capital which can be used to fix all that’s wrong with Metro. They won’t have the lame excuse of “we can’t do this because we have no government funding.” The limitation is only how much investors put in and how much Metro is able to fulfill their responsibilities for the benefit of shareholders. And if the transit riders are the main shareholders, then don’t you think that would be better for Metro in the long term?
I echo the sentiment of others on metro going public. The more that stiff budgets are cited as a reason for inferior transit design (i.e. at-grade street running as an example), The more and more convinced I am that a fundamental change in funding structure has to occur and going public and using distance based fares would not be a bad way to do it. BART is now apparently running a surplus (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2012/04/bart-budget-surplus-boosts-plans-future) and it’s not even for-profit so if Metro went public I’m sure it could be a much larger and much better designed system than it is now.