» Visit the Official NARP Website

Lazarus Lives in Troy, Michigan

Thursday, January 19, 2012

by NARP Vice Chairman John DeLora, also President of the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers (MARP)

The back-and-forth fight over a new intermodal transit center in Troy MI has turned up interesting information about the federal High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail grant program (part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA).  It also contains lessons on how to combat Luddites who oppose public transportation.

Architect’s rendering of the soon-to-be-built Troy Intermodal Transportation Center

In 2009, Congress passed the ARRA act, calling for major infrastructure improvements which would lead to high speed rail in the U.S. Shortly after enactment, the Federal Railroad Administration held a series of public conferences to explain the program and what it would do, and what it wouldn’t do. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) conference for the Midwest was held in Kansas City, MO. Key points were:

1. States which applied for funds had to show a continuing commitment to passenger train service.
2. Applications would be graded on an objective basis to eliminate charges of political influence.

MARP warned several Michigan legislators that the practice of partial-year state funding for the Amtrak Blue Water and Pere Marquette (which had been done for several years, with supplemental funding when the first tranche was exhausted) would not be acceptable to FRA. The legislature went ahead with partial year funding anyway, and many were stunned to find that FRA had denied all Michigan applications.

» read more...

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

Amtrak Funding, Amtrak’s CEO, and the National Network

Friday, January 13, 2012

Under the debt ceiling law enacted in August, if the supercommittee failed (which it did), domestic discretionary programs would be cut 7.8% in Fiscal 2013, which starts October 1, 2012. That would mean yet another Amtrak funding reduction, this one exceeding $100 million. Three other wild-card factors could affect the outcome:

Amtrak’s westbound Sunset Limited arriving at Palm Springs, CA. [Image: Florian Boyd on Flickr.com]

1. Efforts to reduce the impact of sequestration on the Pentagon by increasing the magnitude of cuts for other programs.
   
   
2. Flexibility in application of the 7.8%. If it applies only to the transportation/housing appropriations subcommittee’s overall total, the subcommittee almost certainly would hit some programs harder in order, for example, to protect the Federal Aviation Administration, which is being forced to “lay off more than 2,000 employees…close 246 air traffic control contract towers.” The 7.8% cut applied across-the-board also would “cause significant delays of FAA’s NextGen program which is needed to modernize an already aging air traffic control system.” See House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers’ (R-KY) “failure-is-not-an-option” letter of October 14 to the supercommittee (FAA paragraphs are on page 6). Particularly given the amount of new equipment authorized (both Amtrak’s orders already placed and planned orders for California and Midwest states), it would appear that Amtrak will have to fight hard just to be exempt from the hunt for “offsets” to protect the FAA.
   
   
3. If funding for 2013 remains unresolved by November, the outcome of the elections could bring an even darker future for Amtrak, considering the statements that some candidates have made.

» read more...

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

A Field Guide to False Anti-Train Arguments

Thursday, January 12, 2012

If you’ve been reading this blog, getting NARP emails, or following the debate surrounding passenger train development, you’ve surely heard the worn-out, cliched barbs that defenders of the status quo repeatedly throw at proposals to ramp up investment in trains. If you’ve sometimes found yourself at a loss for short, effective, fact-based rejoinders, then you’re in luck.

Image: PennDesign

Our partners at the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) have developed a handy document called Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed Rail with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints. These can be applied not just to “true” high-speed rail projects like California’s, but also to as-important undertakings to make existing trains faster, more reliable and more frequent.

The common theme found throughout the document—one on which NARP and all our partners have been focusing our rhetoric—is that, while rail projects may look costly now, it will cost a lot more to accomplish (or leave unaccomplished) the same mobility and economic development goals later by other means later on. Remember: the purpose of transportation systems is not to be profit centers on their own, but to serve as the the bloodstream that keeps the rest of the economy going.

Criticism of passenger train development tends to focus on the fact that it won’t be profitable and will require ongoing subsidies. The returns on investment in modern passenger trains won’t be seen in the form of profits for their operators, but rather in the form of increased economic activity and profits for other businesses in the areas the trains serve—not to mention a cleaner environment, a better quality of life, and easier, safer, more affordable mobility for the people living in those areas.

» read more...

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

Midwest fast train advocates push for world class Chicago Union Station

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Illustration provided by Solomon Cordwell Buenz

The Midwest High-Speed Rail Association has launched a Downtown Airport campaign to Chicago Union Station to make sure that the modernization efforts currently being planned are ambitious enough to accommodate the station’s projected growth:

Union Station is a critical transportation asset to Chicago and the entire region. Its serves more passengers every year than Midway Airport – yet it fits neatly within two city blocks in the center of the city. It has the impact of an airport right downtown.

Every year, more than 15 million passengers board Amtrak and Metra trains at the station to reach their jobs, attend important business meetings or take their vacations.

With high-speed trains, that number would double.

They’re asking advocates to write Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to encourage him to back a truly transformative plan to bring Chicago Union Station into the 21st Century. 

Posted by NARP

The versatility of passenger train investment

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Last week, Mollee posed a question on NARP’s Facebook page, asking about the cost-to-benefit ratio of passenger rail:

“I understand that the budget and spending need to be curtailed but in doing so, wouldn’t the best plan… be in putting the money where it does the most good?”

The thrust of her comment seems to be: in a time of limited revenue, the government should focus on projects that move the country forward on multiple national objectives.

NARP agrees with the assessment, and it’s a viewpoint we’ve consistently pushed in our advocacy work. 

Amtrak is 31.2% more efficient than automobiles, 33.5 % more efficient than personal trucks, and 13.8% more efficient than airplanes (on a Btu per passenger mile basis).  Passenger trains decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil and reduce the emission of harmful pollutants into the air.  Intercity rail, properly connected to public transit systems, creates walkable streets and livable neighborhoods. Train travel is far safer than driving; motor vehicle accidents killed more than 32,000 people in 2010, and is the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 3 and 33.  And constructing a high-speed train network would revitalize the U.S. passenger rail manufacturing industry, which declined in the decades following the construction of the federally-financed Interstate Highway System.

Congestion [Image: Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz Mariordo]

So building passenger rail fulfills not just transportation goals, but environmental, social, safety, and national defense goals as well.  Why not invest?

The answer seems to be as conceptual, as much as anything.  Here’s an excerpt from a piece we posted in November looking at the relative costs of different modes of transportation:

Using the relative government transportation budgets as a jumping off point, David C. compares the relative efficiency of the $1.6 billion spent on Amtrak (FY 2010) and the $96.4 billion spent on highways (FY 2007):

Amtrak’s federal grant, constituting just 0.05% of federal spending in 2010, is once again under attack. Its critics perennially point to the railroad’s 24¢ per passenger mile (ppm) government subsidy, compare it to the 2¢ ppm direct subsidy for driving, and call Amtrak a waste.

Comparing these direct subsidies, though, tells only part of the story. When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak’s total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm, but motoring’s subsidy rises up to almost 5645¢ ppm.

By “indirect subsidies”, David C. is referring to costs not directly covered by drivers, such as air pollution, traffic congestion, and a certain percentage of the cost of car accidents (anything not covered by driver’s insurance policy)—to name a few of many.

Now, “externalities” are difficult to build an argument around.  Rather than a simple bullet point, we’re asking undecided readers to let us deconstruct their world view and replace it with something more complicated and difficult to understand.  It’s an easy task for critics of Amtrak to say “taxpayers subsidize each train ticket on X route by Y dollars.”  It’s much harder to explain why policy dictating that every department store have X square feet of dedicated parking per Y square foot of retail space is making their purchases Z more expensive.  Or figure out the dollars and cents cost to increased instances of asthma found in children who live near highways—and are thus exposed to higher concentrations of vehicle exhaust.

Understanding the ways passenger trains benefit our communities requires work.  Understanding the ways over-reliance on roads is hurting the U.S. also takes work.  That’s why it’s important for advocates of a smart transportation system do the work, and help others to understand the indirect costs associated with our travel decisions.  Only by educating the general public about the real cost of transportation will we get the most bang for our buck.

Posted by NARP

With new report, Los Angeles to San Francisco high-speed rail corridor stays on the boil

Thursday, January 05, 2012

The battle over the Los Angeles to San Francisco high-speed rail line continues to boil, with a new report issued by the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group which criticizes the projects funding structure, adding heat to the argument.

The California High Speed Rail Authority responded immediately with harsh condemnation of the group’s study, questioning their fundamental understanding of how high-speed rail systems are built throughout the world.

California Law AB 3034 mandated creation of an eight-member Peer Review Group with a different California official responsible for appointing each member; the group currently has six members, two slots are open. The document’s central criticism seems to be that the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) has failed to secure funds to cover the projects $74.5 billion final cost:

We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California.

CAHSRA was quick to point out that no large project of any stripe—rail, road, or otherwise—is held to this strict standard.  They argued that the plan created by the Authority was in line with best practices for high-speed rail systems built around the world.

Roelof van Ark, chief executive of CAHSRA, wrote, “It is unfortunate that the peer review committee has delivered a report to the Legislature that is deeply flawed in its understanding of the authority’s program and the experience around the world in successfully developing high-speed rail.  As someone involved in many of the successful high-speed rail programs internationally, I can say that the recommendations of this committee simply do not reflect a real world view of what it takes to bring such projects to fruition.”

There was also the implication that this report could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more doubt that legislators cast upon their willingness to go forward with the project, the more skittish the U.S. Congress and private investors get about supporting the project.  Another peer review committee commissioned by the Authority to review its work—made up of engineers, transportation planners, and economists—had in fact already deemed the ridership model a solid foundation for project planning just this summer, with this to say about CAHSRA’s business plan:

“We are satisfied with the documentation presented in Cambridge Systematics, and conclude that it demonstrates that the model produces results that are reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan applications of the model.  We were very pleased with the content, quality and quantity of the information.”

As for the political implications of the new peer review group study, Robert Cruickshank has this to say over at the California High Speed Rail Blog:

There’s no doubt that the lack of secured, full funding is a problem. The question is how does one resolve it? Do you assume that the federal government will never spend another dime on high speed rail again and call it a day? Or do you press onward and build what you can, working to change Congress’ mind while also hoping that the initial construction can itself act as a spur to win more funding?

…

There’s no doubt this report will be used by HSR critics in Sacramento and Washington to argue against spending the bond money. But they’ll have to fight Governor Brown, President Obama, California’s Democratic Congressional delegation, and the California Labor Federation.

Mr. Cruikshank may well be right, but we’d be remiss not to come up with a full tally of the opponents lined up and ready to fight this project.  You can be certain that when an issue becomes as politicized as high-speed rail has—and when a project is as big as this one is—there will no shortage of willing combatants. 

None of this is to say the legislature should not be closely involved with the project; overseeing the prudent investment of public funds is one of the highest responsibilities of government officials.  But there is an inconsistency in the way the Los Angeles to San Francisco rail corridor is being treated, as compared to other transportation expenditures.  And the legislators involved are certainly on the hook to consider the cost of the alternatives: the cost of more congestion, more roads, and more airports and runways.  The current estimates put that cost at as much as $171 billion, for an additional 2,300 lane-miles of highways, 4 runways, and 115 airline gates.

Posted by NARP

Could the Third Time Be the Charm for Honolulu Rail?

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Jim Loomis, Hawaii’s Representative on NARP’s Council, penned the following in response to the New York Times’ coverage yesterday of the controversy surrounding Honolulu’s first rail transit line, whose construction will start this spring:

Dignitaries break ground for the rail transit line on Feb. 22, 2011. [Image: Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation]

Honolulu nearly had its transit system twice before. The first time was back in the 1970s when the federal government was not just willing, but eager to pick up 90 percent of the cost. On both occasions, however, the project died, falling just one vote short on the City Council.

It does indeed look as though we will finally get our transiit system this time, but we’re still trying to deal with the same kind of hysterical opposition that is battering the high-speed rail project in California. It’s been coming from the anti-government ideologues, from out-of-power politicians using the issue to attack incumbents, from shockingly misguided environmentalists, and various others.

As diverse as these groups and individuals may be, they do have one thing in common: none has offered any serious alternative transportation solutions for moving an expanding population in the decades ahead. Still, it does appear that the third time will be the charm and Honolulu will finally break ground for the rail project sometime in the next several months.

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

NARP Vice Chair speaks about cuts to transit benefits

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

NARP’s Vice Chair of Legislative Policy & Strategy, Albert Papp, Jr., appeared on WABC-TV in New York to talk about the failure of the U.S. Congress to extend mass transit benefits at current levels, meaning the transit benefits that employers can provide tax-free will be slashed from $230 to $120 per month.

“You’re talking about 13, 14 hundred dollars a year, doldrums that it is,” Papp explained to WABC-TV reporters.

You can read more about the cuts on NARP’s Hotline #738.

Posted by NARP

Transit Benefit Cut Defies Evident Trend Away from Car Dependence

Thursday, December 22, 2011

This morning’s Washington Post features a cover story noting that Washington, DC’s population has grown tremendously while most places in the US have seen shrinking numbers of residents. Perhaps most significantly, the Post says “Three in four newcomers [to DC] in recent years have been between the ages of 18 and 34. They have zero interest in the suburbs.”

Downtown San Jose, CA. [Image: Sean_Marshall on Flickr]

This reflects a growing and highly evident preference for urban living amongst those of us of the next generation, combined with the increasing prevalence of teenagers waiting longer to get their first driver’s license, once considered a rite of passage into adulthood. “Millennials” such as myself would rather not be tied to needing a car to get everywhere, along with the stress, danger and great expense driving entails. Being able to use electronics or read while traveling, having easy access to a multitude of activities, and being able to enjoy bars and parties without worrying about getting behind the wheel afterwards are all good reasons to live in a place where a car is not a necessity.

Combine that with my generation’s increasing awareness of the great social and environmental costs of the automobile’s disproportionate dominance of America’s transportation universe—oil dependence, homogenous suburban sprawl eating away at farms and open spaces, air pollution, etc.—and you have growing demand for human-scaled neighborhoods connected to one another by trains, subways and streetcars.

Yet many of our elected leaders aren’t getting the message. Just when more and more professionals are moving into cities and relying on public transportation to get to work, Congress’s lack of action on an extension of provisions in the 2009 Recovery Act means that the maximum pre-tax transit benefit allowed to employees will be cut in half come January 1—while the maximum parking benefit will increase. At the same time, decreased revenues and state and local funding cuts due to the recession are forcing many transit agencies to raise fares. For many Americans, my generation especially, this will be a painful double-whammy. It will encourage some commuters to switch to driving—precisely the wrong message to send when we’re also trying to ease congestion and pollution in our urban areas—but for most transit commuters, it will make the struggle to make ends meet harder and force difficult tradeoffs.

It’s up to all of us to maintain pressure on our Senators and Representatives. Remind them that the plethora of public policy goals that are achieved when it is cheaper and easier for people to use transit than drive are worth more than the miniscule additional tax revenue resulting from the reduction in the transit benefit cap. It’s also good to know that our biggest opportunity to tell Congress how we feel is coming in 11 months.

—Malcolm Kenton

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

Attention: public transit STILL saves you money

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) released their December Transit Savings Report yesterday, and they have quite the holiday gift for public transit riders.  Using public transit on your daily trip to work can save you more than $800 every single month:

[I]ndividuals who ride public transportation instead of driving can save, on average, $807 dollars this month, and $9,690 annually.  These savings are based on the cost of commuting by public transportation compared to the December 20, 2011 average national gas price ($3.21 per gallon- reported by AAA) and the national unreserved monthly parking rate.

Currently gas prices are $.15 a gallon less than last month, but still $.23 higher than this time last year. Proving riding public transit is a smart way to lower transportation costs.

That extra money will come in handy, because Congress failed to extend the mass-transit benefit on Tuesday.  That means that while people who drive to work will see a slight increase in the pre-tax benefits they receive to offset parking costs—from $230 a month to $240, to account for inflation—public transit benefits will be slashed from $230 to $120 per month.  While the Senate may take up the issue in February when it comes back into session, America’s workers will still be hurting in the meantime.

—Sean Jeans-Gail

[APTA] [Streetsblog Capitol Hill]

Posted by NARP

Riding passenger trains to an economic recovery

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

John Rosenthal wrote an excellent piece for Bloomberg on the rise and fall of high-speed rail’s bipartisan credentials, and why it is absolutely vital for America’s elected officials to get back on course.

“Riding High-Speed Rail to a U.S. Recovery,” published December 18, discusses the near-universal enthusiasm that initially met the unveiling of President Barack Obama’s Vision For High-Speed Rail in America:

Because of its ingenious scope, neither the airlines nor the auto industry contested the plan. It targeted corridors among major cities that are too far apart to drive, but too close to make flying worth the time and hassle of trudging through airport security: Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and Milwaukee, for example, or Atlanta, Charlotte, Birmingham and New Orleans. Although trains wouldn’t compete with planes between New York and Los Angeles or, for that matter, Chicago, the plan would put high-speed rail within the reach of 80 percent of Americans.

Rosenthal traces the first moments of discord to the surge in power of the Tea Party, which sent a host of anti-government-investment legislators to Congress.  He also makes a compelling case why this is a terrible move for America’s transportation network and economy:

From the Appian Way to the Erie Canal, economic development has always followed transportation. Businesses small and large cluster around train depots, propelling real estate values and generating millions in new property taxes. The U.S. built its way out of the Depression by investing in massive projects such as the Empire State Building, the Hoover Dam and the Blue Ridge Parkway. High-speed rail is a time-proven way out of today’s economic morass.

It is undoubtedly expensive. And rejecting the massive investments required as wasteful spending would be easy if America’s transportation needs were stagnant. But they aren’t. The Census Bureau estimates that the population will grow by 100 million over the next 40 years. And most of those people will reside in urban areas where airports and highways are already bursting at the seams.

Compared with the cost of building new airports, widening interstates, relocating highway sound barriers, and erecting millions of parking lots, high-speed rail is a bargain.

Rosenthal’s work is definitely worth a full read.  You can find the full article here.

Posted by NARP

Trains Lead Holiday Travel Tweets

Mashwork.com produced this fun infographic about holiday travel tweets. 57% of the 13,194 tweets about a mode of travel analyzed were about trains, while only 9% were about air travel (27% were about car rentals and 6% about intercity bus travel). Naturally, Amtrak takes the top spot within the rail category, followed by the nation’s busiest rail transit systems. Not surprisingly, New York and Illinois travelers are discussing trains more than other modes. Both states with well-developed passenger train networks (New York has more train stations than any other state). Air travel dominated in California, which doesn’t yet have a high-speed rail link between its two megalopoli, and bus travel dominated in Pennsylvania, whose two major cities are connected by only one daily train that is not trip-time competitive with highway travel.

Image: Mashwork.com

From all of us at NARP, happy holidays and best wishes for safe, enjoyable travels.

—Malcolm Kenton

Posted by Malcolm Kenton

New York Times looks at the pleasure of long-distance train travel

Monday, December 19, 2011

The Silver Star in Winter Park, FL [Image: Davisdrives]

The New York Times featured a nice piece by Joe Sharkey in the Business Section concerning the lost art of the extended business trip.  In his “On a Long Train Trip, Rare Pleasures Return,”, Mr. Sharkey began his trip on Amtrak’s Silver Star with trepidation, wondering whether the 26 hour trip from Tampa, Florida to New York City would be an excursion or an ordeal:

Before boarding, I was skeptical about this adventure, but I have to report that the trip was more civilized than air travel and worth it this one time. The dining car menus offer a good range of selections. Communal dining — that is, you’re seated at a small table with strangers — was a nice change from the general social alienation of air travel.

Early the next morning, incidentally, I was astonished when the sleeper car’s affable porter, Thomas Clemo, tapped on my door to deliver The New York Times, one in a bundle that had been picked up at a stop in North Carolina.

The writer concludes that he will most likely save train travel for business trips under 500 miles—but conceded that time spent sleeping isn’t really time lost, and arriving in downtown Manhattan was a “significant convenience.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Sharkey is a little too sanguine about the funding shortfalls facing intercity passenger trains, merely noting that the Congressional budget in the coming year is too tight to allow for any real expansion of service and that the High-Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Program has become politicized.  One would hope that a recent convert to the convenience and comfort of train travel would spend a little more time asking why government spending is a tiny fraction of what is directed to modes like highways and airports.

The last sentence almost makes up for this oversight, however, perfectly capturing what is so special about overnight train travel;

I slept well in my bunk with the gentle sway of the car. My ear never heard the mournful wail that the sad ballads claim for a train whistle. Instead, I heard soft chords that reminded me more of Duke Ellington’s rhythms as the Silver Star sped up the coast through the dark.

Posted by NARP

Amtrak’s eTicketing in action

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

A while back, NARP talked about the advances eTicketing would bring to Amtrak operations.  Well, now we give you an advance look at what the eTicketing device looks like in action.

Here’s hoping the roll-out continues to go smoothly, and this becomes a common sight across the national network by the end of Summer 2012.

Amtrak Conductor Stephen Currier eLifts passenger Mark Petrillo’s ticket on train 684 (Portland,ME to Boston North) between Exeter, NH and Haverhill, MA.

Posted by NARP

Keep commuter rail and transit benefit on equal footing with driving!

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

[Update: the Washington Post is reporting that “pretax parking benefits would rise from $230 a month to $240 a month because of inflation.” ; last edited December 14]

Our partners over at Transportation For America have pointed out something that has slipped by mostly unnoticed in the larger conversation about transportation funding for fiscal year 2012: a transit benefit that provides a tax credit for workers who use mass-transit to commute is set to be nearly halved come this January.

Currently, the annual mass-transit benefit is the same as the tax break commuters receive for parking costs, thanks to a provision introduced by the Recovery Act in 2009.  This provision was extended last winter, but will expire at the end of December if no action is taken by Congress.

From T4A’s website:

[If] you take transit to get to work each day you could be paying more out of your own pocket when the tax benefit for transit is cut in half. If that wasn’t enough, drivers will keep enjoying the same great parking benefit ($230) – nearly double what transit commuters will be eligible to receive. We don’t think that’s fair, and Congress needs to hear about it.

So if you spend more than $120 a month on your commute in a vanpool, train or bus, the federal government will be sending a message loud and clear: they’d like you to start driving to work, where you can get $230 for parking deducted from your paycheck tax free.

This is another example of the double standard that exists when it comes to trains and transit versus roads and highways.  Money spent on the former is a “subsidy,” while money spent on the latter is an “investment.”  It’s entirely unacceptable for our nation’s leaders to incentivize people to move away from a mode of transportation that saves energy, lowers harmful emissions, reduces commuter congestion, and decreases America’s dependence on foreign oil.

T4A is hosting a campaign to tell Senators to support an extension of the worker transit benefit, and NARP encourages you to take a few minutes to support this effort.

Already, a bipartisan group of 22 Senators has signed onto a letter calling for the extension to be enacted.

“Eliminating the mass-transit credit would take a cut out of the paychecks of hardworking middle-class families trying to get by in an already tough economy,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), who serves in the Senate Finance Committee. “Promoting the use of mass transit helps our workers but it also helps reduce traffic congestion on our region’s highways and improve air quality by taking thousands of cars off the road.”

Posted by NARP

©2010 National Association of Railroad Passengers | » NARP website

• BLOG HOME
• NARP Home
• NARP on MySpace
• NARP on Facebook
• NARP on Facebook Causes
• NARP YouTube Channel
• NARP on Change.org
• NARP on Care2
• NARP Shop on CafePress
• Contact NARP

• Lazarus Lives in Troy, Michigan
• Amtrak Funding, Amtrak’s CEO, and the National Network
• A Field Guide to False Anti-Train Arguments
• Midwest fast train advocates push for world class Chicago Union Station
• The versatility of passenger train investment
• With new report, Los Angeles to San Francisco high-speed rail corridor stays on the boil
• Could the Third Time Be the Charm for Honolulu Rail?
• NARP Vice Chair speaks about cuts to transit benefits
• Transit Benefit Cut Defies Evident Trend Away from Car Dependence
• Attention: public transit STILL saves you money

National & General:
• Transportation for America
• Trains For America
• The Passenger Rail Blog
• The Transport Politic
• Streetsblog Network
• Streetsblog DC - Capitol Hill
• Planetizen - Transportation
• Gulliver: Economist.com Business Travel Blog
• The Overhead Wire
• The Fast Lane: Official USDOT Blog
• The Ticket Punch: Making the Case for Amtrak With Well-Sourced Facts
• Smart Growth Around America
• Travel and Trains and Things by Jim Loomis
• TrainBlog by Marcel Marchon - News and opinions about train-related topics.
• Trains Are Awesome
• Center for Environmental Innovation & Leadership

Regional & Local:
• California High Speed Rail Blog
• Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog
• Midwest High Speed Rail Association
• Trains for People (Ohio)
• DowneastRiders Blog
• Amtrak Vermonter Blog
• Streetsblog NY - Transportation Policy
• Amtrak Tracking for My Commute Between NYC and Philadelphia
• Train Star (by NARP member Helen Bushnell)
• NJ-ARP Blog: News and opinion on New Jersey rail advocacy
• Empire State Future (NY)
• Mobilizing the Region (NY/NJ/CT)
• Greater Greater Washington (DC/MD/VA)
• Eurail Blog

• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• July 2011
• June 2011
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006