News | Swindler | Articles

CSX Line Available, But No Plans Yet

The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN) May 8, 2004 There could be a new route for walkers, runners, cyclists — or even light-rail commuters — to travel between Midtown and Cordova. CSX Transportation has officially discontinued service on its 13.3-mile local line. The track goes from the Mid-South Fairgrounds area, through East Memphis, along the north edge of Shelby Farms, and across the heart of Cordova. The right-of-way is a clear swath between some of the city’s most congested east-west corridors. “The line is pretty much available for anyone who wants to come to us with a proposal,” CSX spokesman Meg Scheu said. “Currently, we’re not in negotiations with anyone about it.” Nationally, a rails-to-trails movement has removed 12,700 miles of abandoned track and converted the beds into cycling, running, hiking and multi-use paths. But so far, no Memphis government agency, neighborhood group or civic organization has emerged with any such designs for the line, said Jeff Ciabotti, director of trail development for the Rails to Trails Conservancy. Light rail is another possibility. “We’ve been tracking that for some time,” said Tom Fox, director of planning and capital projects for the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA). The authority’s current long-range plan for building light rail corridors doesn’t include this route. MATA did try without success to negotiate with CSX in the early 1990s to buy the line, Fox said. “They were asking an amount of money we couldn’t afford,” he said. The City of Memphis also tried and failed in 2002 to buy the section of track on the north edge of Shelby Farms. The city wanted to use the right-of-way for a new Shelby Farms road. The problem wasn’t price, but availability. CSX did not have federal approval to discontinue service in 2002. That came in May 2003, when CSX won a decision from the federal Surface Transportation Board. “The point right now is to preserve a corridor until a higher and better use comes along,” Scheu said. “We’d be interested in discussions with anyone who has ideas.” In 1997, MATA evaluated the line as a possible light-rail corridor. But Cordova’s low-density development is not the best fit for light rail, Fox said. “It doesn’t mean it couldn’t come back up later,” he added. One possible way to make light rail work in Cordova is to build a series of park-and-ride lots, he said. It’s possible that MATA could “land bank” the line, allowing a public trail on the right-of-way until light rail is developed, Fox said. Sometimes, there’s room for light rail and trails to share the right-of-way. Ciabotti of the Rails to Trails Conservancy said the community must decide if there is grassroots support to convert the line into a trail. “Based on support, it bubbles up to creating some sort of friends-of-the-trail organization that acts as the organizing entity,” he said. Grants to help develop such trails are available through federal transportation enhancements. The only existing rails-to-trail project in the Memphis area is the 1.7-mile V&E Greenline in Midtown. The Vollintine-Evergreen Community Association’s Community Development Corp. bought the abandoned L&N track from CSX for $15,000 in 1996, said Mike Kirby, treasurer of the V&E Greenline. The neighborhood took on the project as much to clean up the overgrown bed as to create a trail. “To try and replicate our group would be very, very difficult to do,” he said. The organization struggles to maintain 1.7 miles with donations and volunteers. Kirby also questions which local public agency would be willing to take on the project. “I don’t sense a lot of enthusiasm from the Parks Department of Memphis for this type of thing,” he said. “I think they are financially strapped for maintaining what they already have.”

Transit survey results: Others should ride Metro, but I’ll drive

Houston Chronicle May 8, 2004 Most Harris County residents support development of a better mass transit system — for other people. That’s one message that could be drawn from the 2004 Houston Area Survey, which shows that 58 percent of those interviewed would drive their cars to work every day even if better transit service were available. Eighty-six percent, meanwhile, said improved mass transit was very important or somewhat important for the Houston area’s success. These findings come amid a dramatic increase in concern about the area’s mobility problems. This year, 48 percent of those responding said traffic was the greatest problem facing the Houston area, up from 33 percent who named the issue last year. Traffic replaced crime as the top local concern in the 2000 survey and has held that position every year since. Stephen Klineberg, the Rice University sociology professor who directs the survey, said the level of public devotion to the automobile has not changed since 1985, when 60 percent of those responding said they would drive to work even if they had more convenient access to transit. The question was not repeated in the survey until this year. In one sense, Klineberg said, it is “pretty impressive” that more than 40 percent of Harris County residents would consider using transit as their primary means of daily travel. However, the lack of movement on this question over 19 years suggests that Metro and other transportation agencies face a challenge in educating the public about the advantages of using mass transit, Klineberg said. The opening of Metro’s first light rail line on Main Street, he said, may be a start toward development of a transit culture in one of the nation’s most automobile-dependent cities. “These figures suggest that this is an educable population, once they get used to the idea that transit is here,” Klineberg said. This is the 23rd consecutive year Klineberg has overseen the survey, which tracks the attitudes of Harris County residents on issues ranging from crime and the economy to immigration and affirmative action. The survey, conducted this year from Feb. 16 through March 1 by the University of Houston Center for Public Policy, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. People who grew up in Houston or elsewhere in the Southwest were more likely than others to be unwilling to give up their cars, Klineberg said. And respondents 60 or older were far more likely than younger people to be willing to use mass transit for daily trips. Klineberg called these findings “a reminder that there are many in this city who are too young, too old or too poor to drive, and they are the ones most in need of alternative forms of transportation.” Frank Wilson, Metro’s new president and chief executive officer who on Monday replaced the retiring Shirley DeLibero, said the sharp increase in the percentage of people naming traffic as the greatest local problem was not surprising. One problem, Wilson said, is that the development of job and residential centers scattered throughout the area is changing traditional commuting patterns, making it more difficult to predict when and where traffic will be congested. This represents a challenge for Metro, which must devise new strategies to deploy its various transportation modes — rail, buses, high-occupancy vehicle lanes — in the most effective way, Wilson said. Klineberg’s findings regarding attitudes about mass transit are good news for Metro, Wilson said. If 58 percent of Harris County residents are unwilling to give up their cars, Wilson said, that leaves 42 percent who are amenable to using transit for daily commutes. Today, only 7 percent of daily work trips in the Metro service area are made on mass transit. “I’m seriously encouraged by these results,” Wilson said. “I’m comparing 7 percent to over 40 percent, so my upside market potential is huge.” He acknowledged, however, that public education will be necessary if Metro’s planned transit system expansion — including lengthening the 7 1/2-mile light rail line into an 80-mile network by 2025 — is to succeed. “The real challenge is, how do we develop the transit habit?” Wilson said. “How do you become a legitimate alternative to the automobile?”

Silver Line, Urban Ring Don’t Excite Dukakis

The Boston Globe May 8, 2004 Supporters of public transportation don’t come any more genuine than our former governor, Michael Dukakis. So it was slightly surprising this week when, at a Harvard University panel discussion, he said he wasn’t excited about the proposed Urban Ring transit line or the partly completed Silver Line. What the area requires, he said, is “a first-class modern rail system,” one that would link Boston’s mutually isolated North and South stations. It wasn’t the first time Dukakis had endorsed that idea, but on Monday night at the Taubman Center for State and Local Government he was suggesting it could be the new objective of the Artery Business Committee. That’s the group developer Norman Leventhal and property owner Robert Beal and a few pals put together in the late 1980s to make sure the Big Dig didn’t bury business. A scholarly 60-page paper by David Luberoff, associate director of the Taubman center, reviews the history, contributions, and occasional failure of the Artery Business Committee. That group was extraordinarily busy behind the scenes, making sure detours worked, antinoise and dust-control plans were effective, planned ramps were locally acceptable, and enough money streamed in to finish the $14.6 billion task. It’s a readable mini-history of the project, sponsored by the Artery committee, the Taubman Center, and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. A headline on a Globe article about a draft of Luberoff’s report that leaked out in December: “Report says lobbyists muffled Big Dig criticism business group said to influence Kerry, others.” Though Artery Business Committee members and the final report describe those accomplishments including their effort to get Senator John F. Kerry to tone down his criticism in less sensational ways, they stand by them. “When the [Artery Business Committee] gets involved in an issue, it doesn’t let go,” Luberoff said. Committee chairman John Drew, president of the World Trade Center Boston and one of the panelists, said the group should not go out of business as the Big Dig rides into the sunset. But, he said, any new project it backs would have to be publicly supported, very specific, and “deliverable.” The Big Dig isn’t quite done, of course. That last part a park system and modest development along the corridor is turning out to be the toughest. The park designs are coming along, but despite three years of intense work no one knows who will own, fund, maintain, and oversee the new public space. A huge related issue how many buildings, of what size and for what use not only remains undecided, it has barely been mentioned in public. Representatives of EDAW, the design team for the central four blocks in the Wharf District, told us it’s such a hot issue it’s not one they’re going to deal with. So who is? Artery Business Committee members have always wanted more “activation” of the land. They “believe the plan called for too much parkland in relation to the number of people who lived, worked, shopped, or visited the area,” the report says. Clearly, if the leadership of the parks development wasn’t split between the feuding City of Boston and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, decisions on these matters might be forthcoming. The committee has made clear what business wanted; as Luberoff noted, the project done right was good for its members and ultimately “very good for downtown Boston.” David Lee, a partner at Stull & Lee Inc. architecture, said, “They got things done without fuss and bother,” but he added that others envied the business community’s clout. And wish it would focus on other worthy projects. It won’t be easy after the Big Dig experience. “It sucked all the air out of a lot of other things,” Lee said.

RAV line sent back to the drawing board; TransLink kills project, looks for cheaper option

Vancouver Sun May 8, 2004 TransLink directors killed the RAV line on Friday, saying the $1.5-billion Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project was a Rolls-Royce option while a Chevy 2 would do the job just as well. The regional transportation authority sent its staff back to the drawing board to come up with cheaper ways to build both a Richmond-Airport- Vancouver line and a second rapid transit line to the fast-growing northeast quadrant of Greater Vancouver. The RAV line was seen as a key project for Premier Gordon Campbell — a former mayor of Vancouver who failed two decades ago to make a similar project work — and it was his government’s highest-profile public-private- partnership project. Friday’s vote was to send the project to the “best and final offer” stage — negotiations to determine which of two remaining private consortiums would offer the best deal to build and operate it. After the vote, which went 7-5 against, a gloomy TransLink chair Doug McCallum predicted more than $1 billion in funding promised by the federal and provincial governments and the Vancouver International Airport Authority will be lost and said there is no hope of completing an alternative project before the 2010 Winter Olympics. Ottawa would have contributed $450 million. TransLink, the B.C. government and the airport authority would have paid $300 million each, and the rest was supposed to come from the private partner “RAV is dead now,” McCallum said. “At least in the short term you’re not going to see that money from the federal or the provincial government. “This is a huge lost opportunity. We gave away a billion dollars.” But some TransLink directors said the two senior governments can’t afford to be seen as punishing the region for making its own decisions. “Politically, it’s not going to be good for the province to yank $300 million out of the most populous area in British Columbia,” said Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, who voted for the line. Vancouver Coun. David Cadman, who voted against, said that by withdrawing the money, the federal and provincial governments would show they “weren’t really committed to public transit. They were committed to a public-private partnership.” B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon did not rule out a provincial contribution to another project, but doubted there were practical alternatives. “This project is dead,” Falcon said. “I’ve been very clear that TransLink was making an important decision. They needed to know that this decision will have consequences.” Falcon saw no possibility of another airport line being built before the 2010 Winter Games. “You can’t start at ground zero again and start thinking up alternative plans,” he said. “It was a project that had an enormous amount of time and energy and dollars invested into it and to do a U-turn at this late stage in the game is frankly bewildering and disappointing.” But Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who fought the RAV line tooth and nail, said there are better options. “I think an at-grade system will be far less risky, can be done far quicker and will deliver the same kind of service for the public,” he said. TransLink should start again from scratch and consider every possible route through Vancouver from Main Street to Arbutus, Corrigan said. Coquitlam Mayor Jon Kingsbury agreed, saying a light rail system would take only two or three years to build, and could easily be in place before 2010. Falcon said the provincial government will keep working with the regional transit authority but added: “It’s their decision. We’ll move on. We’ve got lots of other things we’re doing in the province of British Columbia, including the Kicking Horse Canyon, the Sea to Sky Highway and lots of other projects in the pipeline.” The federal government had a milder reaction. “We respect the right of local politicians to set their own priorities,” said federal spokesman Alastair Mullin, adding that the government was willing to look at new proposals “on a case-by-case basis.” Vancouver International Airport Authority president Larry Berg issued a statement saying he was deeply disappointed. He did not indicate whether the authority’s $300 million would be available for another project. The Vancouver Board of Trade asked Campbell to “seriously consider taking over [TransLink subsidiary] Ravco and directing that the work continue.” “Special interests have overridden the wishes of the people,” managing director Darcy Rezac told the premier. Legislation passed last fall lets the province override local governments on “provincially significant” projects. But the premier has said repeatedly it won’t be used on the RAV line. TransLink directors who opposed the RAV line cited not only its cost, but also uncertainty about who would pay for any cost overruns. Several warned there could be big property-tax increases in a worst-case scenario and that high-risk aspects of the project, like tunnelling under Cambie Street, could easily go over budget. Pro-RAV directors hinted they had been assured the private partner would bear the risk, but the negotiations were shrouded in secrecy to protect the consortiums’ competitive positions, and that message was never made clear. Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, a big supporter of the line, told board members they would get all the information they needed at the end of the best-and-final-offer process. But Corrigan said that would be too late. If TransLink tried to back out at that stage, it would open itself to litigation, he said. Some directors were still upset that the RAV line had been pushed ahead of a northeast rapid transit line, which originally was TransLink’s first priority because of rapid population growth in such places as Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody, but was later shouldered aside. “We’re still sitting on the sidelines out in the northeast quadrant,” Kingsbury complained. Kingsbury, who voted against the RAV line, called it “a Rolls-Royce. We’re way beyond Cadillac at this point.” Calling for the equivalent of an economy car like the Chevy 2, he said a light rapid transit system would make more sense. Kingsbury was one of three mayors who had been expected to support the project in earlier stages but opposed it on Friday. The others were North Vancouver City’s Barbara Sharpe and Pitt Meadows’ Don Maclean, who reminded the board that long-term regional strategies call for population growth in the northeast, not in Richmond. MacLean also complained about the provincial government interfering in TransLink business. The government set up TransLink to run regional transit in 1999, “and yet constantly, they are proposing how we can spend the few shekels that they hand out to us.” When rapid transit comes to the northeast, MacLean said he wants an at- grade system, not an underground one, so that motorists “sitting in gridlock in their cars, puffing fumes,” will see rapid transit cars “breezing by. I want them to starting thinking that maybe there’s a better way.” Larry Campbell, who worked hard for the project, urged his fellow RAV supporters to get over the defeat. “This is a train line, guys,” he told reporters. “This isn’t Armageddon.” TransLink has $370 million set aside for the RAV line and $400 million for a northeast line, he noted, adding that the federal money is not likely to go away and that the province might be shamed into stepping forward again. He agreed with Corrigan that light rail systems and different corridors — including the Arbutus corridor — could be reconsidered. Campbell argued the RAV line wasn’t sunk by Friday’s vote, but by “a steady erosion” of support over time. The perception that Richmond was jumping the transit queue, questions about money and the feeling that “the governments were meddling in municipal business” all contributed, he said. Campbell said he was not upset that Vancouver councillors Cadman and Raymond Louie had voted against the line. “There’s no animosity here,” he said. “I said to them, look, you vote however you want conscience-wise, you go ahead. It’s a non-issue for me.” B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair, who watched the vote, said Premier Campbell should take it as a message that British Columbians won’t be dictated to. “This is another example of Gordon Campbell’s ‘my way or the highway’ style of running the province,” Sinclair said. “It is not working. “You can’t build the province this way. I think people are sick of it. Whether it’s the Coquihalla or BC Rail or this, people want to have some say in what’s happening, and not to be bullied.” Partnerships BC chief executive Larry Blain said his agency was disappointed because “there was clear value for money” in the competing RAV proposals. “It is unfortunate that they could not have made this decision sooner and avoided a false start in the market,” he said. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce called the decision “a missed opportunity for the province which will have a negative impact far beyond the Lower Mainland.” Olympics organizing committee chief executive John Furlong said the vote won’t directly affect the Games. “A lot of people thought the RAV line was in the Olympic plan. It was not in the Olympic plan. It was always the strategy of the bid committee, because of the uncertainty of the RAV line situation, for us to develop a plan that we could control directly.” Furlong said his plan called for athletes, judges, media and Olympic officials to be moved around by bus, and that will still be the case. “We didn’t count on it,” he said.

Germans bid to run rail route

Yorkshire Post May 8, 2004 Two foreign firms in shortlist to operate East Coast line with promises of an improved service TRAINS on the key East Coast rail route linking Yorkshire with London could be run by the state-owned railways of Germany or Denmark within a year, it emerged yesterday. State-run German rail operator Deutsche Bahn (DB) and Danish national railway DSB are among four groups shortlisted by train bosses to run trains for up to 10 years from next May. DSB has submitted its own bid, while DB is working with Stagecoach and Virgin — which already run four British rail franchises. Current operator GNER and TransPennine Express operator FirstGroup have also been selected by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), which is responsible for deciding who runs train services in Britain. Passengers are now being promised the prospect of improved services by the shortlisted firms, while the SRA yesterday said bidders should build on services currently offered by GNER. But travellers will have to wait until later in the year to discover if 25-year-old trains will be replaced. The SRA will ask bidders to submit detailed proposals on the new rail franchise, which will include “affordable” options about trains. But details may only become clearer when a preferred bidder is announced, which will not be until the end of the year. SRA chairman Richard Bowker said the shortlisted firms were “strong players with considerable rail experience” and welcomed international participation. “The parties had to reach a high threshold to pre-qualify and we now look forward to inviting them to submit detailed bids outlining what they will do for passengers and taxpayers,” added Mr Bowker. The Rail Passengers Committee for North Eastern England said travellers were more concerned about having top-quality services than who ran them. Regional director Clive Gossop said: “The key factor in this process is not who but rather what the successful franchisee can deliver by way of passenger benefits which would include improved performance, reliability and service quality”. Mr Gossop added that the committee, which is based in York, was looking forward to talking to each of the shortlisted firms to ensure they understood the views of the region’s passengers. Stagecoach, Virgin and DB said they would make an “innovative bid” for the East Coast franchise that would include rolling stock and service improvements. Stagecoach chief executive Brian Souter added DB had a formidable reputation for quality. “The ICE passenger train in Germany has set new standards in European high speed rail and DB’s infrastructure experience is second to none,” he said. First chief executive, Moir Lockhead, said the company would be able to offer improved performance and integration with its bus and rail operations in the region to the benefit of passengers. GNER chief executive Christopher Garnett said: “There is a lot of good work to build on and much more to do. Our goal is to continue to be the best rail operator in Britain. We look forward to serving our passengers and communities on this flagship route for many years to come and to keep raising standards on their behalf”. Top European Firms Line Up FirstGroup: The transport giant’s interests spread across the country and cover bus and rail networks, including Yorkshire. The company began running the region’s TransPennine rail network, in partnership with French-owned Keolis, in February after winning the competition for the franchise. It also operates First Great Western, an intercity service linking London with the West of England and Wales. GNER: The train operator, whose parent company is Sea Containers, recently celebrated eight years of running trains on the East Coast Main Line. GNER has expanded the number of services operating between the region and London, and been praised for a focus on customer service. The company says it consistently achieves the highest passenger satisfaction rating of any long-distance operator and is spending £100m on overhauling trains and stations. GNER’s franchise is due to end in April 2005. Stagecoach, Virgin and DB: The three organisations have come together to make an “innovative bid” for the East Coast rail franchise and planning to capture other British intercity routes. Stagecoach runs South West Trains and Island Line, on the Isle of Wight, and has a 49 percent stake in Virgin Rail Group, which runs the West Coast and CrossCountry inter-city franchises DB carries 1.6 billion people a year and runs 30,000 passenger services each day, including Germany’s ICE high speed trains, which run at up to 180mph. The trio’s new joint venture intends to bid for other inter-city rail franchises in Britain. DBS: The Danish rail operator is an independent public corporation wholly-owned by the country’s transport ministry. It carries about 151m travellers a year and runs nearly 80 percent of passenger trains in Denmark. DBS also provides international services, particularly into Sweden. The operator also manages 270 station and is planning to renew its fleet of 243 trains.

Camden-Trenton: River Line Light Railway Gains Riders, Spurs Economic Development

Light Rail Now! website May 9, 2004 Southern New Jersey’s River Line light railway connecting Camden and Trenton with diesel-electric multiple-unit (DEMU) trains despite heavy criticism from naysayers, has nevertheless been a big hit with the public, and reportedly is attracting more riders than expected since it opened in mid-March of this year (2004). New Jersey State Transportation Commissioner Jack Lettiere told the state’s Assembly Budget Committee that the 34-mile interurban rail transit line that opened for revenue service March 14th has carried an average of about 3,000 riders per day on weekdays and nearly 6,000 per weekend day. [Trenton Times, 2004/04/07] The number of weekday riders actually matches the ridership projections by NJ Transit, but many opponents of public transport and rail transit, as well as other critics, doubted the system would draw that many passengers. “We’ve had more riders than any of us anticipated when we started” Lettiere told a Trenton Times newspaper reporter. The line’s trains run every half-hour from 06:00 to 22:00 (6:00 AM to 10:00 PM), except for Saturday, when trains run until midnight. NJ Transit officials hope to have trains running every 15 minutes by the end of May. [Trenton Times, 2004/04/07] Design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) project As noted above, the River Line light railway is 34 miles (55 km) in length, mainly paralleling the Delaware River (see map, below); it includes 20 stations and runs 20 light DEMU vehicles, either as single units or in 2-car trains. Each railcar, provided by Bombardier, seats 90 passengers and can speed up to about 60 mph. [Bombardier Transportation brochure, 2003] The project, sponsored by New Jersey Transit (NJT), proceeded as a design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) contractual project. As a result, actual costs are somewhat obscure to the public at large, and it is unlikely that published operational costs will be comparable with other US transit operations reported in the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database, because the River Line’s costs will probably include financing expenses and other capital-related costs costs which are routinely tabulated separately for most other US rail systems. (Such is the case with costs associated with the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit [LRT] system in North Jersey, also a DBOM project.) Light railway, but not light rail transit While the River Line is publicized as “light rail”, the system was installed without the electrification which characterizes LRT technology. This was intended to reduce the initial capital cost of the project (and to assuage local community resistance to a fully electrified LRT line). However, there is some question as to how much capital investment has actually been saved. With a capital cost reportedly of $1.1 billion, the unit project cost of the River Line comes to approximately US $32 million per mile ($20 million/km). For a project almost totally on pre-existing railroad right-of-way (with about a mile of street alignment into downtown Camden), this is roughly equal to the unit cost of full, electrified LRT systems or extensions constructed in similar alignments in recent years (e.g., Salt Lake City, Denver, St. Louis). (Veteran public transportation engineer E. L. Tennyson points out that new LRT lines in Denver and Salt Lake City, and the eastern extension of St. Louis’s LRT, constructed on railroad track or roadbed, averaged only $23 million per mile in cost, including rolling stock and maintenance/storage facilities. Even with seven percent added to cover inflation, these lines averaged only about $25 million per mile including Salt Lake City’s downtown street trackage similar to that of the River Line.) Nevertheless, one must take into account that NJT’s rail construction costs, on the whole, seem to be substantially higher than elsewhere. Thus it is likely that the River Line project cost was actually somewhat lower than what a full-fledged electrified LRT system might have cost NJT in equivalent circumstances. Differences from LRT While an affordable, attractive rail transit service has clearly resulted from NJT’s decision to compromise with non-electrified propulsion, the River Line’s DEMU system does appear to have significant drawbacks compared with electrically propelled LRT systems. It’s useful to review some of the more significant of these drawbacks, particularly as other transit systems are considering the River Line as a possible model for installation of some form of rail transit. There are important differences in the physical characteristics and requirements between an internally engine-powered light railway and true LRT the need for fueling facilities, for example, vs. LRT’s need for electrical substations, an overhead contact system, and other power- related infrastructure. Also, while the DEMU operation could ultimately prove to be a precursor to LRT in the corridor, conversion to standard LRT operation could prove difficult because floor heights for these particular DEMU railcars, at 584 mm (23”), necessitated higher-than-normal platforms for level boarding. This compares with 350-mm-high (14”) floors and platforms for standard lowfloor LRT. This will probably require substantial reconstruction if the line were to be converted for operation by standard LRT lowfloor cars. Per unit of length, significant capacity is also lost in the 30.6-meter (100.5- foot) DEMU railcars because 3.9 meters (nearly 13 feet) is consumed by the prime mover diesel engine (placed in the middle articulated section). The cars are also slow to accelerate 2.0 mph per second (0.9 m/s/s) compared with the typical rate of 3.0 mphps (1.3 m/s/s) for electric LRT cars, which have far more power available via the external power distribution system. This means that running schedules are somewhat slower, and more rolling stock is required to maintain schedules and provide needed capacity than would be the case with LRT. Yet, typically, a DEMU car costs more than a comparable LRT vehicle because of the extra cost of the diesel power plant (actual prices of the River Line DEMUs are buried in the DBOM costs). The slower vehicle capability may be reflected in the River Line’s average schedule speed. Trains are scheduled to make the 34-mile end-to-end trip in 73 minutes an average speed of 28 mph. While this would be considered relatively fast for urban LRT, it is slow for a predominantly suburban and rural modern light railway with station stops averaging about 1.8 miles apart. It should be noted however, that the line is somewhat hampered by very slow street running in downtown Camden and numerous grade crossings throughout the higher-speed alignment, where trains must often slow down as a safety precaution. E. L. Tennyson has performed a comparative analysis which underscores the significant differences in schedule speed between a light DMU or DEMU vehicle and an electric light rail vehicle (LRV). “An LRV would cover 34 miles with 20 stops in 60 minutes, plus three minutes for street delays in Camden” Tennyson observes. “That is ten minutes faster than diesel, worth roughly 30 percent in passenger volume at 3 percent more per minute saved.” Tennyson notes that “This rule of thumb comes from extensive tests run by Saint Louis Public Service Company years ago”, although, he adds, “Current modelling gives heavy weight to time saving, perhaps too much.” In contrast to the River Line running time, Tennyson notes, Bus Route 409, on a route parallel to that of the River Line, “takes two hours from Camden to Trenton over a longer route.” The bus service frequency is relatively high from Philadelphia to Burlington, but considerably less frequent from Burlington to Trenton. Thus, “The River Line has far better service than the buses.” Tennyson also observes that Bus Route 419 is closer to the River Line, but runs only from Philadelphia to Burlington via Camden, Palymra, and Riverside. According to Tennyson’s analysis, the River Line schedule beats the Route 419 schedule by half an hour to Camden, but by only 15 minutes, after factoring in a transfer for rail passengers, into Philadelphia. “Over 90 percent will prefer to transfer to save 15 minutes, based on Newark City Subway and other experience” Tennyson notes. He also predicts that “…bus service will have to be cut to avoid budgetary disaster.” Tennyson also emphasizes that it would be extremely useful “to know how many River Line passengers did not ride the bus.” Tennyson also takes note of NJT’s substantial reductions in ridership forecasts for the River Line, raising the issue of whether original performance assumptions for the diesel operation were excessively optimistic: “The original 10,000 estimate may have been based on a faster running time advertised by diesel proponents, but physically impossible. The 2,980 average weekday passengers by the third week suggest 5,960 after 18 months, which is exactly what NJT expected when they revised the estimate.” [E. L. Tennyson, personal calculations, 2004/04/24] Beyond the problem of schedule speed, perhaps the most serious drawback of DEMU operation seems to be higher operation and maintenance costs, which have been projected to be $21.5 million per year. The cost per annual vehicle operated in maximum service is roughly double that for electric LRT in general, and 2.5 times that achieved by the most efficient LRT systems. [Camden Courier-Post, 2003/03/06; calculations by L. Demery, Jr. and E. L. Tennyson, PE] Economic development benefits But, despite weaknesses compared with LRT, the light railway appears to be attracting its projected ridership, as reported above, and perhaps even more important achieving some of its economic development goals as well. As the Philadelphia Inquirer related earlier in the project in 2002, the line “has the potential to revive riverfront towns, generate development, boost businesses, and increase property values.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 26 Aug. 2002] “As with all light-rail lines, they’re business magnets, and wherever there are terminals, they tend to attract businesses” assessed Joel Naroff, chief economist at Commerce Bank. The strategic goal of the Southern New Jersey light railway, the Inquirer explained, was “to link communities along the Delaware River to employment centers and recreational venues in Camden and Trenton.” Today, upon its opening for service, the River Line appears to be fulfilling this objective. Retail businesses newly connected by the line have reportedly been experiencing a surge of customers. “As thousands of first-time passengers spilled off NJ Transit River Line trains last week,” wrote the Burlington County Times about eight days after the opening, citing “several local business owners”, “cash registers in restaurants and shops along the 34-mile light rail line got the heaviest workout they’ve seen on a Sunday in years ….” The paper gave several examples: [Burlington County Times, 22 March 2004] On the River Line’s first official day of operation March 14, business at Burlington Antiques and Art Emporium on High Street in Burlington City probably increased 20 percent, according to Scott Carlbon, the owner. In Bordentown City, the Farnsworth House restaurant was packed with twice as many diners as on a typical Sunday, according to Halil Gungor, the owner. In Riverside, just down the street from the new rail station, tables and bar stools at Madison Pub were hard to come by all day and night, according to Jon Aneson, the general manager. “We had the busiest Sunday we’ve ever had here,” Aneson said. “We also had the busiest Monday and the busiest Wednesday.” Some pro-LRT critics of the River Line have insisted that the non- electrified light railway project would somehow impair the case for expansion of bona fide electric LRT in the state of New Jersey. However, other LRT supporters argue that the River Line has actually expanded the range of debate over where LRT is appropriate in the Garden State. Will the River Line ultimately prove to be a precursor to true LRT in this corridor? With success in the form of continuing ridership increases and the stimulation of local economies, it seems well on its way. E. L, Tennyson emphasizes that, despite his critcisms of the weaknesses of diesel operation for this particular transit application, “the main issue is that [the River Line] runs, it saves transit time, people do like it, it serves backwater communities very well, and it will generate far more revenue when it gets a rational fare schedule after the ‘build-up’ period is over.” Tennyson insists that the current $1.10 fare is inappropriately low, and suggests increasing fares to a level (perhaps $2.20 to $3.30, depending on distance) more commensurate with the long trip lengths typical of a 34- mile line. Perhaps attention to good transit operations, adroit marketing, and the bottom line will ultimately help resolve many of the issues impacting the future of light railway public transport in the state.

Dismay Greets News Of T Delay; Extension Of Blue Line Is 12 Years Off, City Told

The Boston Globe May 9, 2004 For Lynn officials hoping to reap the economic benefits, the 50-year-old talk of a rapid transit extension of the MBTA’s Blue Line from Revere is still fresh and relevant, but that talk has grown stale for Revere’s top officials. The five Blue Line extension alternatives, most recently estimated to cost $700 million, are nearing the end of a federally-funded draft Environmental Impact Study. But word that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority faces another 12 years before construction starts has Revere officials rolling their eyes. The Blue Line extension “is never coming,” Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino said when news of the new timeline was received during a recent City Council meeting. “I’m not optimistic about this,” he said. “Seven hundred million dollars in two years will be $2 billion.” In a telephone interview later, Ambrosino said he was being practical with the council. “They’ve been talking about it for 50 years,” he said. “We’re supportive of Lynn, but is it going to happen? I cannot answer that question. I wouldn’t hold my breath.” In his presentation to the City Council April 26, City Planner Frank Stringi told city officials that the draft Environmental Impact Study, begun last year, is expected to be completed by the end of June. However, Stringi added that there is currently no money for a final Environmental Impact Study. MBTA representatives could not be reached for comment. When Stringi added that by MBTA standards a 12-year wait for a construction project is “medium-range,” councilors began to question the entire proposal. “Is this a white elephant, like the garage they built in Lynn?” Councilor at Large George V. Colella said during the meeting, referring to the underused commuter rail parking garage in Lynn near the North Shore Community College campus. In a later phone interview, Colella said: “I heard the same story 30 years ago when I was mayor. There’s been no progress.” Councilor Arthur F. Guinasso wondered at the meeting whether the Blue Line extension was “a dead issue.” Councilor Robert J. Haas Jr. said that extending the line to Lynn would benefit both communities “tremendously,” but expressed disappointment that “nothing has changed in 10, 30, 50 years.” Councilor John R. Correggio said he is also opposed to any talk of extending the Blue Line, complaining that the MBTA has raised parking fees in the Wonderland area without giving Revere residents a discount. Five alternatives to extend rapid transit service to Lynn are being studied in the environmental impact draft. One calls for the extension of the Blue Line to Lynn and Salem through the Point of Pines section of Revere. Another option would extend the Blue Line to Lynn along the existing Narrow Gauge rail line. The Narrow Gauge, formally known as the Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad, reached Lynn and was in operation until 1940. Ambrosino, as well as Stringi and some councilors, have said they are strongly opposed to the Narrow Gauge option. “It has too negative of an impact on our neighborhoods,” Ambrosino said. Another alternative is building a new commuter rail station near the Wonderland station and providing a so-called people mover to carry passengers between the commuter rail and the Blue Line. Stringi said this option is “the one with the least impact in Revere.” Ambrosino said he would support that option, because “it would provide for the easy delivery of a North Shore labor market” into Revere. The other two options include extending current commuter rail and bus services. When councilors asked Ambrosino if it would speed things up to ask the help of US Representative Edward J. Markey, the mayor said that was not a priority, since US Representative John F. Tierney, who represents Lynn, has been focusing on the Blue Line extension. The extension, Ambrosino said by phone later, is not a priority for Revere, but rather for the city of Lynn. Ambrosino and other Revere officials say that attracting new development around the Wonderland station area would be more feasible, especially after Governor Mitt Romney included in his smart growth agenda the creation of new residential and commercial centers on publicly owned transit land. Urban renewal of the Wonderland area would include a hotel, new housing, parking areas, and commercial developments, Ambrosino said. A successful Blue Line extension would reduce the number of cars that park in Revere, Colella said, describing the city as “an open-air parking lot for the city of Boston.” Reducing traffic, he said, would lead to fewer car accidents and lower insurance rates in Revere. But Colella said he has not seen any explanation of how such a project would help Revere’s economic development. “On the other hand, the expansion of the Wonderland area absolutely will,” he said.

N.Y. JFK Undergoing $10B Passenger, Facility Upgrades

Business Travel News May 10, 2004 The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey continues its redevelopment program at New York JFK International Airport, announcing late last month that it will build a new security fence around the rental car area and install a canopy along the walkway from the AirTrain JFK station at Federal Circle to a new dropoff area for hotel, airport and rental car buses. The agency last month also approved modifying New York JFK’s infrastructure to enable the airport to operate the double-decker A380 aircraft when it debuts in 2006. Work on the $2.2 million security fence and AirTrain canopy project is expected to begin this month and be completed in November. “The new fence at the rental car area will enhance a number of security measures already in place,” said Port Authority vice chairman Charles Gargano, “while the canopy that will be installed on the walkway will shelter travelers as they connect with AirTrain JFK, the new rail system that links the airport to the region’s public transportation system.” “These improvements will offer passengers safe, convenient and customer-friendly access to public bus stops and the rental car area, and represent just a small part of the $9.4 billion JFK redevelopment program,” added Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia. New and enhanced passenger terminals, improved roadways, garages providing more than 5,800 new parking spaces and “much more,” already have been completed as part of that program, noted Port Authority executive director Joseph Seymour. The agency already has made improvements to some AirTrain stations, including new directional and informational signs, additional ticket vending machines and flight information display monitors. The $1.2 billion automated light rail system opened last December. Meanwhile, JFK’s runway, taxiway and related infrastructure project, which will cost an estimated $179 million, will include strengthening taxiway bridges and widening runways. The series of improvements will keep JFK “in a state of good repair, while also preparing the airport for the next generation of quieter, more-efficient aircraft,” the 555-seat Airbus 380. Coscia said the agency will be able to “maintain JFK’s infrastructure while also meeting our mandate to accommodate passenger growth with larger aircraft instead of adding flights in the region’s skies.” Port Authority in April also announced completion of a record $1.07 billion in construction projects in 2003. “Last year, we implemented E-ZPass Plus at three airports and also broke ground on the ExpressRail facility at the Port Authority-Elizabeth Marine Terminal,” Coscia said. “Most notably, we invested $364 million to restore PATH service at the World Trade Center and Exchange Place stations, reconnecting New Jersey with lower Manhattan.” “We also awarded $465 million for new projects,” Seymour added. “Many of these projects are well underway, enhancing operations, capacity and security at our facilities.” For example, contracts have been awarded for airside improvements at Newark Liberty International Airport. Port Authority said it will “rehabilitate” roughly 10,000 feet of pavement on Newark’s Runway 4R-22L and replace lighting on the runway “later this year.” “We will conduct work on weekends and during nighttime hours when possible,” Seymour said. “The job also will require the closure of the runway for one 19-day period, and we will wait until the traditional summer travel season ends before undertaking this portion of the project.”

Bridge could handle light rail

Cincinnati Post 10 May 2004 If money ever becomes available for a light-rail commuter system that links Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky cities with the region’s suburbs, officials say the Purple People Bridge should be capable of handling the rail line. International bridge expert Abba Lichtenstein of Tenafly, N.J., who inspected the bridge and made recommendations for the bridge’s $4.5 million renovation, said the bridge, completed in 1872, “absolutely” could handle the light-rail cars. After all, a railroad company built the railroad portion to handle heavy loads. The problem, he and other officials noted, is the lack of money, which became a distant dream after Hamilton County voters in 2002 rejected a ballot issue to help pay for light rail by a 2-to-1 margin. Proponents said the money would have helped win federal and state money for a $2.6 billion light rail system that ultimately was to stretch from Northern Kentucky to Paramount’s Kings Island in Mason, Ohio. Without local matching funds to lure the state and federal money, “rail is basically — it’s in our long-range plan, but it’s a chapter in our long-range plan that are needed but can’t be funded,” said Allen Freeman, a spokesman for the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. Wally Pagan of Southbank Partners, the Northern Kentucky development group that partnered with Newport to create the non-profit Newport Southbank Bridge Co., which plans to take ownership of the bridge for free from Kentucky, said the need for a railroad bridge was a big reason his organizations coveted the bridge two years ago. His view today of the future of light rail on the Purple People Bridge? “A couple of years ago, I thought it would be real interesting,” he said. “Right now, it’s certainly delayed. And it certainly would have been an interesting use of the bridge. There would have been only room for one track, and that always was a little bit of an issue, but the first and most important issue is that funding isn’t available to make it work. “So I think that might be in the far future, rather than the short term.” None of the bridge’s recent improvements hurt the bridge’s ability to carry light rail, Pagan said. “It doesn’t rule it out,” he said. “We were much more aggressive about the ownership of the railroad bridge then than we are now. “It doesn’t mean that we won’t take it, but it certainly means that we’re not pushing as fast as we could.” Cincinnati City Architect Bob Richardson agreed the Purple People Bridge, formerly known as the L&N Bridge, could be used for light rail, as could the Taylor Southgate Bridge, which carries little vehicle traffic. “When we did Fort Washington Way, we always considered what we called Ramp LL by Great American Ball Park that comes down from Second Street,” Richardson said. “And one possibility was to have rail on Second and Third streets, and could be a connection down there that could go either to Taylor Southgate or to the L&N Bridge, and utilize the connection to Newport.”

New River Line hits sour note with horn; Neighbors are losing sleep and patience.

Philadelphia Inquirer May. 10, 2004 Marilane McCartney hears the train a-comin’. She hears it every half-hour from just after dawn to almost 10 p.m. Sundays through Fridays, and on Saturdays to 1 a.m. She has heard enough and is looking to move out of her Palmyra home. “It’s a boat horn,” says McCartney, 65. “You feel like you live on a foggy lake or ocean and that that’s what you’re hearing — a foghorn. “I decided I wasn’t going to live the rest of my life listening to that horn. I’m sad. I have a lot of friends, and my roots are here. But it’s just too jarring for me.” The horns of NJ Transit’s new Camden-to-Trenton River Line are waking babies, causing dogs to stir, and disrupting church readings. The situation could improve — or stay the same — depending on how new Federal Railroad Administration rules are implemented this year. When the line opened in cold and rainy March, the horns were not much of an issue. But as residents have opened windows to the warming weather, the 96-decibel horns have become a regular annoyance along the line’s 52 street-level crossings. Residents say the freight trains that have used the tracks for decades were not a bother because of their infrequency. Now, they say, even the freight trains, which run overnight, seem to be blowing horns more often. Coupled with the noise from the River Line, the din is driving them to distraction. Susan Fay, McCartney’s cousin, lives in Cinnaminson about a mile from the line. “The River Line horn is like listening to a chain saw or Jet Ski,” she said. “I think it’s the pitch and decibel level that makes it so grating.” Trains on the River Line encounter a grade crossing every six-tenths of a mile, on average, over the line’s 34 miles. Operators must start blowing horns 20 seconds before the approach to each crossing as a warning to motorists. The pattern is two long blasts, a short one, and a final long one. Riverton has established a committee to deal with the problem. The rub for many communities is that federal rules set to kick in Dec. 18 will supersede state or local regulations. The rules are an attempt by Congress to bring order to a part of the safety system that varies by state. They will require that locomotive horns be sounded as a warning to highway users at public highway-rail crossings, Federal Railroad Administration spokesman Warren Flatau said. The horns will sound at a minimum of 96 decibels, about the equivalent of listening to the Philadelphia Orchestra at the Kimmel Center, and a maximum of 110 decibels, or the equivalent of sitting in the front row at a rock concert. The new regulations will allow communities to establish horn-free zones, but the local government would have to ensure at its own cost that the quiet zones met safety standards. (River Line train operators ring trolleylike bells as the cars snake more slowly through downtown Camden and Burlington City, but in true quiet zones, trains would not sound at all.) When Riverton officials met in April with Federal Railroad Administration officials, “it was very disappointing,” Councilwoman Laurie Villari said. “It just seemed it would be very difficult to acquire this quiet zone.” Before establishing a quiet zone, a community would have to run statistics on current safety devices and accident histories of each crossing through a federal formula. William Henry Harris, chairman of Riverton’s ad-hoc committee studying the matter, said bringing grade crossings up to federal snuff could prove costly. He said information he had gathered suggested that the River Line’s crossing gates would have to be altered because the dual arms did not meet in the middle to prevent a car from going through. But Flatau, the federal spokesman, said the qualifications may not be so onerous. He said crossings installed for the new line could be sufficient, depending on circumstances, or may have to modified slightly. For now, a light-rail service that is drawing some people could be chasing others away. “I sell real estate, and it’s really difficult to sell houses down by the railroad,” said Nancy Washington of Riverton. “The horn has certainly made it impossible for us to remain” in Palmyra, McCartney said by phone from Florida, where she was looking at homes. “I really dread going back and listening to it. I just dread it.”

Fines, missed deadlines add up

Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada May 10, 2004 Las Vegas Monorail contractors racked up nearly $8 million in fines by late April and are being docked another $85,000 per day because of the rapid transit line’s late opening. ‘There is a total that’s running,’ said Todd Walker, a spokesman for monorail manager Transit Systems Management. The threat of fines began Jan. 20, the date the monorail’s builders, Bombardier Transportation of Montreal and Granite Construction of Watsonville, Calif., promised to have the line open to the public. After a 45-day grace period, the assessment of fines began, Walker said. As of April 20, roughly $7.8 million in fines had been levied, of which more than $2 million has been paid by Bombardier and Granite to the monorail’s owner, the Las Vegas Monorail Co., Walker said. The amount of the fine is roughly split between Bombardier and Granite, Walker said. Bombardier said it has been paying fines on a weekly basis and had bought an insurance policy to cover them. ‘Right now, we’re really focusing on getting the testing done and getting the system open,’ said Helene Gagnon, a spokeswoman for Bombardier. That’s been a challenge, as it has proved trickier than originally thought to outfit, test and open Southern Nevada’s first rapid transit line, using high-tech driverless trains. After January, officials aimed for a March 1 opening, then hoped for a service start before the end of March. Now, officials expect to have the system opened to fare-paying riders sometime before the end of the summer. The contract for Bombardier and Granite to build the monorail included bonuses if the rail line opened prior to Jan. 20, Walker said. The penalties were put in place to protect bondholders who bought $450 million in bonds that helped underwrite the $650 million project. The delay has not affected the bonds or the project’s overall finances. ‘We’re still under budget,’ Walker said. Regional Transportation Commission officials said about $120,000 in daily fare box revenues will be needed for the monorail to break even after it starts running. In recent weeks, monorail engineers have been handling software glitches on the driverless train system. ‘All of those have been resolved. We’re moving forward,’ Walker said. ‘We’re confident the system is opening this summer.’ Officials expect a demonstration period to start soon, Walker said. ‘We’ll operate the system as if it was open to the public,’ he said. After the system is open, monorail owners and builders probably will meet and decide whether the fine total is fair, Walker said. ‘We’re confident any financial considerations will be discussed and settled between the parties after the opening,’ Gagnon said. The 4.4-mile monorail line will run behind the east side of the Strip from Sahara Avenue south to Tropicana Avenue. Extensions are planned north to downtown Las Vegas and south to McCarran International Airport.

Indian Gas Sales Fuel Debate

Insight on the News May 10, 2004 For those in a position to take advantage of it, tax-free gasoline sold on some American Indian reservations is becoming more attractive as pump prices spiral upward. In New York state the advantages to those living near reservations where tax-free gasoline is sold have long been a matter of controversy. State officials have tried to push the claim that Indian sales should be only for the benefit of reservation residents. But American Indians say they can sell to all comers, and so they have. An investigation by the Buffalo News has produced revelations that may stir up enough debate to create a fresh demand for changes, though. The News found that suppliers headquartered on the St. Regis Mohawk reservation located on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border have been bringing tankerloads of cheaper Canadian gasoline into the United States. Since the Indians don’t pay taxes on their imports, one result is that during the last eight years they’ve beat the federal government out of $79 million in import taxes. If collected, the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gas and 24.4 cents tax on diesel would have gone toward federal highway and mass-transit projects. Of course, the Indians say they haven’t beat anybody out of anything; as a sovereign nation they’re not subject to U.S. taxes. Ultimately, according to the News report, the feds are probably losing $500 million to $1 billion in tax revenues on the imported fuel, when tax-free sales at reservation pumps are taken into account. Apparently it’s rare that stations buying the imported gas pass their savings on to customers; their prices tend to be the same as at other reservation stations selling U.S. gasoline. The Indians have a good thing going even without the cheaper imported fuel. They can buy U.S.-refined gasoline for about 55 cents less per gallon than nonreservation gas stations, since they don’t pay federal or state taxes on the fuel. They only knock off about 15 cents a gallon for the customer, though that’s enough to have wiped out any nearby nonreservation gas stations. Federal authorities say the tax-free import practice is illegal, and the IRS has filed liens against the distributors. But it’s rare that action against reservation activities proceeds with vigor, due to claims of sovereignty and treaty rights and the inclination of the Indians to protest such matters in a rather warlike manner.

The great return of the tram

swissinfo May 10, 2004 The tram circulates already in the historical heart of Bern. (Keystone) the tram returns �.la.mode to Europe a little everywhere. In Switzerland also, inaugurations and projects of new lines multiply. Zurich, Basle, Geneva or Lausanne are in particular interested there. In Bern, the people vote on May 16 on appropriations intended to increase the network. For a few years, the trams have recorded a true boom at the international level. Although the construction of a line of tram is more expensive than that of a line of trolley bus, the tram remains cheaper than the subway. But the tram still has other assets. It represents means of transport little pollutant and, downtown, appears more practical and more rapid that the bus. Member of the Service of information for public transport (Litra), Tony L�chinger still finds another advantage there: modularity. “a tram is composed of several coaches and can quickly be lengthened, like a train. The subway always keeps on the other hand the same length, whether it is full or empty. As for the buses, it can as well as possible be doubled.” Fate of the tram in the ballot boxes May 16, the citizens of the town of Bern are called with the ballot boxes to come to a conclusion about a credit of 47,5 million francs intended to build a line of trams connecting the center of the city to the Western periphery. For the hour, this line is served by increasingly crammed buses. For the municipal authorities, the new tram is essential not only to face the surge of passengers, but also to give an economic impulse to all the area. “It acts of an investment which will have long-term effects, declares Bernoise Simonetta Sommaruga, senator at the federal Parliament and president of the Foundation for the consumer protection. A good urban infrastructure also brings benefit for the rural zones.” The construction of a new shopping centre and multi-uses is also envisaged at the beginning of the line. “If there is a congress in this center, with thousands of people to be transported in little time, the tram would represent the best solution”, explains Tony L�chinger. But, taking into account the bad public financial statement, the opponents (among whom one finds even inhabitants of the periphery) estimate that the project is “a nondesired gift, an exaggerated luxury and an unrealizable dream”, as the committee of opposition declares it animated by the cantonal deputy bernois Thomas Fuchs (right UDC/lasts). Projects in all the country At all events, of Bern, before even knowing the result of the poll of May 16, one thinks already of another line of tram, towards the periphery this time. There too, it is a question of replacing crammed buses. The movement in favour of the tram relates to in fact all Switzerland. Geneva has just inaugurated the line 13 which connects the station of Cornavin to the Place of the Nations, and envisages to give the green light the next year to a new line. In Zurich, work is about to begin to build a line in Glattal, a zone considered as most dynamic economically of the canton. Among the other projects in progress, Basle envisages the prolongation as of the its lines towards Weil amndt Rhein (Germany) and towards Saint-Louis (France). But the most ambitious project probably and that of Lausanne, where one is preparing the building site of the “M 2”, which will be the future spinal column of regional public transport. From 2007, the “M 2” should transport 70’000 momentary per days and thus reduce the North-South road axis of the agglomeration lausannoise. Cost of the operation: 590 million francs. Between “perspicacity” and conservatism Often quickly put side at the time of the arrival of the automobile traffic — because regarded as a foreign body with the road — the tram makes its great return today. Not only in Switzerland, but also in Germany, in the Netherlands. Or in France, where the trams had disappeared a little everywhere. But they reappeared in Nantes, Lyon, Grenoble, Strasbourg, Rouen and in the periphery of Paris. Projects were also launched to Italy, to Spain, to England and in the United States. By a kind of “perspicacity” or perhaps thanks to a conservatism which appears sometimes providential, the principal Swiss cities always maintained their network of trams. In the Sixties already, their utility was not disputed any more. There are however exceptions. In Lugano and Locarno, it is in the Sixties precisely that the trams ceased existing. But today in Tessin, where the ozone smog and rates exceed the critical point regularly, the situation of the urban traffic is one of worst in the country. It does not remain about it less than Switzerland enjoys an undeniable experiment as regards trams. Recently, the French city of Grenoble organized a voyage to Zurich for its tradesmen. The goal: their to show that the tram which, contrary to the subway, circulates with the free air, makes it possible to the passengers to see the windows… and to go down to make purchases. In short, an argument moreover to rediscover its utility.

Personal Rapid Transit House Votes Down Borrowing

Pioneer Press May. 11, 2004 The House on Monday soundly rejected an attempt by Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, to let local governments borrow money to build their own personal rapid transit systems. The Issue: Olson and other supporters of the futuristic transit concept — which would run three-person pods above city streets on an elevated track — have been pushing the Legislature to boost personal transit by spending tax money to build a test track in Duluth, giving personal rapid transit projects tax breaks and letting local governments bond to build their own network. Minneapolis has been contemplating such a system. Olson had won early approval of the bonding provision, but it was removed later in committee. On Monday: Olson tried to resurrect the bonding provision by attaching it to a larger bill — but was shot down by a bipartisan group of lawmakers who pointed out that local governments would have to repay any borrowing for personal transit through property taxes and that Wall Street would slap “junk bond” status on such a project.

‘Clunky’ monorail columns examined

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER May 11, 2004 In Ballard the new monorail support columns could be 4 feet in diameter, at a point where the rails would be 25 feet in the air. In the Delridge area, approaching the West Seattle Bridge higher in the air, they could be 7 or 8 feet thick. Can they be smaller? To hear everyone talk after a City Council meeting yesterday, the answer seemed to be: We all hope so. But there were no guarantees. Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, an architect by trade, raised the question during a council discussion of monorail design issues. He said Seattleites, before approving the new $1.7 billion system, were told it “would have a more sleek design” than the existing, 42-year-old version. “Everything they’ve shown us so far continues the clunky, heavy-looking obstructing columns, even bigger than the current ones,” Steinbrueck said. He urged monorail official to reduce the size of the columns. “I don’t have a precise figure (for size) but I would say as small as technically possible and as cost-effective,” he said. He told monorail officials the size of the columns “could be meaningfully reduced” by using stronger grades of concrete and reinforcing steel for the columns. Yesterday’s meeting was one of several the council will hold to discuss monorail issues before a vote on the entire alignment, probably in June. Members must approve the alignment and conditions for building the monorail above city streets, before construction can begin. As for the columns, monorail officials said they’ve had to enlarge some of them because they’ve heeded neighborhoods’ requests to elevate the rails higher above ground. But there’s a good possibility the columns could be smaller, once the successful construction bidder finishes the design for them. The initial design has raised the rails 5 to 10 feet higher than they originally were, which means the columns had to be slightly enlarged to account for wind stresses and greater risks in earthquakes, said Tom Horkan, the monorail’s design and construction director. The higher the rails sit, the larger the supporting column must be. Ultimately, it will be left to the successful contractor to decide whether it makes sense to reduce the column sizes, Horkan said. Other issues the council members raised for later resolution included: SECOND AVENUE: How to position the monorail guide rails on this part of the route, between Stewart and South Jackson Street. Council members voted last week to require the rails to be at least 14 feet from buildings on Second, which will require decisions about how to straddle utilities located in the center of the street. Options for accomplishing this include eliminating either a bicycle lane, parking, or one traffic lane. The city’s Department of Transportation is to study the problem and report back to the council. CALIFORNIA AVENUE, WEST SEATTLE: Council members asked city transportation officials to come up with other ideas that would keep the trains further from the buildings, though haven’t yet set the same 14-foot minimum clearance as on Second Avenue. A clearance requirement was left to another meeting. Rails and columns could move further east into the street but Horn said that also could eliminate parking. Monorail officials said the trains will run at higher elevations than the roofs of almost all buildings along the route segment and mostly out of view. But two structures would be 7.5 feet from the trains and 7 more would be 10 feet from the trains, monorail officials said. 15TH AVENUE NORTHWEST: Trains would run as close as 5 feet from buildings on the west side of the street, where the monorail agency proposes to put it. Council members again said that’s not acceptable and asked for more study.

DOWNTOWN FUNDS GO PFFFT There’ll Be Little Left For Rebuilding After PA & Lawyers Get Paid

Daily News (New York) May 11, 2004 In some cities, $100 million would buy a revitalized business district. In New York, it buys you legal fees. In some cities, $2 billion would buy a gleaming new mass transit system. In New York, it buys a whistle stop for 35,000 commuters from across the river. This is the harsh new math chomping away at the resources for rebuilding lower Manhattan, threatening to leave the city’s fractured skyline in a state of permanent incompletion. The bid to win a double payment from insurers ended in a recent courtroom rout, placing downtown’s destiny under a colossal cloud. Officials say the single $3.5 billion payment won’t be enough to erect more than one of the five buildings planned for Ground Zero. But even using the highest estimated redevelopment cost — $350 per square foot — the insurance cash should fund construction of three towers. Unfortunately, the Port Authority et al. have other designs on the money. The attorneys representing Larry Silverstein will make off with a preposterous $100 million for losing the case over the insurance payments. That’s chicken feed compared with what Ground Zero’s unquenchable owner, the Port Authority, will be taking from the settlement. The agency is entitled to more than $100 million every year in rent from Silverstein. “A substantial piece of the project’s cost structure is maintaining the Port’s cash flow,” said one insider. But the PA also will exact hundreds of millions more to fund a warren of underground roadways it has planned for Ground Zero. Fine, but when do we get our buildings? The PA persists in its boondoggle plan to sink nearly $2 billion in federal disaster funds into a lavish PATH station to handle just one-seventh the passengers that Grand Central does. A pared-down $1 billion station, still mighty lavish, would leave enough funds to build the Freedom Tower plus two more. This unhappy mess overflows with ironies. Few know that the Port Authority is insured for only $1.5 billion for its fat portfolio of bridges, airports and buildings. Had 9/11 occurred six weeks earlier, before Silverstein signed his 99-year lease and bought billions in additional coverage, the PA would have been woefully underinsured. Now, in addition to having collected nearly $1 billion from its own policy, the PA is calling the shots on how to spend Silverstein’s $3.5 billion. Meanwhile, the proceeds from the $100 million-a-year rent go largely toward paying back the billions the PA borrowed to develop its enormous Port Elizabeth and Port Newark shipping facilities. The irony here is that while pumping up those ports over the last 40 years, the PA scuttled New York’s own thriving shipping industry. The supreme irony is that so much of the federal disaster aid and insurance money will be used to build down — the underground station and roads — rather than up. What happened to those grand post-9/11 pledges to rebuild lower Manhattan? New Yorkers weren’t told the pledges were contingent on winning a shaky court case against 24 insurers. Nor were we told that the Port Authority would take hundreds of millions off the top of the reconstruction fund to pay debts on its other facilities. Or that New Jersey would exact $2 billion for a purposelessly palatial train station. New York was promised — by President Bush and by Gov. Pataki — that downtown would be rebuilt. In most people’s eyes that meant, first and foremost, replacing the twin towers. A new plan emerged with not just two buildings, but five. The city embraced it, only to now find that just one lonely spire is sure to be built. The other four will have to wait. And while they may never be built, they will, in their theoretical form, continue to pay their rents to the Port Authority.

Two options for city’s JFK link

Real Estate Weekly May 12, 2004 A state feasibility study said that the recommended approach for the JFK rail link would be to build a new tunnel under the East River between Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, creating direct service from the World Trade Center to the Long Island Rail Road’s Jamaica Station. Gov. George E. Pataki, speaking at an Association for a Better New York luncheon at the Ritz Carlton in Battery Park City, last week announced the results of a coordinated study on a new rail line between Lower Manhattan and both Long Island and JFK Airport. The new tunnel would allow for a 40% faster commute from Jamaica for Long Island commuters and will provide a one-seat ride to JFK Airport. The study was conducted by the LMDC, MTA, Port Authority and New York City EDC. The Agencies’ recommended approach of constructing a new tunnel will make the commute time from Long Island to Lower Manhattan fifteen minutes faster (a 40% time savings from Jamaica); allow for predictable, scheduled service; and offer a one-seat ride from JFK airport. The construction of this option makes extensive use of existing infrastructure from the Jamaica Station to downtown Brooklyn and would provide service to the Port Authority’s World Trade Center Transportation Center with a pedestrian connection to the MTA’s Fulton Street Transit Center. The direct connection from Jamaica to Lower Manhattan will eliminate the need for Downtown’s Long Island commuters to travel to Penn Station and transfer to the 2/3 subway. As a result, congestion on this subway line will be relieved. The rail link will also provide improved service between Downtown Brooklyn and the LIRR hub at Jamaica, Queens. The new tunnel will add much needed capacity to the region’s transit system and has the potential to provide a future East River connection for the Second Avenue Subway or the E Train. The two finalist approaches are:

New Tunnel Recommended Option — Service between Jamaica & Lower Manhattan and JFK & Lower Manhattan using: the AirTrain/JFK route, the converted Atlantic Branch, new tunneling in Brooklyn, a new East River tunnel, and new tunneling in Manhattan.
Montague Tunnel (Currently serves the M & R subway lines) — Service between Jamaica & Lower Manhattan and JFK & Lower Manhattan using: the AirTrain/JFK route, the converted Atlantic Branch, new tunneling in Brooklyn, the existing Montague Street Tunnel, and MTA-NYCT Broadway and/or Nassau Line. Using existing infrastructure in Manhattan, this service would allow stops at Broad Street, Fulton Street Transit Center and Chambers Street and would likely be a more affordable alternative.

Fines Or No, Short Trains Persist

The Boston Globe May 13, 2004 In Singapore, where we worked the better part of the 1990s, we learned to appreciate the efficacy of a fine country. The modern Southeast Asian city-state must have a fine for every misbehavior, every wrong, and it does not hesitate to wield the stick. (An American teenager, Michael Fay, was famously caned in 1994 for vandalizing cars, but that’s for another column.) The idea is to make transgressors pay, and make the fines hefty enough that wrongdoers are not inclined to repeat the misbehavior. So fine-fearing folks don’t speed, don’t spit on the sidewalk, don’t jaywalk, and don’t forget to flush the public urinals. As Draconian as it is, we can’t say the system doesn’t work. Folks, for the most part, behave as the authorities want. So it was with that in mind that we thought the fines imposed on the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail Co. in March for running trains with fewer than the requisite number of cars would force the company to comply. The MBTA fined MBCR, which operates the commuter rail system, $2,000 for running two peak-hour trains without the contracted number of coaches. Howard , a regular passenger on the 7:40 a.m. train from Mansfield to Boston (route number 806), had complained to the T, saying the overcrowding caused by the shortage of cars had made his ride uncomfortable and dangerous. In one incident, a woman slipped and fell on the platform getting out of a crowded car. In the other, an ill passenger apparently fainted in a crowded car. The T responded by hitting MBCR with the fines, $1,000 for each peak-hour train that didn’t comply with the contract. When we wrote about the situation April 1, we thought the fines would do the trick. We thought wrong. Patty of Mansfield wrote last week to report the 806 is still showing up short of cars, forcing commuters to start their day standing all the way to Boston, cramped and cursing their lot. “The commuter train has come to Mansfield a car short both yesterday and today (May 4 and 5), as well as several times between the date of your article and the instances this week,” said Patty. “It is the same express train each day (7:40 a.m.) that is more often than not a car short. This is the most heavily traveled commuter line in Eastern Mass., not to mention that it is the most popular train because it is express from Mansfield to Boston. Both days I was stuck in the vestibule between cars with about 10-12 other people standing shoulder to shoulder with barely enough room to breathe. I don’t know for a fact, but can only imagine that many people write to the MBTA as I do asking them to stop sending the trains a car short and if anything they should consider ADDING a car to that particular train. It’s all us commuters talk about each and every time the train comes this way into Mansfield station.” Patty, who works in Boston and has been taking the train for three years, added: “The monthly pass for this Zone 6 train pass is $181 per month. I can’t believe this is what I am getting for my money (not to mention the $2 per day to park).” We can’t believe it, either. We called MBCR last week, and spokeswoman Tara Frier was very apologetic, as she was in March when we first asked about the 806. “Basically, we have been having problems with that train,” she said. “There’s no question about that.” While Patty says the 806 has been short every Monday, at least, since April 1, Frier said the company’s reports show three days April 2, April 5, and May 5 on which the 806 had only six single coaches rather than the required seven. All other times, it had at least five or six double-decker coaches running, exceeding the seven-car minimum, she said. In any case, Frier said, the occasional shortage is temporary. She said cars on the 806, particularly the older, single-deck ones, have had to be taken out for servicing frequently, partly because their wheels need replacing. But MBCR is still waiting on new ones from the supplier, she said, and until they arrive, the 806 will sometimes be short a car. “It shouldn’t be very long. Hopefully, it’s in the next few weeks,” she said. This week, said Frier, MBCR deputy general manager Stephen Urban will ride the route “several mornings” to hear from commuters who wish to vent. “Unfortunately, our passengers are right,” said Frier. “The 806 is one of our most popular trains, and any bump in service does have a major impact.” We couldn’t immediately determine the number of times and amount MBCR has been fined by the MBTA for running trains short of contract since April 1. But, said Frier, “Obviously, it’s in our best interest to lower the amount of fines.” We trust so. But we suspect those $1,000 fines tend not to be as effective on companies as they are on individuals, who cannot take the hit and pass the pain to consumers.

DRPA studies 2 routes for mass transit expansion to Glouco

Camden Courier Post May 13, 2004 Next week the Delaware River Port Authority is expected to dig a little deeper to pay the balance on a $600,000 feasibility study to extend mass transit in the region to Gloucester and Cumberland counties and Center City Philadelphia, with stops along Penn’s Landing and the Camden Waterfront. Originally bid at $450,000, the study is expected to be released formally in the fall followed by a second round of public hearings. Then, the bistate authority will hire a new batch of consultants to assess the various options set forth in the first study. The second study is expected to cost $2 million. Two routes between Camden and Glassboro that are under review are: An 18-mile line via Interstate 676 and routes 42 and 55 where it would be located in the median. A 16-mile line along existing right-of-way through Gloucester City, Woodbury and Pitman. While the first is projected to be cheaper ($1.5 billion to $2.3 billion) because it would travel through virgin land, it would require land acquisition for parking. The second ($1.8 billion to $2.7 billion) would offer convenient service to established communities. Phase Two is a 22- to 24-mile run to Millville that could cost between $300 million and $450 million. John Matheussen, executive director of the bistate authority, said he is determined to follow procedural guidelines precisely in order to secure federal funds. Ideally, the federal government would contribute 50 to 60 percent of the cost. In today’s dollars that is estimated to be between $2 billion and $3 billion to Millville, plus $500 million to $900 million to Philadelphia. DRPA has no real timetable for the Glassboro-to-Millville leg, but if “everything goes right,” the Camden-to-Glassboro link could be running in 10 years. Matheussen, a former state senator from Gloucester County for 12 years, knows first hand of the rush-hour gridlock along Route 42, and Interstates 295 and 676. He also believes he knows what his former constituents want. “The last time there was a plan to expand the PATCO Hi-Speedline, Gloucester County residents made it clear they wanted what Camden County had, a high-speed, fully separated line like PATCO that ran very frequently. They did not want one that ran at grade level through their intersections.” When Gloucester County residents told PATCO officials to stay out of their towns eight years ago, South Jersey lost $1 billion in mass transit money to North Jersey. Since then congestion has worsened and emphasis in mass transit has shifted deeper into the suburbs to serve burgeoning commercial and residential growth. Gail Meister, 54, of Washington Township, would welcome more transportation options in Gloucester County. “I took a job for less money because I refused to drive routes 42 and 295 every day,” Meister said. “Everything around here is dictated by traffic. Depending on the time of day, it can take 40 minutes to go three lights on Route 42. If it rains, double that. Every house seems to have three or four SUVs parked in the driveway because it is the only way to get around.” Since the 14.2-mile PATCO line was built 35 years ago, population in the eight counties that constitute the Delaware Valley has grown 5 percent to 5.4 million people, according to the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Automobile ownership has increased 30 percent, the commission says. Matheussen does not want Gloucester County to be a two-time loser of mass transit funds. “People in South Jersey deserve this,” he said. “PATCO is our only mass transit rail line while the state funds all kinds of mass transit in the North. But unless we present it right this time, we won’t get it.” High on Matheussen’s list is public input. The last time the idea was hatched in Trenton and it never received grass-roots support. As a result, DRPA continues to offer a traveler’s survey on its Web site (www.drpa.org) to encourage feedback on pushing mass transit deeper into South Jersey. Another round of public hearings on the subject will be held in the fall. Robert Box, PATCO’s general manager, said PATCO has the experience to run a new line, but it is unclear so far how management and ownership would be structured. Philadelphia improvements are likely to be extensions of SEPTA’s subway-surface trolley system along Market to Front street and ultimately to the former Navy Yard, rather than a PATCO extension. This time next year the DVRPC plans to rank the 15 or so major transit projects that are under discussion in the region according to feasibility and viability. “If they don’t make the list, they don’t have much of a chance,” said Don Shanis, DVRPC’s Transportation Director. The commission supports PATCO’s expansion to Glassboro, but it is reserving judgment at this time on structure. Above grade, like PATCO, costs substantially more than at-grade. It also is silent on DRPA’s long- range goal of expanding into Millville, an economically challenged destination. As for timing, Shanis said it’s a good time to “do homework,” because there’s very little money available now for new projects. Projects like this can take a long time and go through a series of false starts, he said. “The only way to succeed is to continue making your case so that when all the ingredients are lined up, you’re ready to move,” Shanis said. “Success depends on good leadership, good analysis, demonstrating favorable impacts on the economy and landscape and proving there will be lots of winners once it’s complete.”

Interstate MAX line sees strong beginning; The trains, which are drawing nearly 13,000 riders a day, have a high on-time rate, officials say

May 13, 2004 TriMet’s new Yellow Line rail on North Interstate Avenue earned good marks for on-time performance and ridership in its first 10 days of routine operations. After opening weekend crowds of more than 20,000 and 16,000 on May 1 and 2 rode for free, rider totals on the new 5.8 mile rail line are running just below 13,000 a day. TriMet has set a goal of 13,900 daily passengers after one year. “We’ll surely hit or exceed that (goal),” Bob Nelson, TriMet operations director, told the transit agency’s board of directors on Wednesday. Nelson said on-time performance of the new line is “quite high” that that there have been no major safety or security problems in the opening days of the $350 million line. The Yellow Line runs between downtown Portland the Expo Center in North Portland. Nelson said he expects to see rider totals drop slightly in coming weeks as “novelty” riders drop off, then start to climb as new riders discover transit options. He also said bus lines in North and Northeast Portland that were reconfigured to coincide with opening of the rail line are showing about 2,500 additional boardings a day. Nelson said most of the increase has been on the No. 6 line that now crosses the Columbia River to Vancouver. Park-and-ride lots at the two northernmost stations, Expo Center and Vanport/Delta Park, are far from filling their combined 600 spaces. Nelson said about 100 cars a day are parking at Vanport, and about 50 at the Expo Center. “It’s beginning to increase,” he said of the total. Like the Blue Line between Hillsboro and Gresham and the Red line to the airport, the Yellow Line uses the Steel Bridge to enter and leave downtown. Nelson said additional trains using the bridge have not caused jams or delays. Fred Hansen, TriMet general manager, said the most significant problem is the pedestrian traffic at the Rose Quarter transit station. Riders changing buses or trains may have to cross several lanes of bus, automobile and rail traffic. “If pedestrians would obey traffic signals, we’d have no concerns,” Hansen said. “But there are lots of places to cross without obeying traffic signals.” Hansen said many pedestrians push buttons to activate walk signals, but then cross streets without waiting for the signal to change. He said signals might be adjusted at some crossings where the wait appears to be too long.

Louisville’s light-rail project placed on indefinite hold

Lousiville Courier-Journal May 13, 2004 After nearly a decade of discussion and $9.9million in environmental studies, the $661million Louisville light-rail project is effectively dead. The reason? No money and little political will. Barry Barker, the executive director of the Transit Authority of River City, delivered that news yesterday to a stunned audience of 70 people, most of them supporters of light rail. The project will be “packaged and preserved for sometime in the future when the economy turns around” and there is more support, Barker said during a meeting about light rail. Its environmental and preliminary engineering studies will shut down this summer, he said. Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson, who did not attend yesterday’s meeting, said in an interview afterward that although he was disappointed, “it’s time for a reality check.” Current state and local budget shortfalls — coupled with the Bush administration’s focus on rapid-transit buses rather than light rail — made the project ill-timed, he said. The light-rail line would have run from the Snyder Freeway, along Interstate 65, into downtown, with stops at major employment and education centers such as United Parcel Service and the University of Louisville and major attractions such as Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Fair & Exposition Center. It also would have transported passengers to and from the airport. TARC funded a $1.5million study in 1996 on light rail’s feasibility. It was followed by an $8.4million environmental impact study that has been held up by the Federal Transit Authority in Washington, D.C., because of a lack of state or local government funding for the project. The agency also thought that the 18,000 to 23,000 light-rail riders TARC expected daily was too high, Barker said. Velvet Snow, a spokeswoman for the federal agency, said in a phone interview that until the state or local government commits money, the project cannot proceed. Abramson said that Louisville leadership and citizens are focused on the $1.9billion Ohio River Bridges Project to build two new bridges connecting Louisville and Southern Indiana while reconfiguring Spaghetti Junction, where three interstates converge near downtown Louisville. “The funds simply are not there to build two bridges and light rail,” Abramson said. TARC now will focus on improving bus and transit services — such as starting a high-speed bus route linking the University of Louisville Belknap campus with the downtown medical campus, Barker said. “What we are not doing is losing any of the enthusiasm to find out what folks in the greater Louisville region need in terms of places to live and transit,” he said. Members of the light-rail work group — known as Transportation Tomorrow — who gathered at Union Station for yesterday’s meeting were upset that the project was being shelved. Some shook their heads in disappointment. “It’s not so much the economy as politics,” said Ed Hammond, his voice rising. Several in the room applauded. Hammond said U.S. Rep. Anne Northup, R-3rd District, never supported the light-rail project. “She’s got two bridges,” he said. “Where is she now?” Hammond said he doesn’t see any “visionary leadership” regarding transportation in politics in Louisville, and by continuing to build roads and widen interstates “we are not solving the (congestion) problem” but only curing it for the short term. In a telephone interview, Northup said she has consistently opposed light rail. Light rail makes sense in large cities such as Boston or Washington, but she questions whether it would succeed in Louisville, she said. Too many other large projects — including the bridges and moving families affected by noise at Louisville International Airport — already are competing for federal money, she said. David Blank, a retired professor and a member of the light-rail work group, said at yesterday’s meeting that he also was skeptical of light rail and endorsed better bus service. He said light rail has not been successful in other cities, prompting other members of the working group to shake their heads in disagreement. David Peterson, president of Louisville Central Area, which promotes downtown, said the metro government must keep the light-rail project alive. He said that in San Diego many people at first laughed at light rail. Now, he said, neighborhoods are jockeying to get light rail built in their communities. Ron Weston, who represents the Fairdale community on Louisville Metro Council and who attended yesterday’s meeting, said he strongly supports light rail. The most successful cities in the United States are those with good public transit, he said. Weston, a Democrat, warned that once light rail is “taken off the table … three or four more items are put on the table” — and light rail becomes a thing of the past. Louisville businessman Bill Stone said if light rail is to be revived, Greater Louisville Inc., the metro chamber of commerce, must rally behind the project as it did the bridges project. He also suggested that instead of building an east-end bridge, Louisville should build light rail. “The reality is the downtown bridge and light rail if you want to get something done in our lifetime,” he said.

Hitachi confirms 6 Japan cos to jointly bid for China high-speed train upgrade

AFX European Focus May 13, 2004 Six Japanese firms plan to bid for a project to upgrade China’s inter-city trains by introducing Japan’s shinkansen or bullet train technology, a spokesman for Hitachi Ltd said, confirming a newspaper report. The six — Hitachi, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Electric and three trading companies, Itochu, Marubeni and Mitsubishi, will mount the bid as a consortium with Chinese rolling stock maker Nanche Sifang Locomotive, the spokesman said. “China wants to boost the speed of its trains as part of its ongoing efforts to improve infrastructure and we would like to offer our shinkansen technology,” the spokesman. If the Japanese firms win the bid, expected to take place no later than the end of this year, it would mark the first transfer of Japanese shinkansen technology to China, he said. “With this project, we hope to prove to China that Japanese shinkansen trains are good and reliable,” he said. Hitachi and Kawasaki Heavy are already among some 40 Japanese firms bidding for a multi-billion dollar high-speed rail line project between Beijing and Shanghai based on bullet train technology although no date has been set for awarding the contract. “We hope this six-way bid will lead to another big order,” the Hitachi spokesman said, referring to the Beijing-Shanghai line. He said that if the six firms win the upgrade order, they would base it on a modified version of Japan’s Hayate bullet train used in northern Japan, which runs at up to 270 kilometers per hour. “Although we are initially planning to bring shinkansen trains from Japan, we are considering transferring train technology to Nanche to produce trains locally,” he said. The project covers five railway lines stretching over more than 2,000 kilometers. They include a line between Beijing and the city of Shenyang, the northeastern industrial hub. For the Beijing-Shanghai railway project, the Hitachi spokesman said the Japanese firms are not going to ship trains from Japan but to build them in China “from scratch.” Japan is competing against rival systems from France and Germany on the project. The Japanese shinkansen service, first introduced in time to showcase the country’s technological prowess during the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games, has trains reaching speeds of up to 300 kilometers an hour in scheduled service. In October 2005, the service will make its overseas debut in Taiwan after a seven-member Japanese consortium including Hitachi, Mitsubishi Heavy and Toshiba won a multi-billion dollar contract there.

US Growth Helps First’s Pre-tax Rise; Happy Man: Results Put A Smile On Chief Executive’s Face: First Group chief executive Moir Lockhead

Birmingham Post May 13, 2004 Rail and bus company First Group said it had seen continued strong growth in its North American business as it posted a one percent rise in pre-tax profits. The business increased operating profits by 3.5 percent to pounds 63.5 million during the year to March 31. Overall group profits before one-off items and goodwill rose to pounds 161.3 million from pounds 159.8 million, while bottom-line profits fell 5.5 percent to pounds 92.2 million. In its UK rail division, First said it was well positioned to benefit from rail re-franchising despite recent setbacks and a 19 percent fall in profits to pounds 49.8 million. The company runs intercity operations First Great Western (FGW) and TransPennine Express as well as First North Western and First Great Western Link regional and commuter services. It has been shortlisted for four rail franchises including East Coast, Scotrail, Northern and Integrated Kent. The firm lost its First Great Eastern (FGE) franchise to National Express on April 1. It has also faced a Competition Commission inquiry into its bid for Scotrail, which found that a takeover of the franchise by First would harm competition and would need to be subject to conditions. The group described the rail division’s performance as strong despite the profits fall, which it blamed on a subsidy reduction at FGW, increased franchise payments at FGE and higher National Insurance (NI) and pension costs. During the year, the group acquired GB Railways, which runs GB Railfreight and non-franchised passenger operator Hull Trains. It said it planned to expand the railfreight business, while its franchise bids offered ‘excellent prospects’ for future growth. The company said its UK bus division, which is the country’s largest bus operator with a market share of about 23 percent, saw profits fall slightly to pounds 111.2 million. It called the performance ‘particularly pleasing’ as the division had absorbed pounds 12 million of extra NI and pension costs. The group said average bus speeds in the capital had improved by about 15 percent as a result of reductions in traffic delays following the congestion charge. Urban operations outside London continued to grow as a result of marketing initiatives and partnerships with local authorities, it said. Chief executive Moir Lockhead said the group was in a strong financial position to maximise growth opportunities. ‘I’m extremely confident about our future prospects,’ he said.

Work at border crossing nearly done; Relief, concern cited over transit project

The San Diego Union-Tribune May 14, 2004 SAN YSIDRO — For the past 2 1/2 years streets were filled with dirt, trolley tracks were torn out and fences blocked construction areas, but now the mess is nearly gone. Workers are about to complete a $25 million transit and pedestrian project at the border. Daily border crossers have become accustomed to the disruption caused by the San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center project, designed to help ease traffic for bus and trolley riders. While some locals who live or have business in the area are relieved the project will be complete by mid-June, others are concerned with problems they say were introduced during construction and old ones that may continue to linger. Others, however, say they fear traffic in the area may be worse because people will be confused by the new layout. They say pedestrians who pay no heed to new signals at busy intersections are accidents waiting to happen. Still others say they cannot believe that at the world’s busiest land-border crossing, over which 140,000 people travel daily, and at the city’s busiest transit center, which sees 22,000 passengers daily, there is no permanent police station nor are there any public restrooms. “We have a big, big bathroom issue,” said Israel Adato, president of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. “How can you have such a large border entry point and have no place for people to relieve themselves, except behind the buildings?” Officials with the former Metropolitan Transit Development Board (now Metropolitan Transit System), the agency building the 5-acre project, say it will change the look of the border and make it a much nicer place. Previously, the border was a free-for-all of pedestrians, bicycles, buses, jitneys, delivery trucks, taxis and the trolley — all on San Ysidro Boulevard, a crowded, two-lane roadway divided by the trolley. Pete d’Ablaing, the transportation engineer in charge of the project, said he understands the community’s concerns since the project originally was supposed to take 18 months. He said there were several problems, such as underground utilities not being where they were supposed to be, that pushed the schedule back. D’Ablaing said the project, when completed, will offer visitors a spacious pedestrian plaza with bus shelters, ticket booths, new signage and lighting, decorative paving, a turnabout for access to local transportation carriers and landscaping that includes 30 new queen palm trees. D’Ablaing said there will be a learning curve for drivers and pedestrians in the area. He said crews will work over the next three to four weeks to make adjustments to the timing and direction of traffic signals. D’Ablaing said MTDB’s policy has always been that it does not provide restrooms it must maintain in transit projects. In the case of Old Town, MTDB worked with agencies who agreed to maintain restrooms it provided. “At the Old Town station, state parks officials maintain the restrooms,” d’Ablaing said. “We were always willing to provide restrooms (in San Ysidro) but there was never a budget or anybody with a plan.” Regarding the police station, d’Ablaing said the intermodal project will provide a concrete pad, ready for water and sewer hookups, which will allow San Diego Police to build a permanent station with a private bathroom, if a future city budget allows. Until then, police will continue to work out of a trailer near the turnabout. Local transportation carriers say they have concerns of their own. At least nine San Ysidro-Tijuana shuttle companies have gone out of business since construction began. Some attribute the shut-downs to more than the intermodal project, saying higher insurance rates after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and stricter regulations in Mexico contributed to the problem. However, Manuel Mendivil, vice president of the area’s oldest shuttle service, Mexicoach, said the problem began with construction of the intermodal project. Shuttles were relocated to the second-to-last stop on the system’s Blue Line. “We’re in the tourist business,” said Mendivil, who also is the secretary of the Border Transportation Council. “People get off at San Ysidro, the closest station to the border. If you’re not there, they’re just going to walk across.” Other carriers say they are concerned about who will manage 10 bus bays that were created as part of the intermodal project. Originally, MTDB officials planned to use the second floor of a building on San Ysidro Boulevard that houses a McDonald’s as a bus terminal. But the project never got off the ground. D’Ablaing said MTS is overseeing a plan to find a company to manage the bus bays, which may be used for any of the local carriers. Three bids for the bus bay management were submitted, including one from the Border Transportation Council. A decision is expected by the MTS board May 27, d’Ablaing said.

Brief news stories from Las Vegas

Las Vegas SUN May 14, 2004 LAS VEGAS (AP) — Administrators of the Las Vegas Monorail have been given federal approval to begin designing a 2.3-mile extension, from the Las Vegas Strip to downtown. The first phase of the project, a 3.9-mile stretch that runs along the Las Vegas Strip, has been built at a cost of $650 million and is undergoing testing. It was to begin service in January, but is now expected to open sometime this summer. Monorail officials said federal Transportation Department approval to begin phase two designs is a step toward obtaining $160 million in federal grants. The $454 million extension would also be funded with low-interest federal loans, funds from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada funds and funds from the sale of bonds repaid by fares and advertising. Officials say work could begin by the end of 2005, with the new segment opening in 2008. Environmental studies are due begin on a third monorail segment that would connect McCarran International Airport.

A Crude Shock

New York Times May 14, 2004 By PAUL KRUGMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST So far, the current world oil crunch doesn’t look at all like the crises of 1973 or 1979. That’s why it’s so scary. The oil crises of the 1970’s began with big supply disruptions: the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war and the 1979 Iranian revolution. This time, despite the chaos in Iraq, nothing comparable has happened — yet. Nonetheless, because of rising demand that is led by soaring Chinese consumption, the world oil market is already stretched tight as a drum, and crude oil prices are $12 a barrel higher than they were a year ago. What if something really does go wrong? Let me put it a bit differently: the last time oil prices were this high, on the eve of the 1991 gulf war, there was a lot of spare capacity in the world, so there was room to cope with a major supply disruption if it happened. This time there isn’t. The International Energy Agency estimates the world’s spare oil production capacity at about 2.5 million barrels per day, almost all of it in the Persian Gulf region. It also predicts that global oil demand in 2004 will be, on average, 2 million barrels per day higher than in 2003. Now imagine what will happen if there are more successful insurgent attacks on Iraqi pipelines, or, perish the thought, instability in Saudi Arabia. In fact, even without a supply disruption, it’s hard to see where the oil will come from to meet the growing demand. But wait: basic economics says that markets deal handily with excesses of demand over supply. Prices rise, producers have an incentive to produce more while consumers have an incentive to consume less, and the market comes back into balance. Won’t that happen with oil? Yes, it will. The question is how long it will take, and how high prices will go in the meantime. To see the problem, think about gasoline. Sustained high gasoline prices lead to more fuel-efficient cars: by 1990 the average American vehicle got 40 percent more miles per gallon than in 1973. But replacing old cars with new takes years. In their initial response to a shortfall in the gasoline supply, people must save gas by driving less, something they do only in the face of very, very high prices. So very, very high prices are what we’ll get. Increasing production capacity takes even longer than replacing old cars. Also, major new discoveries of oil have become increasingly rare (although in my last column on the subject, I forgot about two large fields in Kazakhstan, one discovered in 1979, the second in 2000). Petroleum engineers continue to squeeze more oil out of known fields, but a repeat of the post-1973 experience, in which there was a big increase in non-OPEC production, seems unlikely. So oil prices will stay high, and may go higher even in the absence of more bad news from the Middle East. And with more bad news, we’ll be looking at a real crisis — one that could do a lot of economic damage. Each $10 per barrel increase in crude prices is like a $70 billion tax increase on American consumers, levied through inflation. The spurt in producer prices last month was a taste of what will happen if prices stay high. By the way, after the 1979 Iranian revolution world prices went to about $60 per barrel in today’s prices. Could an oil shock actually lead to 1970’s-style stagflation — a combination of inflation and rising unemployment? Well, there are several comfort factors, reasons we’re less vulnerable now than a generation ago. Despite the rise of the S.U.V., the U.S. consumes only about half as much oil per dollar of real G.D.P. as it did in 1973. Also, in the 1970’s the economy was already primed for inflation: given the prevalence of cost-of- living adjustments in labor contracts and the experience of past inflation, oil price increases rapidly fed into a wage-price spiral. That’s less likely to happen today. Still, if there is a major supply disruption, the world will have to get by with less oil, and the only way that can happen in the short run is if there is a world economic slowdown. An oil-driven recession does not look at all far- fetched. It is, all in all, an awkward time to be pursuing a foreign policy that promises a radical transformation of the Middle East — let alone to be botching the job so completely.

Struggling to Get Back on Track; Union Pacific deals with major congestion as the improving economy brings more cargo through Southern California

Los Angeles Times May 14, 2004 Union Pacific Corp. is struggling again to be the engine that could. For the second time in six years, the nation’s largest railroad is dealing with major congestion problems, particularly in Southern California. The snags have delayed deliveries of everything from imported car parts to paper products, aggravated its customers and eroded its earnings. Union Pacific blames the logjams on train crew shortages, combined with an unexpectedly big jump in freight volumes generated by the rebounding economy. A surging flow of cargo through the region’s huge agriculture and trade sectors overwhelmed the railroad this spring. About one-quarter of Union Pacific’s freight either originates in Southern California or ends up here. The railroad said Thursday that it was adding 4,000 workers to bridge the shortfall and that the bottlenecks were starting to clear. Union Pacific’s sprawling switching yard in west Colton, about 50 miles east of Los Angeles, “has been functioning normally” in the last three or four days, said Robert Turner, a spokesman at Union Pacific’s headquarters in Omaha. But some shippers continued to grumble about delays. “I wouldn’t say it’s fluid yet, that’s for sure,” said Randy Armstrong, grain division manager at Agri-feed Industries, an Imperial County distributor of animal feed products. Agri-feed takes corn and other feed off Union Pacific cars and distributes it to livestock firms. Union Pacific delivers the feed from Iowa and Nebraska, along with myriad other freight picked up elsewhere, to its El Centro switching yard for sorting, a process that normally takes a day or two. Lately, it has taken up to two weeks, during which Agri-feed’s supplies — along with tons of other freight — sit idle less than two miles from the company’s terminal in the city of Imperial, Armstrong said. The service backup “is as bad as I’ve ever seen it,” he said. “I have a bunch of angry customers.” Steve Stewart of Dana Point has been tracking Union Pacific’s logjams. The president of Interwest Commodities buys cotton seed, grain and other products for sale to California dairy farms, filling hundreds of rail cars a month with orders that he monitors online. “We would watch UP traffic from east to west and see groups of cars bunching up in places like Fort Worth and Tucson,” he said. “Or unaccountably, a whole batch of cars would just stop for days, or go meandering through the countryside.” Such frustrations prompted Union Pacific Chief Executive Richard Davidson to agree to meet with customers Monday in San Francisco to discuss the gridlock. Davidson, a career railroader, also was running Union Pacific the last time it suffered system problems in 1997-98. This time, the snarl came during the slow season for Southern California’s enormous ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach. And so far, it hasn’t seriously affected retailers’ inventories or shortchanged consumers, analysts said. Yet in the summer and fall, the ports’ volumes will surge 30% or more as Asian goods arrive for the back-to-school and holiday seasons, and some observers fear that the increase will overwhelm Union Pacific and disrupt the economy if the bottlenecks aren’t fixed. “We’re concerned that if it’s this bad now, will it be that much worse at peak season?” said Art Wong, a spokesman for the Port of Long Beach. Union Pacific expects to be ready. In an open letter to customers last week, Jack Koraleski, the railroad’s executive vice president for marketing and sales, said Union Pacific would “continue to do whatever we can to improve our service.” The railroad has asked some customers to shift their business to trucks or delay shipments to alleviate the strain. And it canceled a nonstop train dedicated to hauling United Parcel Service Inc.’s packages from Los Angeles to New York, to free the flow of other goods. Toyota Motor Corp.’s U.S. sales arm in Torrance said it had experienced delays with moving engines and other vehicle parts out of Southern California. But Toyota is putting those parts on trucks, and “it’s not a huge difficulty — yet,” spokesman Greg Thome said. The bottlenecks have affected some commuter lines. Metrolink’s Los Angeles-to-Riverside train has seen delays because it runs on Union Pacific-owned track, Metrolink spokeswoman Sharon Gavin said. About 3,450 miles of Union Pacific’s 33,000 miles of track are in California. The only other major freight railroad in the state is Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. The congestion is reminiscent of a massive service breakdown Union Pacific experienced after it acquired Southern Pacific Rail Corp. in 1996. That crisis began at Union Pacific’s big Houston complex and spread west, clogging Southern California’s ports and delaying shipments. The debacle cost the railroad and its customers more than $2 billion, analysts estimated. Union Pacific’s current problems began when changes in railroad retirement laws prompted more of its workers to retire last year than the company had expected. Union Pacific also had kept hiring to a minimum as the economy remained flat. Then late last year, the economy rebounded more than Union Pacific and many of its shippers expected. “When the volume began to pick up, we just didn’t have the people,” spokesman Turner said. The snags added $90 million to Union Pacific’s costs in the first quarter, and its profit plunged 62% from a year earlier to $165 million, despite a 6% increase in revenue to $2.9 billion. The congestion probably will damage the railroad’s second-quarter financial performance, and “a complete recovery will probably not occur until 2005 or beyond,” analyst James Valentine of Morgan Stanley said in a note to clients last month. The railroad’s stock, which traded near $70 a share in January, has been slumping as the congestion woes mounted. Shares rose 74 cents Thursday to $57.52 on the New York Stock Exchange. But Union Pacific vows to get back on track, and to be better prepared next time. “Going forward,” Turner said, “our belief is that we need to really plan on [economic] surges.”

Jakarta Signs Deal For Monorail

Laksamana [Indonesia] May 14, 2004 Less than six month’s after the launch of a controversial busway public transport system that was supposed to reduce Jakarta’s chronic traffic congestion, investors have now signed a deal to build a monorail in the national capital. PT Jakarta Monorail, a consortium of Indonesian, Japanese and Singaporean investors, will build two monorail lines worth Rp5.5 trillion ($600 million), Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso said Friday (15/5/04) after the signing ceremony at City Hall. He said work on the project will commence either late this month or early next month and should be completed in 2006. The two monorail lines covering 27 kilometers will be operated by the consortium for 40 years, he added. Among the companies involved in the consortium are PT Indonesia Central Transit, state-owned construction firm PT Adhi Karya, Singapore Technologies Electronic Ltd, Sembcorp Engineers and Contractors, and Hitachi Asia Ltd. The consortium’s financial partners include Hong Kong-based Banca Intessa, Banca d’Italia (Bank of Italy), DBS Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and AON Risk Services Center. Previous deals to develop monorails collapsed because of poor planning, alleged corruption and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Not for the Poor Sutiyoso said tickets for the monorail will cost between Rp3,500 and Rp7,500 (40 cents and 85 cents) depending on the distance traveled. Although cheap by Western standards, the tickets will be beyond the reach of many of the city’s 11 million residents, who already regard busway fare of Rp2,500 as too expensive in comparison to cheaper fares of older buses. Nonetheless, Sutiyoso took pleasure in describing the concept of monorail as most of the city’s residents have never seen a single track, elevated transport system. He said the “flying train” would reduce pollution and traffic congestion because it would be powered by electricity and not take up any space on the streets. The governor said the two monorail lines would be able to carry an estimated 10,000 to 30,0000 people per hour. Green Line & Blue Line The monorail’s two routes referred to as the Green Line and Blue Line will serve 30 stations. The Green Line will circle 14.3 kilometers around the city center’s so- called Golden Triangle area, serving stations to be built at (or nearby) the following locations: Casablanca, Hotel Grand Melia, Satria Mandala (the Armed Forces Museum), Kusuma Chandra Apartment, Jakarta Police Headquarters, the Jakart