Bid on Beacon Hill tunnel and stations runs 17 percent over budget; Sound Transit suffers more sticker shock
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
May 15, 2004
Sound Transit and tunnels. It’s been a bad combination in the past, and yesterday it was again.
A much-anticipated bid for tunneling through Beacon Hill and building the Beacon Hill and McClellan light rail stations came in 17 percent over the engineer’s estimate.
Obayashi Corp., a Japanese company with a U.S. office in South San Francisco, was the apparent low bidder at just under $280 million. Sound Transit’s estimate for the work, not revealed until yesterday, was $238.6 million.
Though he was disappointed at the bid, Sound Transit Light Rail Director Ahmad Fazel said he’s still confident the 14-mile light rail line from Westlake Center to just short of Sea-Tac Airport will come in under its $2.1 billion budget.
That’s because of contingencies built into the budget, because other bids have come in under the engineer’s estimates and because most of the remaining contracts are less risky.
Including yesterday’s Beacon Hill bid, Sound Transit so far has received bids on about $641 million of work — work it had estimated would cost $653 million. So even with the high bid yesterday, the work for which it has received bids so far — a little more than half the actual construction on the project — is still 2 percent below engineer’s estimates.
If Obayashi is confirmed as low bidder, it could be drilling on top of Beacon Hill by August, Fazel said. That would be the vertical shaft to take riders down to the station 155 feet below ground. The mining of the train tunnel through Beacon Hill wouldn’t begin for another year, because it would take the company that long to order and assemble the massive drill.
Working below ground is considered the riskiest and most expensive kind of construction there is, fraught with uncertainties.
When a tunnel through Capitol Hill came in hundreds of millions over Sound Transit’s estimates four years ago, the agency was sent reeling. Top officials departed, a key federal government grant was suspended, and many supporters lost confidence. Sound Transit subsequently shortened its 21-mile line to 14 miles and said it would go south first and tackle the north work later.
The agency is scheduled Thursday to select a potential route north from downtown to the University District and then Northgate. Most of that eight- mile route will be in a tunnel. That gave special significance to yesterday’s bid opening.
Can Sound Transit get it right in estimating tunnel work?
Sound Transit had indicated confidence in recent weeks that bids on the Beacon Hill work would come in under or at least close to its estimates. The agency had even drilled a test shaft on Beacon Hill to reduce the unknowns about soil conditions. Fazel said he was not sure why Sound Transit’s estimate was so low.
One possible reason was that only three companies were in the bidding on the highly specialized work, making the bidding less competitive than other contracts.
Also bidding on the Beacon Hill work was a joint venture led by the Kiewit company of Omaha, Neb., which bid $305 million. A third company, an Italian joint venture led by Impregilo, had applied to bid on the Beacon Hill work and was found qualified by Sound Transit to do so but did not submit a bid.
Steel prices recently have been escalating sharply, but Sound Transit had included an extra $4 million for that risk. It also included $13 million extra for dealing with unexpected soil conditions.
Fazel said his staff will delve into the bids to find out where the differences were and apply the lessons to estimations for the north line.
At its meeting Thursday, the Sound Transit board is also expected to discuss whether to join in on a multibillion-dollar regional road and transit measure for the November ballot. If successful, the measure would raise around $1 billion for the planned line north.
But some Sound Transit board members have expressed uneasiness that the agency has not yet done 30 percent of the engineering on the north segment. The agency’s official position has been that it cannot produce reliable cost estimates until that threshhold is reached. The news yesterday could produce more jitters about trying to estimate tunneling costs for the north line.
Yet to come on the initial segment between downtown and the airport are bids for the Tukwila segment of the line, for the retrofit of the downtown transit tunnel and the construction of the Pine Street stub tunnel, and for systems work, which includes power stations and communications.
Most of the Tukwila work is elevated and much less risky than the Beacon Hill tunneling, Fazel said. It’s estimated at $200 million to $250 million. The downtown tunnel work is estimated at $70 million to $80 million. The systems work is expected to cost up to $120 million.
Obayashi has done major tunnel, bridge and road work around the globe, including in Los Angeles, Boston and San Antonio.
|
9 Bergen towns sue NJ Transit over new track plans
Bergen Record
May 15, 2004
Nine Bergen County towns have sued New Jersey Transit because of its plan to lay new railroad tracks to increase service on the Pascack Valley Line.
Oradell, Emerson, Hillsdale, Montvale, Old Tappan, Park Ridge, River Edge, Westwood, and Woodcliff Lake are named as plaintiffs in the complaint filed last week in Superior Court in Hackensack.
The proposed rail sidings are in Oradell, Hackensack, Teterboro, and Nanuet, N.Y. A railroad siding is a set of parallel tracks that allows trains to pass each other from opposite directions. The current layout allows trains to travel only one way in the morning and the other way in the evening.
The municipalities say in the complaint that the change would harm the environment, cause traffic jams, and impair emergency response.
Specifically, Oradell Avenue — which sees 30,000 vehicles per day — would have more delays due to more trains crossing the street, the complaint states. It also raises concerns over the siding’s close proximity to the Oradell Reservoir, a water source for 750,000 New Jersey residents.
The lawsuit is “ a way to protect ourselves until we get some answers,” Oradell Mayor Frederick T. Lamonica said. He said officials in the affected towns have several questions that New Jersey Transit has failed to answer, such as will freight train traffic increase?
Another concern is that emergency vehicles will have trouble responding if the trains are backed up on the tracks.
Woodcliff Lake Mayor Joseph LaPaglia said the sidings and an increase in freight train traffic “could negatively impact the ability of emergency services vehicles — police, fire, and ambulance — to access specific parts of the town.”
The borough, like many along the Pascack Valley Line, is bisected by the tracks. Police, fire, and ambulance teams come from the west side of town, LaPaglia said. “But we also have residents on the east side. With numerous-car freight trains, it could cause delays in emergency response time.”
A call to New Jersey Transit was not immediately returned.
In a February meeting with officials from the area, transit representatives said the $25 million to $30 million project was tentatively scheduled to begin this summer.
|
BAY AREA; Parks, transit agencies gird for big hit; Schwarzenegger counting on millions from BART, others
The San Francisco Chronicle
MAY 15, 2004
AC Transit, BART, the East Bay Regional Park District and dozens of other Bay Area agencies will be forced to send millions of dollars to Sacramento to close California’s budget gap, a loss they warn could force services to be slashed.
The park district, for example, will lose $17 million for each of the next two years, about 25 percent of its operating budget, under provisions in the revised state budget that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released Thursday. “This is absolutely devastating,” said Pat O’Brien, the district’s general manager. “There is almost no way to handle such an impact.”
Other special districts face equally harsh cuts. AC Transit, which has had to trim bus service and raise fares in the past year, now will lose about $20 million a year to Sacramento. The budget deal will cost the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District about $5 million annually, while BART will be losing $9.1 million a year.
Even a tiny mosquito abatement district that serves Marin and Sonoma counties expects to lose $575,000 of its $2.3 million annual operating budget. “We’ve already tightened our belt to the point where our eyes are popping out,” said Linton Johnson, a spokesman for BART, which already is considering layoffs to cover a $42 million deficit. “I don’t know where we’d find the money. We’ll have to look at fares, service, layoffs, everything.”
The multimillion-dollar charges result from an agreement Schwarzenegger reached this week with local government groups, including counties, cities and special districts. In exchange for letting the state take $1.3 billion of local property tax money in each of the next two years, Schwarzenegger agreed to back a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would bar Sacramento from ever asking for that local money again. “With this agreement, I am keeping my promise … to ensure that local governments have a reliable revenue stream to pay for local services,” Schwarzenegger said.
While the permanent cap on state takeaways, which would take effect in the 2006-07 budget year, is welcome news for local governments, they’re scrambling to find a way to get through the next two years.
It’s especially tough for the state’s 2,300 special districts, most of which provide just a single service, such as water, sewer, transit, fire protection or the like.
Most special districts will be asked to send the state either 25 percent or 40 percent of their property tax revenue, with districts that can collect more money from their customers, such as water users, facing the bigger hit.
Although it’s going to be tough to find the money, the two-year tariff could turn out to be a bargain in the long run, said Catherine Smith, executive director of the California Special Districts Association.
“In January, the legislative analyst proposed taking $400 million a year from special districts, ongoing,” she said. “The new agreement calls for giving up $350 million for two years in exchange for the constitutional amendment. “The issue is how to get through the next two years,” Smith said. “But we have to keep our eye on the prize, which is we’ll never have to do this again.”
Not all Bay Area residents will be treated equally by the state budget agreement. San Francisco’s Municipal Railway, for example, is financed from the city budget, while SamTrans, which serves San Mateo County, gets its money from fares and local sales tax, not property tax. Neither transit agency will feel the direct effect that AC Transit and BART will.
Some local residents will see the state’s money come directly from their pockets. The Contra Costa Water District, for example, will lose 40 percent of its property tax money and expects that water users will be asked to make up much of the difference.
“As a utility, we’re providing an essential service; we just can’t stop providing water on one or two days a week,” said Kurt Ladensack, assistant general manager. “If we pass along the cost to our customers, it’s tantamount to a tax increase.”
But the East Bay park district has no way to raise more money, while AC Transit “will find this extremely hard to deal with now,” said Mike Mills, a district spokesman.
The East Bay in general, with a number of large special districts, will be one of the state’s hardest-hit areas under the new budget plan, said Smith, the head of the special districts association.
A number of agencies already have appealed for help from the Legislature, which still has to approve Schwarzenegger’s budget. “I understand everyone has to participate, but this is unfair and has to be revisited,” the park district’s O’Brien said. “The state budget should not be balanced on the back of the East Bay.”
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, already has promised her help. “AC Transit’s cuts would be the equivalent of all its weekend service,” she said. “I’m hoping that the East Bay (legislative) delegation will be able to get together and work this out.”
|
Tunnel estimate $41 million short; Beacon Hill’s porous soils require additional light-rail work
The Seattle Times
May 15, 2004
The Ice Age has come back to haunt Sound Transit, as costs to build a light-rail tunnel through the glacial soils of Beacon Hill turned out $41 million higher than transit engineers predicted.
The news arrived via sealed envelopes from two construction teams, whose bids were opened yesterday. The apparent low bid, from Obayashi Corp. of Japan, was $280 million, well above Sound Transit’s $239 million estimate.
Despite the higher cost, plenty of money remains to dig the tunnel and finish the rest of the line from Westlake Center to Tukwila.
That is because the agency saved money on four previous contracts: for the trains, the maintenance base, a relatively simple mile in Sodo, and four miles through Rainier Valley. The Link project is 2 percent under budget so far, with contracts yet to be awarded for an elevated section through Tukwila and the retrofitting of the downtown Seattle bus tunnel for joint use with rail cars. In addition, $128 million in reserve funds are available to cover emergencies during work on the $2.44 billion, 14-mile route.
“To still be 2 percent below what we estimated, and be this far along, is a pretty good place to be,” Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick said.
The harder question is whether the bids foreshadow problems in funding a future rail tunnel north of downtown, through First Hill, Capitol Hill and the University District.
Geology is the issue. Seattle’s hills were formed 14,000 years ago from sediments deposited by retreating ice sheets. The hills are susceptible to earthquakes, and water seeps through them.
Sound Transit initially underestimated the North End challenge when bids for the tunnel came in $300 million above estimates in 2000. Total cost overruns exceeded the voter-approved transit plan by more than $1 billion, auditors accused the agency of inadequate soil research, and the North End segment was postponed.
Learning from its mistakes, Sound Transit drilled a test shaft and mapped the Beacon Hill soils last year. Its investigation found stable clays 150 feet deep, where the underground boarding area and railway tubes will be shaped like a buried pair of binoculars. But near the surface, where a huge elevator shaft will ferry passengers between the hilltop and the deep tunnel, soils are so porous that workers must inject concrete grout into the earth so it won’t sink during construction.
Link Director Ahmad Fazel speculated that the inherent difficulty of tunneling, “especially with the kind of soils we have to deal with here,” hurt the bidding. One of three finalists pulled out. “The competition was not as much as we had hoped for,” he said.
However, last year’s soil testing is likely to prevent cost overruns after work begins in late summer, Patrick said. The contract includes a $17 million contingency to cover rising steel prices or extra grouting, money Sound Transit would keep if neither problem arises.
Obayashi’s projects include the new Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston, a sewer tunnel in Atlanta and light rail in Los Angeles.
Sound Transit will study details in the Beacon Hill bids and compare them to its north-line estimates to see if those estimates are still accurate, Fazel said.
Preliminary estimates for north-line construction are $1.8 billion between Westlake Center and Northgate not counting trains, administration and engineering.
The Beacon Hill bids reinforce opponents’ belief that a total of $7 billion will be needed to finish 24 miles of light rail from Northgate to just south of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, said John Niles of the Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives, which favors express buses.
Beacon Hill bids
Only two construction teams competed to build Sound Transit’s light-rail tunnel through Beacon Hill, and the lower bid was $41 million more than transit engineers predicted.
Sound Transit estimate: $239 million
Low bid, from Obayashi Corp.: $280 million
Runner-up bid, from Kiewit and its partners in Beacon Hill Constructors: $305 million
|
Metro train driver learns to expect unexpected
Houston Chronicle
May 15, 2004
Barbara Griggs drove buses for the Metropolitan Transit Authority for 21 years until she joined the first class of trainees to pilot the new light rail trains. Griggs recently took transportation reporter Lucas Wall on a trip up and down the 7 1/2-mile Main Street line. They witnessed three cars making illegal turns, one taxi running a red light, one car driving the wrong way, and several pedestrians darting out in front of the train at Main Street Square.
Later, they chatted in the break room of the Shirley A. DeLibero Rail Operations Center.
Q: How did you get interested in driving the trains?
A: I was upset Dallas got rail before we did. I went to Dallas and I rode the rail; that’s how I got interested. I said, “I want to do it when we get it.” I talked to a young lady up there, a train driver, and she said, “If you’re interested, when they first start, go for it.” And I did. This was a long- awaited opportunity.
Q: Were you nervous the first time you went out on the alignment?
A: Yes (laughing). We went slow when we first went out. They gave us instructions to drive to Smith Lands (third station from the rail yard). We’d ride from here to Smith Lands, then we got to go up more and more.
Q: Describe what it’s like to operate one of these trains given all the collisions that are happening; the cars that are running the lights and making illegal turns. How do you approach your job knowing the danger it involves?
A: P and P: prayer and patience, that’s what you have to have.
Q: Has anyone run into you yet?
A: No. I hope that streak continues.
Q: What would you tell car drivers in terms of educating them about the rail line?
A: Pay attention to the signs and the signals ‘cause they are out there. I think some just get lost or something, they’re from out of town or not familiar with the area.
Q: We saw four cars violating traffic laws in the Texas Medical Center, including a taxi who drove over the traffic buttons and then ran the red light. Is that stuff you see every day?
A: Yes. I expect the unexpected. We have special training to look out for those drivers. After you’ve been driving so long, you learn to get the big picture.
Q: Is it harder to drive a train than a bus, since you don’t have a way to swerve left or right if somebody is coming at you?
A: No, I wouldn’t say it’s harder. There’s just a lot more to be attentive to. They’re both challenging. Like I said, on the train you have to look out for more signals. It gets to be routine when you do it every day.
Q: What’s the part you most enjoy about your new job?
A: Not collecting fares (laughing).
Q: Do you plan on driving a while longer or are you nearing retirement?
A: I can retire after 28 years but now that I’m driving a train, I might be a little old lady before I stop (laughing). They’ll say, “Look at that little old lady still driving the train!” I’ll just have to wait and see.
|
Monorail Recall begins initiative-petition drive
Seattle Times
May 15, 2004
SEATTLE — The group Monorail Recall began distributing its petitions yesterday for Initiative 83, intended to prevent construction of the Green Line between downtown, Ballard and West Seattle.
The initiative seeks to ban city permits to build new monorails on city streets and other property. More information is available at www.monorailrecall.com.
The Seattle City Council is preparing to approve a permit next month, which could lead to groundbreaking late this year.
Tom Weeks, chairman of the Seattle Monorail Project, said this week that agency attorneys didn’t consider I-83 a threat because the initiative could not undo zoning laws that pertain to the monorail. Voters narrowly approved a $1.75 billion monorail by a citizen initiative in 2002. The agency home page is www.elevated.org.
|
BART, SamTrans agree to stop their squabble; Transit agencies end feuding over funding for SFO extension
Alameda Times-Star (Alameda, CA
May 15, 2004
BART and SamTrans signed an agreement Thursday to end a months-old dispute over the cost of funding for the BART-San Francisco Airport extension, officials said.
Both sides hailed the agreement, saying it was a step forward after a rancorous public feud that brought threats of a lawsuit from BART and angry recriminations from SamTrans. “We are pretty optimistic that it will work, and it will be beneficial for the rider,” said Linton Johnson, a BART spokesman.
The feeling was echoed by San Mateo County Supervisor and SamTrans board member Mike Nevin. “I’m very pleased,” Nevin said. “I said in the beginning we had to stop the bleeding, and we did. There are also no new wounds.”
The agreement calls for SamTrans to pay all the funds it owes BART for the operations of the extension — some $11 million — and both sides have agreed to enter into a marketing campaign to try to boost ridership on the line.
The marketing campaign was launched recently with 128,000 households in San Mateo County receiving promotional $15 BART tickets to encourage people to ride the line. The ticket expires on May 20.
The agencies will also explore a joint ticket for BART, Caltrain and SamTrans buses. BART and SamTrans have also agreed to meet regularly to review the performance of the extension and resolve any issues that might arise.
Both agencies have agreed not to pursue legal action in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1. In March, BART threatened to sue SamTrans if the agency did not pony up the $11 million it owed to operate the BART-SFO extension. SamTrans agreed to pay $8.9 million to delay the lawsuit but demanded BART reduce service on the line.
SamTrans said the costs to run BART had skyrocketed from an initial estimate of $6 million a year to $22 million. Officials said SamTrans could pay the costs this year, but not next year.
Both sides had been negotiating since then with help of Metropolitan Transportation Commission head Steve Heminger. officialswould agree to pay $8.9 million to delay the lawsuit, but demanded BART reduce service on the line, which has not attracted large numbers of riders.
SamTrans said the costs to run BART had skyrocketed from an initial estimate of $6 million a year to $22 million. Officials said SamTrans could pay the costs this year, but not next year.
Both sides had been negotiating since then with help of Metropolitan Transportation Commission head Steve Heminger.SamTrans said the costs to run BART had skyrocketed from an initial estimate of $6 million a year to $22 million. Officials said SamTrans could pay the costs this year, but not next year.
Both sides had been negotiating since then with help of Metropolitan Transportation Commission head Steve Heminger.cmofficialswould agree to pay $8.9 million to delay the lawsuit, but demanded BART reduce service on the line, which has not attracted large numbers of riders.
SamTrans said the costs to run BART had skyrocketed from an initial estimate of $6 million a year to $22 million. Officials said SamTrans could pay the costs this year, but not next year.
Both sides had been negotiating since then with help of Metropolitan Transportation Commission head Steve Heminger.cmofficialswould agree to pay $8.9 million to delay the lawsuit, but demanded BART reduce service on the line, which has not attracted large numbers of riders.
|
Expansion Falls In Line; Feds, Province, City Chip In To Extend O-Train
The Ottawa Sun
May 15, 2004
A LARGE group of Liberals descended on a small VIA Rail station yesterday afternoon to make the $600-million expansion of the O-Train official.
“Our government is committed to working with our federal and municipal partners on one of Ottawa’s most important priorities — stronger public transit,” said Premier Dalton McGuinty.
McGuinty announced the three-way, $600-million deal that would extend the north and south O-Train to the Rideau Centre and south Nepean, possibly within four to six years.
The city, the federal government and the province will each contribute $200 million to the light-rail project with the money divided into two $300-million phases.
Mayor Bob Chiarelli said the first phase would extend the train from Leitrim Rd. to Lebreton Flats and the second phase would take it to the Rideau Centre and into Barrhaven. The train could also include spur lines to the airport, the Rideau-Carleton Raceway and the new location of the Central Canada Exhibition.
The massive funding announcement was warmly received by a Liberal-friendly audience that included Liberal candidates Richard Mahoney, Marc Godbout and David McGuinty. The election overtones couldn’t be missed at the event, which was held in a train station the O-Train will likely never travel to, but which is within Defence Minister David Pratt’s riding.
The O-Train has been in the works for years, but the city had been forced to fund it alone, without help from the federal or provincial governments.
But now, with politicians friendly to Chiarelli holding power on Parliament Hill and at Queen’s Park, the mayor’s campaign for the O-Train has received a major boost. “The government of Canada is here — and we will continue to be here — to contribute our share of the costs to expand light-rail service along the entire north-south corridor from downtown Ottawa to south Nepean,” said Pratt.
$750M TOTAL COST
The entire project is expected to cost about $750 million. Chiarelli said the extra money can be made up through a combination of cheaper technology and private investment. “This step today … really puts us on track. This is something that is going to make the city very proud for a long, long time to come,” he said.
Now that the city has the money, Chiarelli said he will meet with city manager Kent Kirkpatrick on Monday and order him to open a light-rail project office to co-ordinate the deal.
The project won’t begin until an environmental assessment is complete. That assessment will determine the final design of the train’s route.
Chiarelli said a private consortium will be brought in to design and build the network. “The railroad is going to be built by people who know how to build railroads,” he said.
And the mayor said the future of the city’s light rail will not end in Nepean. Another assessment of an east-west line will soon be under way.
|
Planning the first step for Waterloo Region Light Rail Transit
Canada NewsWire
May 15, 2004
The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the Region of Waterloo today announced joint funding of up to $2.5 million for technical studies and an environmental assessment for a Light Rail Transit project serving the Region of Waterloo.
The studies will examine a proposed 14-kilometre light rail transit section along the central transit corridor, which will run north-south to connect the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. This line would be the first phase of a 30-kilometre line that will ultimately extend to Cambridge.
Transport Canada and the Region of Waterloo will equally share the cost of the technical studies, to a maximum of $500,000. The environmental assessment will be funded jointly by the Government of Ontario and the Region of Waterloo. The total cost of all the studies is estimated at up to $2.5 million.
“The Government of Canada is committed to improving our transportation system, and public transit is an important priority,” said Minister Responsible for Ontario and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Joe Volpe, on behalf of Transport Minister Tony Valeri. “Projects such as the Light Rail Transit system demonstrate how we are working with our partners to address our common priorities. Completing the studies needed to advance the proposed Light Rail Transit project builds on the government’s previous commitment to assist the Region of Waterloo with its central transit corridor express project expected to start in September 2005.”
“The way we plan for growth today will determine how we live tomorrow,” said Ontario’s Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, David Caplan. “We are giving municipalities tools to build strong communities that provide a better quality of life by limiting gridlock, controlling urban sprawl and protecting greenspace. This is a great example of how governments can work together to improve communities.”
“Light Rail Transit in Waterloo Region positions our community to improve our excellent quality of life and economic success as we transition to a large urban centre,” said Regional Chair of the Region of Waterloo, Ken Seiling. “The Light Rail Transit initiative is a visionary, holistic approach to community planning that intrinsically links transportation infrastructure with the achievement of our land use objectives.”
The technical studies will:
- demonstrate how best to support anticipated urban growth through transit investment and land use planning;
- assess various transit options for the region and how they can be integrated with other transportation services;
- provide detailed ridership projections for the proposed new transit line; and
- provide detailed cost-benefit analyses.
Today’s announcement reinforces the commitments of the governments of Canada and Ontario towards sustainable communities through investments in public transit that provide a better quality of life by limiting gridlock, controlling urban sprawl and protecting greenspace. The federal and provincial governments are working together to deliver real, positive change in the Region of Waterloo and across the province.
Federal funding for the technical studies will be provided through Transport Canada’s $600 million Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program, which funds studies that examine better integration of transportation systems.
As these studies are underway, the Government of Canada will continue to work with the Government of Ontario and the Region of Waterloo to determine the best approach for transportation services in the area and to examine the potential for future federal, provincial and municipal infrastructure funding for these projects.
A backgrounder on the Light Rail Transit project is attached.
BACKGROUNDER: REGION OF WATERLOO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
Waterloo is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada and is responding to many of the same challenges being faced by mid-sized urban areas throughout North America. These challenges include outward pressure on urban boundaries and downtown areas in need of revitalization.
The Regional Growth Strategy adopted by the Region of Waterloo on June 25, 2003, links the development of transportation infrastructure with the achievement of land use objectives, including higher densities along a planned 30-kilometre central transit corridor linking the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo and ultimately extending south to Cambridge.
The Light Rail Transit project would be integrated with the express bus service to Cambridge, the municipal transit system, intercity bus services, GO Transit and VIA Rail. This project would support the redevelopment goals in the region as laid out in the Regional Growth Management Strategy.
The federal and provincial governments believe that the proposed project has excellent potential to encourage a more sustainable urban environment and will work with the Region of Waterloo to further investigate the proposal.
Technical Studies
The technical studies to be completed will:
- further demonstrate how best to support anticipated urban growth through transit investment and land use planning;
- assess various transit options for the region and how they can be integrated with other transportation services;
- provide detailed ridership projections for the proposed new transit line; and
- provide detailed cost-benefit analyses.
The information gathered through these studies will inform and could supplement the environmental assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The environmental assessment will be funded jointly by the Government of Ontario and the Region of Waterloo. It will encompass a detailed design of the proposed light rail transit project. It is expected that completing the technical studies will accelerate the environmental assessment process.
Funding
Transport Canada and the Region of Waterloo will equally share the cost of the technical studies up to a maximum of $500,000. The environmental assessment will be funded jointly by the Government of Ontario and the Region of Waterloo. The total cost for all the studies is estimated at up to $2.5 million.
Federal funding for the technical studies will be provided for under Transport Canada’s $600 million Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program, which funds work to examine better integration of transportation systems.
Other Support for the Waterloo Region
The Government of Canada is currently funding urban transit projects in the Region of Waterloo. The Central Transit Corridor Express Project will link Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo with cycle-friendly, express bus service along a clearly defined corridor. The service will incorporate innovative technologies such as information technology to provide real-time transit information and web-based trip planning opportunities. The service is expected to start in September 2005.
The Province of Ontario has been assisting the Region of Waterloo in replacing and refurbishing their transit fleet (buses). The Province has also committed funding support to the Region of Waterloo for express bus services from Kitchener to Cambridge. The services will help build ridership along the Central Transit Corridor, bus and passenger facilities and advanced transit technologies.
|
Latest Cap Metro rail plan looks familiar; All Systems Go! a hybrid of 2000 light-rail, mid-’90s Red Line plans
Austin American-Statesman (Texas
May 16, 2004
While petitioning for more transportation dollars for Austin in March 1997, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett tried to sell Congress on a train that would connect the suburbs to downtown.
“We have a major opportunity to develop light-rail service between the town of Leander and downtown Austin,” Doggett, D-Austin, testified before the House subcommittee on transportation. “This Red Line service could potentially have a major impact on traffic congestion.”
But while Doggett was pleading for dollars in Washington, Capital Metro was swiftly unraveling. The FBI that year opened a wide-ranging investigation into procurement practices at the agency that eventually led to the jailing of one contractor, and a disgusted Legislature bounced the remaining board members. The Red Line was dismissed as the relic of a disgraced agency, and in its place the new Capital Metro board advocated a centralized downtown light-rail plan.
Seven years later, the Red Line is back, more or less. After the defeat of the 2000 light-rail referendum, and prompted by the need to address regional issues of traffic congestion and pollution, Capital Metro is now promoting a transit plan that looks more than similar to the old proposal.
The agency touts its centerpiece — a commuter rail service called the Northwest Corridor that would run on the very same track as the Red Line (and is even depicted as a crawling red line in Capital Metro’s literature) — as the next great way of linking Leander to Austin.
Though Capital Metro officials attribute the flip-flop in policy to concerns about costs and the realities of available technology, the decision to return to the old board’s plan (which had been inherited from the board that adopted the Transit System Plan of 1995) signals the agency’s confident return from disgrace and shows how an agency frequently at odds with the Legislature has exercised some political savvy.
The main differences between the old Red Line and the proposed Northwest Corridor are cost and engineering: construction for the Red Line was estimated in the mid-1990s at $182 million.
According to the new plan (called “All Systems Go!”), putting a commuter rail on the same line will cost approximately $60 million, and it will have an annual operating cost of $5 million. The Red Line was scheduled to cost much more because it called for more stations and required millions of dollars in track improvements (most of which have since been made to the freight line), said Capital Metro spokesman Rick L’Amie.
In a sense, the new plan is a synthesis of the old regional plan and the light-rail plan that voters narrowly defeated in November 2000. The first one featured a tangle of two longish lines, one from Leander to downtown and another from Round Rock to downtown (and, possibly, beyond to San Marcos, New Braunfels and San Antonio). The second plan favored a jumble of downtown light-rail routes powered by overhead catenary lines.
All Systems Go!, as far as rail is concerned, duplicates the old plan’s rail lines (as well as the hope of adding a spur along what’s known as the MoKan corridor from Georgetown to downtown) and aims to replicate the dense coverage of the 52-mile light-rail plan with expanded bus service.
“Amused” is how Michael von Ohlen, the chairman of the scandalized Capital Metro board of 1997, described his reaction to the similarity of the current plan to the old one.
The regional approach championed by his board came closest to realization during a February 1997 promotional deal involving a new train called the RegioSprinter that drew 11,000 Austinites to take a lift on the rail line.
But things at Capital Metro were coming apart. Through most of 1997, the FBI subpoenaed records relating to several outside contractors, including those related to several board members. A 1998 report by the Texas comptroller’s office concluded that “Capital Metro’s board and managers have made expensive, embarrassing mistakes.” Crippled by the controversy, Capital Metro — and its rail plans — became a “political football,” von Ohlen said.
Nowadays, Capital Metro officials cite the Red Line’s hefty costs and limited payoff — not the scandal — when they talk about opting out of the regional approach. “The technology available at the time would be so slow,” board member Fred Harless said. “You just couldn’t beat the downtown times in a car.”
But the shift was also a political maneuver. The new board, essentially appointed by the Legislature, sought to distance itself from the agency’s dark period. One way was to push for a new rail plan. “When the new board came in, it was very wise of them to distance themselves and take the plan in a whole new direction,” von Ohlen said. “That was a very tumultuous time.”
The new board, von Ohlen said, was by its nature more politically savvy when dealing with the Legislature. “They’re all politicians.”
But they were not quite politically capable enough to persuade a majority of voters to approve their downtown light-rail plan in November 2000. As the board licked its wounds, it continued to commit dollars to the upgrade of its old freight line. (The agency has committed $35.6 million to its overhaul, which began in 2000.) Determined to solve larger regional traffic issues, and armed with a smoother track, the board decided to return to the old regional approach.
Maintaining a service status quo in an area whose population is expected to more than double in the next 25 years is unacceptable, Capital Metro CEO Fred Gilliam said at a news conference Tuesday.
“Neither commuter rail nor light rail captures what the system is going to be,” said Scott Polikov, a land planner who represented Capital Metro on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization board from 1994 to 1996. “I think we’re talking about a hybrid system.”
|
DOWN THE LINE; Fixes squeeze light rail; Tests, car repairs could cut June debut close, but officials say they’ll make
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
May 16, 2004
The seemingly smooth-running Hiawatha light-rail project is — and has been — struggling to stay on schedule.
Metro Transit officials maintain they will meet the June 26 opening date for the first phase of the new $715 million line. Yet interviews and documents obtained by the Star Tribune indicate they will be cutting it close.
Bombardier Transportation, the Canadian company building the trains, is months behind delivering them and to date is facing $400,000 in fines.
Delivery delays have compressed the time to test performance, fix nagging design faults and correct poor workmanship on the cars.
Thirteen of 14 cars needed to start service have been delivered, but only five have passed the required safety and reliability tests. That leaves nine cars to be tested and accepted in the next six weeks.
Acknowledging pressures, Joe Marie, Metro Transit’s assistant general manager for rail operations, said Friday: “At this point … we’re in good shape for June 26th. However, we have a lot of work to do. And, I’m certain, we’ll have a few unforeseen surprises in the weeks ahead.”
In light of the ongoing challenges, a bigger hurdle could be the opening of the full line in December. Once the first half of the line is running, testing will start on the second part.
Like acrobats balancing several spinning plates at once, project officials will be operating the first 8 miles of service and testing the next 4 miles of rail line while receiving and testing the rest of the fleet.
The lesson
Problems were evident in February, when Metro Transit abruptly postponed the earlier April 3 opening because of a possible transit strike. With or without a strike, Marie now concedes: “We were going to make April 3 by the skin of our teeth.”
When the April date was postponed, Metro Transit flatly dismissed charges by the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005 that rail delays and not the strike were the reason. Light-rail drivers and mechanics walked off the job with other union workers on March 4, and ultimately, the 44-day strike did make an April 3 opening an impossibility.
But Metro Transit documents show it did have other reasons — unrelated to the strike — to delay the opening.
On Feb. 17, the day of the postponement, Metro Transit had only eight of the 14 cars it needed to open on April 3. Only one had passed safety and reliability tests, clearing it for public service. With 45 days left to go, six cars were yet to be delivered, and acceptance testing on 13 cars wasn’t completed. “Getting those 14 cars ready for opening day was tight,” Marie says now. “We were really pushing up against the schedule.”
How close were they cutting it?
Delivery of the 14th car was set for March 20, leaving only 10 days to do acceptance tests and a mere three-day cushion before the opening.
Bombardier staff would have conducted the tests so Metro Transit workers would not incur overtime. Most of the stress fell on Marie and management supervisors, who would have worked all hours to oversee the tests. Even with no time to spare, Marie insists there would have been no compromising. Had the cars not passed the tests, they would not have been put into service. The line could have opened with fewer cars, but may not have been able to handle rush-hour ridership.
Nevertheless, both Marie and Metro Transit general manager Mike Setzer contend that the April 3 deadline would have been met. Said Setzer: “We were in constant communication with them [Bombardier]. Joe [Marie] was in the Mexico plant frequently. We had a very good idea where each car was. We were confident that had we stuck with the April 3 date, they would have delivered on time. They have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this venture and we are the first customer in North America. They would have been very embarrassed if we had a railroad ready to go and no cars here.”
The reason for the late deliveries? Bombardier has built rail cars in Europe for years and for some cities in the United States, but the Hiawatha car is its first low-floor model built to North American standards, and Metro Transit is the car’s first buyer.
The combination of the new design — built for the first time in Bombardier’s Mexico plants — and problems getting on-time delivery of parts from around the world caused delivery delays, Setzer said.
Bombardier does not concede that cars have been late or will continue to be late. The company isn’t focusing on the deadlines strictly spelled out in the contract, but on a second set of deadlines set by managers as absolute must-have dates.
The first car for the April opening was two months late, missing the must-have date, because its insulation promoted rust. After efforts to fix the problem and ultimately switching to different insulation, delivery was pushed back from January 2003 to March 2003. The second car was three months late — arriving in October 2003 instead of July.
Company spokeswoman Helene Gagnon said unequivocally: “We met the project schedule requirements. Once you start a project you define them along with the customer. We have met all the customer’s expectations.”
Unwilling to concede that the cars were late, Bombardier declined to comment on Setzer’s explanations.
The heat was on
Publicly, Metro Transit officials did not disclose late car delivery or the extent of testing pressures in February. Nor did they disclose these issues internally. Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell said he was not aware of late car deliveries on the eve of the strike in February, when he too pinned delay of the rail opening solely on labor issues.
Bell said he was informed about late car deliveries four or five weeks ago and did not inform other council members or the public because he was assured by transit managers that the project was in hand.
Bell said he was satisfied that there would be no extra costs, no safety problems or any delays due to the late deliveries — the only problems he considered relevant to the public. “There will be no opening of a light-rail line any place in the country that goes more smoothly than this. And I think that’s what the public cares about,” he said.
Setzer confirmed that problems were not discussed with the Met Council, which governs Metro Transit, because he and Marie were not alarmed. The managers expected crunched preparation, but they had no doubts about opening April 3.
But even if Marie wasn’t alarmed, on Feb. 18 — one day after the postponement — he wasted no time in sending a letter to Bombardier, urging it to use the delay to keep the cars coming and to catch up with testing. “The current labor situation could resolve quickly so we implore you to keep the momentum moving forward with the project,” Marie wrote.
In the same letter: “With respect to testing activities in Minneapolis, Bombardier has significant ground to cover. It would be in the best interest of Bombardier if you would continue working diligently to resolve testing and modification issues with your existing resources. In short, use this time to recover so that we can gain conditional acceptance of LRV’s as promptly as possible.”
Bombardier took immediate advantage of the delay. On Feb. 17 — the very day of the postponement — it canceled plans to spend $50,000 for two extra flatbed freight railroad cars needed to get cars 13 and 14 here by March. Originally, 18 cars were needed to open the line to accommodate rush-hour riderships, but because of the delays, Metro Transit settled on 14 as the minimum to start.
Further, on March 1, three days before the transit strike on March 4, Bombardier revised the rest of its schedule, pushing back delivery by one to two months of all 12 remaining cars needed for the full line. All 24 cars are now scheduled to be here by October for the December opening but many will arrive past contract dates.
Is there a remedy?
Both Setzer and Marie say they can prod all they want, but in the end, Bombardier makes decisions about when to ship cars. “While we are their customer, we do not have the authority to dictate to them how and when they are going to ship cars,” Marie said.
Metro Transit’s only recourse, written into the contract, is collecting fines. Roughly $110,000 in fines from late delivery of the first car was put toward the purchase of two more, cars 23 and 24. The inconvenience of the missed delivery date put Metro Transit in a position to bargain for a $640,000 discount on the purchase, Setzer said. Each of the 24 cars costs an average of $3 million. Bombardier’s contract for all cars is $74.7 million.
Late deliveries are not unheard of, but they are not the norm. In Denver, for example, cars came in behind contract dates, resulting in $900,000 in fines. Yet Houston, Dallas, and St. Louis received their car orders on time.
Houston’s contract put fines at $1,000 a day for late delivery; in Dallas it was $500 a day, and in Denver $850 a day — higher than fines charged by Metro Transit. For the first car only, it charged Bombardier $2,000 a day for late delivery and then $200 a day for each subsequent late car.
The Met Council has not yet attempted to collect the fines accumulated by the late delivery of cars. Once all the cars are here, there will be a negotiated closeout of fines and an agreed-upon amount will be deducted before Metro Transit makes final payment on the cars, Setzer said. He expects a favorable settlement: “They want to have happy customers at the end.”
Troublesome pattern: late rail cars
Bombardier, the company commissioned to build and deliver Hiawatha light-rail cars, has continually missed car delivery dates set by the contract with Metro Transit. Missed deadlines are often by 2-4 months.
|
DOWN THE LINE; Tracking down flaws and fixes is taking time
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
May 16, 2004
Rail cars are arriving for the Hiawatha light-rail line with design and workmanship problems that must be corrected.
Metro Transit says the problems are fixable and not a serious threat to public safety. It considers the repairs headaches, not show-stoppers, said Joe Marie, assistant general manager for rail operations.
Likewise, car builder Bombardier Transportation of Canada concedes that “issues have been found with the cars” but describes them as a “normal and routine” part of producing a new rail car design.
Serious or not, identifying problems and fixing them has taken time and has taxed Metro Transit supervisors. To date, only five of 14 cars needed for the June 26 opening have passed safety and reliability tests.
Metro Transit’s goal is to enforce contract requirements in detail in an effort to start rail service with a quality fleet of 24 cars that will last 30 years. Performance of the cars over time will tell if this has been successful. In the past six months, in letter after letter written by Metro Transit to Bombardier, officials have asked the company to fix problems concerning electrical wiring, heating, propulsion, seats, windshield wipers, cracked windows, bike racks, rust, software, interior wall panels, welding, wear plates, stainless steel trim pieces, control panel indicator lights and the speaker system that alerts riders to transit stops.
“We are not talking about wheels falling off or brakes not working or cracks in the truck frames,” Marie said. “. . . I would not call it any more overly problematic than any other vehicle program I have been involved with.”
Marie has worked in rail operations in Pittsburgh and Boston. He also has held jobs in the private sector for both Bombardier and Siemens, a company that also builds rail cars. Marie was working for Bombardier in 2000, when it won the bid to supply the Hiawatha Line’s rail cars to Metro Transit. Now he is on the receiving end of that $74.7 million car contract.
“When you go through a test program and the rigorous process that we have gone through here, you are going to find things,” Marie said.
Bombardier has 35 people in Minneapolis to test and fix cars. “We have been solving all issues one by one — they are not major ones,” said Bombardier spokeswoman Helene Gagnon.
The letters obtained by the Star Tribune were written by Paul Denison, Metro Transit’s light-rail car project manager, with the help of John Prosper, a consultant who monitors car quality. Marie, as the ranking rail official, declined a request to interview Denison and discussed issues himself.
Marie said problems not related to safety or reliability might not be fixed before service starts, but cars will be conditionally accepted, with a list of further required repairs. After Bombardier addresses those items, a certificate of final acceptance will be issued on each car.
Here are some of the problems brought to Bombardier’s attention over the last six months:
Seats
Problem: On Nov. 10, 2003, Denison raised concerns about unacceptable give in the seats. “The excessive deflection will cause fatigue cracking over time and reduce the life of the seats which is a great cause for concern considering the quality of welding we have seen. It also sends a message to passengers that the train is weak and flimsy.” On Feb. 13, he raised a second issue with seating: They were not securely anchored. “The floor noticeably lifts up when pulling on the [seat] grab handles.”
Status: Said Marie: “Bombardier and the seat manufacturer are preparing a test to demonstrate the performance of seats in the worst-case collision scenario. Testing is scheduled to be complete within the next three weeks.” Resulting changes will be made to seats in all vehicles.
Windshield wipers
Problem: On Feb. 6, Denison reported failure in the large one-arm windshield wiper on the face of the cars. “It has come to Metro Transit’s attention that the brass splines used in the windshield wiper arms are stripping out rendering the windshield wipers useless. This is a major concern for Metro Transit since it directly affects operator visibility and safety. Bombardier is to expedite a solution to the problem.”
Status: Short-term fixes were made over the last month and a representative from the manufacturer visited last week to propose a more durable assembly. “We have not allowed any LRVs to operate in testing without fully functioning windshield wipers,” Marie said.
Transit-stop announcements
Problem: On Feb. 6, Denison said the automatic voice announcements were not working correctly. “Metro Transit does not have the ability to change either the text or voice messages for the interior or exterior signs or the announcements.”
Status: Software was changed last week and automatic announcements are working, Marie said. Further testing for reliability is scheduled for coming weeks.
Propulsion faults
Problem: On Feb. 13, Denison reported that interruptions in propulsion (power capacity) have been traced to an under-floor electrical terminal box on each end of the rail cars. “It was found that there are major problems in both workmanship and design … causing the boxes to fill up with water.” All trains were halted for a week by this problem and operators were not able to finish training. Denison wrote: “Metro Transit insists that Bombardier provide additional operator training at no charge.”
Status: On all vehicles, this box will be replaced by a tube connector. This change will be completed by Bombardier. In the short term, Bombardier applied a sealant around the cable connections in the boxes and no faults have been recorded since. For the interruption in operator training, Bombardier is providing extra training June 1 to 3.
Electrical wiring
Problem: On Feb. 26, Denison complained about missing paperwork that allowed Metro Transit to assess the effectiveness of changes made in electrical wiring: “…it is impossible to determine the effect the modifications have on vehicle safety and operation since there are no updated schematics available.”
Status: Updated schematics were delivered April 13 and are under review, Marie said.
Heaters
Problem: On March 31, Denison informed the company, “It is obvious that the designers of the heating system did not take into account the extreme climatic conditions that exist in Minneapolis…”
Status: Bombardier plans to make corrections during the summer and early fall, Marie said.
Rail car repairs create big headaches
Repairs, tied to design flaws and workmanship issues, have put pressure on the manufacturer and Metro Transit to ensure the rail cars are ready for public service. Some problems are fixed; others will be ongoing even after trains are running.
Windshield wipers
Problem: Splines on windshield wipers are stripping out, making them useless.
Status: Short-term fixes made over the last month; manufacturer has proposed more durable assembly.
Heaters
Problem: Did not take into account extreme weather conditions.
Status: Bombardier has developed a modification plan. Modifications will be completed on all cars during the summer and early fall.
Seats
Problem: Not anchored to the floor for best long-term wear; mounting design not adequate.
Status: Testing scheduled in next three weeks. Modifications will be made to all cars.
Propulsion faults
Problem: Interruptions to propulsion power traced to electrical terminal box. it was filing with water.
Status: Boxes to be replaced with water-tight tube connectors in all cars.
Truck frames
Problem: Concerns about long-term durability. Some cars built to European standards, not American.
Status: These frames will be replaced over the next 3 to 6 months.
Bicycle racks
Problem: Held for questionable quality.
Status: Returned to Bombardier’s Mexico plant. New racks shipped and installed.
Source: Metro Transit
|
Arborway trolleys seen as unfeasible; Studies for MBTA fault restoration plan
Boston Globe
May 17, 2004
Restoring trolleys on the Arborway line through Jamaica Plain would be nearly physically impossible and would hurt businesses, increase congestion, and pose a hazard for firetrucks, according to two preliminary studies due to be completed this summer.
The studies, conducted by state researchers for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, will become part of an environmental impact report expected early next year on the $85 million project.
Trolley restoration proponents say the T is trying to get out of a legal commitment to restore light-rail service on South Huntington and Centre streets that was discontinued in 1985. They say all the questions regarding the restoration have been raised and answered.
“They’re seeing if they can outlast us,” said Franklyn Salimbene, chairman of the Arborway Committee and a longstanding supporter of trolley restoration. “All of this was studied and reviewed, and the upshot was, it’s feasible, and it needs to proceed.”
The T has argued for years that putting trolleys back on Centre Street is not feasible. But the agency has been unable to persuade state environmental officials, who say that the Arborway trolley line is one of several transit projects the state promised to undertake as a condition for building the Big Dig.
The Arborway line, which has divided Jamaica Plain into pro-trolley and anti-trolley camps, is seen as a major test case for the transit commitments that the state made in a legally binding agreement linked to the $14.6 billion highway project. The Romney administration — citing a shortage of funds, changing conditions since the agreement was made 15 years ago, and other projects that could cut car use — wants to prioritize the projects it attempts to finance.
Douglas O. Foy, the chief of the Office of Commonwealth Development, which is reviewing the estimated $6 billion in transit projects expected to be built during the next 25 years, said that a review of the Arborway project “is still under way, and we await its conclusions.”
Joe Pesaturo, spokesman for MBTA general manager Michael Mulhern, said that the T is conducting a “rigorous analysis on factors such as traffic, parking, and public safety,” while also looking at the Arborway’s likely ridership and how the project would improve air quality by reducing car use.
But the preliminary study indicates the same number of people would take a clean-burning bus as a trolley, and cites major problems in the operation of the trolleys in a narrow corridor, according to state officials who described the draft reports.
Because the roadway is 44 feet wide in some places, and the trolleys must come flush with curbside platforms to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, restoration of rail service could worsen congestion, according to the draft reports. Car ownership in Jamaica Plain is up steeply since trolley service was discontinued in 1985, the draft report notes, and the business district has become steadily busier.
Restoration of trolley service would also eliminate parking spaces and complicate loading and delivery for area businesses, the draft report says; in addition, emergency vehicles would have difficulty coming in and out of the fire station on Centre Street.
Trolley proponents say those predictions are overly pessimistic. “A lot of this is really quite simple,” said Salimbene. “All anyone has to do is travel to Portland, Ore., or other places where they have in-street light rail.”
The trolley stations would be consolidated from the current bus service stops, and would consist of a “bumped out” portion of the sidewalk, taking the place of one or two parking spaces, Salimbene said. The loading area would be flush with the trolley for handicap access, he said.
There are four lanes in the narrowest sections of Centre Street — one for parking on each side, and one travel lane in each direction. The tracks are in the travel lanes.
The T argued several years ago that restoring trolley service was unfeasible, but the state Department of Environmental Protection disagreed and effectively ordered the T to move ahead with the project. Last year, state environmental secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder ruled that the T must proceed with planning for trolleys, and not a bus service alternative.
But some merchants and residents are alarmed by the prospect of trolleys returning to Centre Street. The project still has “many unanswered questions,” said Paul Schimek, head of the group Better Transit Without Trolleys. “If someone double-parks, or parks improperly because of snow, no one will be able to pass. The trolleys will be stuck,” he said. “Traffic flow will worsen, emergency vehicle access could be compromised, and all for nothing because there’s no sense that transit service will be improved. If you want to get downtown quickly, you take the Orange Line.”
Bus service could be improved on the route with global-positioning satellite devices to prevent bunching, Schimek said. In addition, air-quality goals from the Big Dig agreement could be met by retrofitting city vehicles so they use low-sulfur fuel, he said.
|
ROAD TRIP TO BEANTOWN: Transit funding in Mass. opens eyes of Atlantans
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
May 17, 2004
Boston — — What struck metro Atlanta leaders most about the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority was the amount of annual financial support the mass transit system receives from the state.
The system gets 20 percent of the state’s 5-cent sales tax, or about $680 million a year. By comparison, MARTA has received a total of $15 million from the state of Georgia since 1993. And in Gov. Sonny Perdue’s proposed $15.5 billion transportation package, MARTA is slated to receive only $2 million toward a new fare collection system.
“We desperately need support from the state for MARTA,” said Pat Upshaw-Monteith, executive director of Leadership Atlanta, who was on her first fact-finding trip with Atlanta civic and business leaders.
Many metro leaders have complained about the lack of adequate funding for transportation.
“There’s no question there’s inadequate funding for transit and transportation in metro Atlanta and Georgia,” said Cobb County Chairman Sam Olens.
The MBTA (also called “the T”) has an annual operating budget of $1.1 billion. In addition to the state sales tax, local municipalities in the MBTA service area are assessed a total of $130 million to support the system. Fares bring in another $280 million, and the balance comes from other revenue sources such as advertising.
The MBTA used to get even more financial support from the state. Before 2001, the authority would bill the state for any operating deficits. That meant the MBTA had no accountability or incentive to be budget-conscious, and the transit system was becoming an albatross for the state because it had no way of predicting what those deficits would be.
The state sales tax was an easy sell because transit is so popular in Massachusetts.
The MBTA has “the most diverse array of transit services in the nation,” said MBTA General Manager Michael Mulhern. It has subways, light rail, streetcars, buses (from city buses, to local buses, to bus rapid transit), commuter rail and commuter boats all under one agency. “Wherever we’ve gone with our commuter rail network, property values have gone through the roof,” Mulhern said. “People view public transit as an asset. I think it is a very good thing for the commuter rail system to be meshed with the urban core system.”
In Atlanta, in contrast, it’s hard to keep track of all the transit agencies. MARTA clearly is the largest, operating the rail system as well as buses in the city of Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb counties. But there’s the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, soon starting an express bus service in the region. There’s a separate bus system in Cobb, another in Gwinnett, and yet another in Clayton. Plus, the Georgia Department of Transportation is exploring commuter rail service between Atlanta and Lovejoy.
“I like having one transit agency,” said Atlanta City Councilman Howard Shook on a recent trip with a regional delegation to Boston. “Logic suggests it would be more efficient.”
But Steve Stancil, GRTA’s executive director, is not convinced. “I think you are seeing us put together a seamless transit system,” Stancil said. “I think that’s just a matter of coordination. I don’t think Atlanta is ready for one superagency right now.”
The MBTA, the oldest transit system in the country, serves 175 communities in the greater Boston area. Communities lobby hard for service, and the system is constantly expanding. “I don’t think we can afford not to expand,” Mulhern said. “Right now we are expanding the system in the southeast part of Boston.” Already, the MBTA has 900 miles of rail with 300 stations.
By comparison, MARTA has no active expansion plans. It has only 48 miles of rail serving 38 stations.
But MARTA, which carries 425,000 transit riders each day on a much more limited system, compares favorably to Boston, which carries 1.2 million riders a day.
Although the MBTA has had two fare hikes in the past three years, it’s still a bargain when compared to MARTA. Its subway fare is $1.25. Buses are 60 cents. And commuter train tickets can cost as much as $6, depending on distance. By comparison, MARTA has a flat fare of $1.75 regardless of whether riders are on the train or the bus.
The MBTA also has been adding bus rapid transit to its portfolio. The Silver Line, which is partly in operation, provides dedicated busways entering subway-like stations ending at the new convention center.
To several Atlantans, Boston’s experience validates the Atlanta region’s bias for bus rapid transit. “We are definitely on the right track with BRT,” said Karen Handel, chair of the Fulton County Commission, even though she was impressed by the whole MBTA system. “From a transit standpoint, this city is much more advanced.”
Massachusetts’ investment in transportation goes even beyond a state sales tax. The state has a gas tax of 21 cents a gallon. That compares with Georgia’s 7.5 cents a gallon. More important, Massachusetts permits its gas tax to go to all forms of transportation, including transit. In Georgia, gas tax revenues are limited to roads and bridges.
“I was impressed with what you can do with public transportation when you actually have public support,” said Michael Walls, an attorney who chairs the MARTA board. “With one system, there are all sorts of efficiencies, which gives you the opportunity to provide so much more service.”
|
Colorado Railcar builds for Tri-Rail
Destination: Freedom
May 17, 2004
Florida’s Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) Tri-Rail representing the FRA and Florida DOT in a joint procurement agreement okayed a contract in March for a DMU demonstration project in South Florida.
Colorado Railcar’s vice-president Tom Janaky told D:F on Thursday while the single-level DMU demonstrator is operating “one round-trip a day between Miami and West Palm Beach,” they are “building a single level, powered DMU, a double-decker coach, and a powered commuter double- decker for $8 million” in their Colorado shops. The trainset is expected to begin revenue service in March 2005. The double-deckers seat 188 people.
“We didn’t need to reinvent our DMU,” he said, “We just added a second story.” He said Florida’s cars have their frames assembled, so far.
The Florida demonstrator is hauling a pair of Bombardier Transportation double-decker coaches while it toils in revenue service. It travels 144 miles on its daily round-trip between the city pairs. “It uses 130 gallons of diesel fuel for the trip,” he said. Locomotive-hauled trains burn “325 gallons per trip,” he pointed out.
Tri-Rail uses F-40PHs.
Janaky said his firm introduced the single-level DMU demonstrator into the marketplace two years ago. Colorado Railcar Mfg. erecting shops are in Fort Lupton, Colo. The Florida sale is its first sale, and Janaky credited U.S. Rep. John Mica for getting the project funding.
The demonstrator DMU will be on display at an APTA Commuter Rail Conference in Miami June 6-9.
|
Cement and Pork Don’t Mix
MetroView; The Brookings Institution
May 17, 2004
Robert Puentes, Senior Research Manager, Economic Studies
Two weeks ago, Congress came within a whisker of shutting down the nation’s highway and transit programs and furloughing thousands of federal employees. Only after a highly partisan debate was the Senate able to reach agreement on another extension to the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) that will keep these programs functioning — at least for another two months.
And what happens then?
Senate and House leaders are supposed to conference soon to hammer out the discrepancies between their TEA-21 reauthorization proposals. This they will do under the cloud of the threat of a presidential veto.
But the differences are not arguments over policy. As far as Washington is concerned, transportation is all about the money — how much and who gets it.
The Senate’s $318 billion bill, after all, is $30 billion more than the House has proposed — which is another $30 billion more than the White House offered a year ago. And that’s essentially the debate, which so far has been a fight about pork, not principle.
Yet this is bad news for disgruntled commuters and businesses. It is particularly bad news for the metropolitan areas where most Americans live and work and where almost all meaningful traffic congestion occurs.
The sad fact is that the national transportation system is broken and in dire need of fundamental reform. That is why billions and billions of dollars of additional federal investments, without significant reform, will do precious little to ameliorate the transportation problems of the modern metropolis.
Right now, the federal surface transportation law does as much as any cluster of programs to influence the spatial form and social fabric of our cities and suburbs. Most notably, a growing body of research based on actual investments clearly shows that major highway projects do not necessarily create new jobs or spur economic growth so much as shift economic activity around a metropolitan area. The result is that cities and older suburbs frequently look on helplessly as commercial strips decline and infrastructure crumbles as growth follows new public investments out to the suburban fringe. That is why the extension and expansion of highways truly is what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it: part of the federal government’s “hidden” urban policy.
For this reason, the nation desperately needs a frank and vigorous debate over the future of transportation policy. Encompassing more than just concrete and pork, such a debate should try to answer three basic questions:
Question #1: Who is in charge of transportation decisions? Current law puts state departments of transportation in the driver’s seat on transportation decisions. Yet metropolitan areas (many of which cross state lines) are the places where most Americans live and work. But even so, metropolitan areas make decisions that dispose of only about 10 cents of every transportation dollar they generate even though local governments within metropolitan areas own and maintain the vast majority of the transportation infrastructure.
In view of that, Congress badly needs to overhaul the governance of transportation programs, recognize the primacy of metropolitan areas, and align the geography of transportation decisionmaking with the geography of regional economies, commuting patterns, and social reality. To this end, it should build on reforms in the 1990s and devolve greater responsibility and resources to metropolitan entities. These institutions are, after all, in the best position to use transportation funding in tandem with land use, housing, workforce, and economic development policies. At the same time, the new policy should require state decisions to be tied more closely to the demographic and market realities of metropolitan areas and the vision and priorities of metropolitan leaders.
Question #2: What solutions fit the transportation challenges of the modern metropolis? The current system’s approach to transportation solutions is narrow and outmoded. Most state transportation departments, for example, still believe they can build their way out of congestion. Yet congestion is a product of many factors — low-density settlement patterns, employment decentralization, shifting consumption patterns, and market restructuring. That’s why study after study shows that building more is not the best strategy for reducing congestion.
Congress, therefore, needs to move beyond transportation-only solutions. Federal law made some efforts, mostly ignored, to integrate transportation decisions with local and regional decisions on land use, housing and economic development. Those efforts should be expanded. At the same time, the new law should encourage the greater use of market mechanisms — such as tolls and congestion pricing — to ease congestion on major thoroughfares at peak traffic times. The city of London is successfully experimenting with pricing schemes in its central business district.
Question #3: How do we make transportation decisions accountable? Federal transportation programs return more money to state and local governments than any other federal initiative involving physical infrastructure. Yet unlike other state and local bureaucracies that receive federal funding — such as state welfare departments, state education departments, and local public housing authorities — state transportation departments are held to few performance standards.
Since that is the case, Congress should move aggressively to hold all recipients of federal funding to a high standard of managerial efficiency, programmatic effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility. To that end, the new law should establish a new framework for accountability that includes tighter disclosure requirements, improved performance measures, and rewards for exceptional performance. Congress also needs to create a transportation system that is much more responsive to citizens and business. The more citizens and businesses inform transportation decisions, the better those decisions will be.
Change will not come easy to the transportation sector. The many deficiencies of transportation politics and practices are deeply rooted — in constituency and money politics, in state governance, bureaucracy, and in the history of metropolitan development. Cement and pork have become inextricable. Yet change has to come if we are going to have livable communities, competitive economies, a healthy environment, and fiscal responsibility.
Yogi Berra is purported to have said, “If you keep doing what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got.” Well, this summer the nation faces transportation challenges that will not be resolved by pouring more and more money into a broken system. Systemic reform is needed and probably will only happen if transportation policy is vigorously debated in the public realm.
Lacking that debate, Washington is stuck with a choice between three clunker pieces of legislation because neither Congress nor the White House gets it:
It’s not how much you spend, but how you spend it.
Note: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and should not be attributed to the staff, officers or trustees of The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy The Brookings Institution
|
Interstate Max gets branding campaign
Business Journal of Portland
May 18, 2004
TriMet has launched a branding campaign for its its new Interstate Max light-rail line that features art by local painter Eric Bowman.
Branding agency ID hired Bowman to create five illustrations that comprise the campaign: Silicon Forest, Cultural Polyrythyms, Second Growth, Prowform and Voices of Remembrance.
Illustrations are of sculptural art commissioned and installed at stops along the Interstate Max line that runs from the city’s core north along Interstate Avenue to the Multnomah County Exposition Center near the border between Oregon and Washington.
The illustrations will be featured in collectible posters installed at bus and light-rail shelters, on the sides of buses and on the backs of benches. The posters are not expected to appear in paid advertisements.
“The poster, like a pubic notice, democratically communicates a message to residents and visitors to actively particpate in their community,” said Dennis Hahn, executive vice president of ID. “We originally wanted the advertising to be compelling enough to steal. With the poster format, a favorite illustration may end up in one’s office or den. This is the experience we believe the Tri-Met brand represents.”
Limited edition posters retail for $20 and are available from TriMet.
Bowman is known for airbrushed paintings on skateboards and comic book drawings.
|
Rocket Launcher Found Near Atlanta Commuter Train Station
WKMG-TV Central Florida
May 18, 2004
ATLANTA — A military rocket launcher was found Tuesday near a rail- transit station just outside Atlanta.
The shoulder-held launcher was found by the Hamilton E. Holmes MARTA station west of Atlanta by transit employees around 2 p.m., said Gene Wilson, MARTA police chief.
The rocket launcher had been used and it was not loaded, he said. “It kind of looks like mini bazooka,”’ he said. “We’re trying to figure out when it was used and how it was used.’”
The launcher, which was about three feet tall and six inches wide, was found on an embankment next to a railroad track parallel to the city’s east- west rail-transit line, which was not interrupted by the discovery. “It didn’t have a projectile in it. There was no immediate danger to the public so we did not stop service,’’ he said.
There was no immediate indication of how it got there. The FBI and police were searching the area to make sure there were no similar devices |
EASTWARD HO! FOR LIRR Dig bids to Grand Central
Daily News (New York
May 18, 2004
The Big Dig to bring Long Island Rail Road trains into Grand Central Terminal is about to hit the tracks.
Transit officials began asking for bids yesterday from contractors with giant underground digging machines to carve a 1.1-mile tunnel beneath Manhattan.
The ambitious $6.3 billion East Side Access expansion project eventually will help carry 161,000 daily passengers — more riders than most commuter railroads in the country. “This is a major milestone in our efforts to improve service and make the commute for our customers dramatically easier,” Metropolitan Transit Authority Chairman Peter Kalikow said.
The 43-month dig contract will be awarded in August — with major excavation expected to start next year. LIRR trains are not expected to begin pulling into Grand Central until 2011 or 2012. But when complete, the tunnel between 63rd and 38th Sts. is expected to shave about 35 minutes from the daily commute of LIRR riders heading to and from Manhattan’s East Side.
By getting more drivers out of their cars and onto mass transit, the new spur should cut air pollution while boosting job growth, according to the MTA.
Some blasting is needed, but much of the digging will be done with massive boring machines that will drill a horizontal path through the island bedrock.
Trains will arrive from Queens and Long Island at 63rd St. and Second Ave., via an unused level of the 63rd St. subway tunnel in the East River. They will travel west beneath the Lexington Ave. IRT before bending south at Park Ave. toward Grand Central.
The estimated $6.3 billion price tag includes the cost of buying property and new trains, officials said.
President Bush has endorsed the dig project but it’s unclear exactly how much funding the MTA will get from the feds, officials said.
That has advocates concerned not only about this project but others, including the proposed Second Ave. subway. “You have billions of dollars worth of projects and I don’t see pots of gold at the end of any of these tunnels,” said Beverly Dolinsky, executive director of the New York City Transit Riders Council.
GRAPHIC: BIG DIG
Bringing Long Island Rail Road trains into Grand Central Terminal requires a major Manhattan dig. Trains will travel under the East River through an unused portion of the 63rd St. subway tunnel that links Queens and Manhattan.
In Manhattan, the tunnel will move west from 63rd St. and Second Ave., traveling beneath the Lexington Ave. IRT subway line. It will bend south at Park Ave. New platforms built underneath Park Ave. will allow passengers to board and exit trains. Once at Grand Central, escalators will lead to a new LIRR “terminal within the terminal” on the lower level.
|
Siemens facing mounting costs as clients pull Combino tram cars from service
AFX.COM
May 18, 2004
Costs are mounting for Siemens AG as public transport companies across Europe pull its troubled Combino tram cars from service.
The Combino has been beset by technical problems and the company has decided to cease production and produce a modified version.
A company spokeswoman said earlier that Siemens has recalled about 400 of the railcars, which will be rebuilt at two facilities in Germany and the Czech Republic.
She confirmed recent comments from chief executive Heinrich von Pierer that Siemens will have to substantially increase risk provisions because of the recall, but declined to comment in more details on how much the repair work will cost.
“The costs are rising steadily, although it’s too early to talk about concrete figures now,” said Eckhard Lander, a spokesman for Dusseldorf’s public transport company Rheinische Bahngesellschaft AG, which owns 51 Combinos. “Whenever we have to use older tram cars instead of the Combino it costs us much more in terms of maintenance and other costs.”
Municipal transport companies that have been forced to mothball some of their Combinos, such as Amsterdam, Potsdam and Augsburg, are currently in talks with Siemens about compensation for losses incurred. All declined to comment on the amounts under discussion, but said Siemens must compensate them according to the terms of the original contracts.
However, a Siemens spokeswoman reiterated recent comments from chief executive Heinrich von Pierer that Siemens will have to substantially increase risk provisions because of the recall. Siemens booked 296 mln eur in provisions in the second quarter largely because of Combino.
Siemens’ bottom line will also be hurt as clients postpone outstanding Combino orders. For example, Amsterdam’s GVB has postponed the delivery of the last 15 trains out of a total of 155 ordered, spokesman Hans Zandenberg said.
In addition, Siemens has been forced to delay the start date for the final repair work on the faulty Combino trams. While provisional repairs will begin this summer as scheduled, the permanent repair work at two facilities in Germany and the Czech Republic will not begin until the second quarter of 2005.
Originally, Siemens told its customers work could start this fall, according to Basel’s BVB municipal transport company, which has pulled 22 of its 28 Combinos from service.
|
GLOBAL OIL CRISIS: ‘The days of cheap fuel are over in Thailand’
The Nation (Thailand
May 18, 2004
Govt to promote conservation, use of public transport; Oil analysts warned Thais yesterday that the days of cheap fuel are over — as US crude prices hit a new record high of US$41.65 a barrel.
Aphisit Rujikiatkamjorn, senior executive vice president of PTT, said that with Middle East oil producers having adjusted the target range of Dubai crude from $22-$28 a barrel to $28-$32, local consumers would have to cope with the reality that they will never be able to buy oil at the old prices again. He said it was likely that retail oil prices would surpass the previous level by Bt1.20-Bt1.50 per litre.
To date, the government-run Oil Fund has spent about Bt9.74 billion cushioning domestic oil prices. Without the Oil Fund’s subsidy, 95 octane premium gasoline should have been quoted at a retail price of Bt20.65 per litre, compared to Bt19.95 per litre for 91 octane premium gasoline and Bt17.01 per litre for diesel.
Dubai crude yesterday rose to $35.825 a barrel, the highest level in 21 years. US light crude reached $41.65 a barrel, the highest level since the New York mercantile Exchange launched its crude contract in 1983.
‘Given the current situation, one can scarcely see what, short of an external intervention, could make short-term prices go down,’ Societe Generale economist Frederic Lasserre said. ‘The short-term is dominated by low gasoline stocks in the United States and Europe and deterioration of the Middle East situation. Neither is likely to change much in the months to come,’ Lasserre said.
If the Thaksin government insists on pegging domestic oil prices, it faces higher Oil Fund losses.
Energy Minister Prommin Lertsuridej said he could not elaborate on when domestic oil prices would rise because of fears it would spur oil companies to hoard oil. Prommin is due to present a package on energy conservation to the Cabinet today. It will consist of seven key points:
- Ask the local mass media to help promote energy conservation;
- Get the public to rely more on mass transport. The underground metro line will be commissioned for opening before August. The number of school buses will be increased. Students will be entitled to lower monthly transport fares;
- Work with the Education Ministry to encourage students and parents to rely more on mass transport;
- Promote energy conservation among industries and businesses through the Industry Ministry, the Federation of Thai Industries and the Thai Chamber of Commerce;
- Call on Thai families to use less energy in their homes;
- Provide energy conservation education to local industries and businesses; and
- Get state agencies to show leadership in energy conservation, by reducing electricity consumption by 5 percent.
Metta Banthernsuk, director of the National Energy Policy Committee, said the Cabinet will also consider a proposal to slap an excise tax on methyl tertiary butul ether (MTBE), a substance used to boost the octane level in gasoline. MTBE has so far been exempt from excise tax. The measure is aimed at encouraging oil refineries to use ethanol, which is mainly locally produced, to boost the octane level instead of having to rely on the imported MTBE.
The Opec producers’ cartel, which controls half of world crude exports, has pledged to keep the global market supplied with 80 million barrels per day (bpd). But some oil dealers are sceptical Opec has enough spare production capacity to tip the supply-and-demand balance.
Opec president Purnomo Yusgiantoro said yesterday the cartel was unhappy about the current price surge. ‘High oil prices can cause recession. We are not happy with high oil prices,’ Purnomo, who is also Indonesia’s oil minister, told reporters in Jakarta.
Most Opec countries, except top exporter Saudi Arabia, are producing flat out. The group is currently pumping more than two million bpd above its official production ceiling of 23.5 million bpd to feed demand, which has been especially strong in China and the United States.
Iraq’s crude exports have been cut by a third at the key southern Basra terminal since a pipeline was blown up on May 8. Before the attack the terminal was shipping 1.6 million bpd.
|
Tram expansion plan for Sydney
Sydney — Herald Sun
May 18, 2004
THE company which runs Sydney’s tram system is driving plans to extend the service to Circular Quay to alleviate traffic congestion.
Metro Transport Sydney’s proposal was presented today to NSW Planning and Infrastructure Minister Craig Knowles at the Sydney Future’s Forum launch.
The $180 million project would involve trams running along either George or Castlereagh streets every two-and-a-half minutes from 6am to midnight, with George Street the preferred option. It would feature 13 trams, carrying up to 200 passengers each, linking the current light rail system which runs to Lilyfield, in Sydney’s inner-west. The plans also would result in joint bus-tram ticketing and a major bus- tram interchange built at Central.
Metro Transport which runs Sydney’s light rail and monorail systems hoped up to 40,000 people would use the system each day and its success would lead to further extensions of the network.
Chief executive officer Kevin Warrell said light rail was a clean, green and efficient way to travel the city. “We see the extension of the current light rail service from Central to Circular Quay as the beginning of a comprehensive inner-city light rail system which could ultimately service Bondi, the University of NSW (Kensington) and Green Square, as well as Parramatta Road,” Mr Warrell said.
Mr Knowles said light rail expansion would be explored but admitted there was no “magic bullet” for solving Sydney’s traffic congestion.
He said research would measure how different options including conventional bus, guided bus, monorail, light rail and heavy rail could impact on inner-city transport. “Our own investigations show that doing nothing is not an option,” Mr Knowles said. “Unless our inner-city transport system changes, more of us will find ourselves trapped in traffic.
“The modern tram is one option we will be examining further. “It is doubtful there is a magic bullet solution to inner-city traffic congestion but perhaps there is a place for the modern trams.”
Mr Knowles today announced a working group made up of state government departments, agencies and Sydney City Council to develop inner-city transport plans.
Sydney’s light rail system currently carries four million passengers a year along a 7km route from Central to Lilyfield.
Metro Transport would like the Circular Quay extension project built after the Cross-City Tunnel was completed in 2005, to reduce commuter inconvenience. The firm believed the project would take 18 months to complete, with the $180 million cost jointly financed by private and public investors.
|
Rail riders proving honesty is best policy
The Houston Chronicle
May 19, 2004
Passengers boarding MetroRail better double check they have ticket in hand — police are escalating fare inspections and issuing hundreds of citations to scofflaws.
Metropolitan Transit Authority officers asked an estimated 41,191 train riders in April to show their tickets, more than were checked in the first three months of rail service combined. They found 420 riders without tickets, writing 306 citations and giving warnings to the rest.
April’s fare evasion rate of 1 percent is lower than that experienced on other light rail systems, most of which reported nabbing 2 percent to 3 percent of riders without tickets. “The vast majority of people, as demonstrated by those we have inspected thus far, are abiding by the rules,” said Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert. “It looks to us that folks are doing what they are asked to do: buy tickets or have passes to get on the train.”
Failing to purchase a $ 1 MetroRail ticket carries a hefty penalty. Violators are charged with theft of services, a Class C misdemeanor that will show up on their criminal record. While such a crime can be punished by a fine of up to $ 500, the standard penalty (including court costs) for fare evasion is $ 285, said Joellyn Champagne, assistant director of Houston Municipal Courts.
Lambert dismissed the perception of many riders that cheating is widespread and police are never checking for tickets. He acknowledged that fare inspections were rare in the first three months after Houston’s first light rail line opened. Police at that time were concentrating on traffic enforcement in response to numerous collisions between automobiles and the trains, he said, and officers wanted to give a grace period to let people get used to the system.
Meena and Deepak Vij of Sugar Land first rode the Main Street rail line in March and said they were surprised that nobody checked their fares. “We both noticed and were concerned about the significant number of riders who rode it without buying a ticket,” they said in a complaint sent to Mayor Bill White, which they shared with the Houston Chronicle. “While we think the honor system is great, it is not guaranteed to work. This is bound to financially impact Metro’s bottom line.”
Unlike buses, where drivers collect fares as each passenger boards, train riders are required to purchase tickets using vending machines on station platforms before they get on. One of the advantages of light rail, Metro officials say, is it allows for rapid boarding. And the driver, locked in a booth, is able to concentrate on operating the train.
Light rail systems across the country find it’s too expensive to have an employee checking tickets on every train, so they leave the task to police officers and fare inspectors. They make random trips up and down the line or position themselves at a station, asking to see tickets on board or once passengers have exited.
Lambert has set a goal of inspecting one of every five MetroRail riders for fare payment. But with so few violations thus far, that might not be necessary, he said. About 11 percent of April’s 379,465 passengers had their tickets checked. “We’ll go up in May to about 20 percent if that’s realistic,” he said. “I’ve asked staff to give me candid feedback. We’ll keep focusing on this and if we see a need to adapt the goal, we’ll adapt.”
Dallas Area Rapid Transit does not keep tabs on the percentage of train riders its police ask to show proof of payment, said spokesman Morgan Lyons. But, of those checked, studies have shown 2 percent to 3 percent are caught ticketless, he said.
In Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority contracts for 50 civilian fare inspectors on its four rail lines. Spokesman Ed Scannell said inspections last month ranged from 10 percent of riders on one route to 34 percent on another. “Our fare evasion rate is between 2 and 3 percent,” he said. “It varies from month to month.”
A 2002 survey of 11 rail systems in the United States by the Transportation Research Board, a federally funded data collector and analyzer, found an average evasion rate of 2.5 percent.
Metro Chairman David Wolff said he’s pleased with the low number of violators here thus far.
“Finding only 1 percent of the total checked haven’t paid, wow, I’m impressed with the honesty of Houstonians,” he said.
Lambert said Metro is considering posting warning signs at stations and on trains advising passengers of the consequences for failing to buy a ticket. Such signs are common in other cities, including Dallas and Los Angeles.
TICKET, PLEASE
Metro is stepping up enforcement of fare payment on its Main Street light rail line.
January � April Total
Riders checked 79,794
Citations written 387
Warnings given 176
Evasion rate 0.7%
|
Funds from illegal rail riders may go to Metro
Houston Chronicle
May 19, 2004
Metro police hand out hundreds of citations a week to fare evaders and motorists along the Main Street light rail line, but the transit agency never collects a cent from their efforts.
Now the chairman of the Metropolitan Transit Authority board wants the agency to pocket at least some of the money.
Under state law, Metro citations issued in the city are adjudicated through Houston Municipal Courts. Because the city and Metro don’t have a revenue-sharing agreement, fines collected by the courts go into Houston’s general fund. That’s the case even for fare evasion.
“Metro, like anybody else who is stolen from, would have the option of pursuing a civil suit against the defendant in order to pursue their lost monies,” said Joellyn Champagne, assistant Municipal Courts director. “But this is a criminal penalty. It’s a separate issue. We do not turn over any of that money to Metro.”
That means someone riding MetroRail without purchasing a ticket, if caught, will help fund things such as city parks and sewers.
In many other cities, however, the transit authority receives at least a portion of each fine to help offset the costs of having its own police department. “We should look at the policy and figure out whether or not we should get some or all” of the fine revenue, said Metro Chairman David Wolff, who took office in February. “If we have to pay for enforcement, there is reason to look at the idea that some of that cost should be borne by the revenues generated.”
Wolff said he was surprised to learn that Metro must fully fund its police force with tax money rather than have lawbreakers help offset some of the costs. “As we are increasing the size of the system, at some point you just can’t have all the revenue going to the city,” he said.
Metro issued 5,340 citations during the first quarter of this year, according to data from the authority’s Department of Police & Traffic Management. At that pace, transit cops will write more than 21,000 tickets this year.
Fines vary depending on offense. Getting caught driving solo in an HOV lane costs $150, crashing into a train will set you back $240, and riding without paying the fare will deplete your bank account $285, according the Municipal Courts’ standard fine schedule. Some of that goes to the state, but the city gets to keep the bulk.
Using an estimated average of $200 per ticket, Metro could generate more than $4 million in fine revenue this year. That’s about one-fifth of the budget for the Police & Traffic Management Department, which has about 250 employees.
Fare evaders in Dallas pay a $75 fine directly to Dallas Area Rapid Transit thanks to a change in Texas law that took effect in September. That provision applies exclusively to DART, however, said Paula Alexander, Metro’s general counsel.
Morgan Lyons, DART spokesman, said fare evasion becomes a theft crime only if the violator doesn’t pay the $75 civil penalty within 30 days. DART sought the change because it was concerned that charging fare evaders with theft could be overly harsh, giving someone who’s convicted a criminal record that could lead to an inability to get work or a state professional license.
Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert said he’ll review the matter for Wolff, but most of his officers are happy the way the system now works. “When someone raises the issue that ‘the only reason you’re giving me this citation is because you are trying to generate revenue,’ we can honestly say that’s not what it’s all about,” Lambert said. “Metro gets no money from this. … It’s an action that is most appropriate to get compliance with the law.”
|
Engineer: Monorail Design Flawed; Project planners hit back, calling respected structural expert ‘unprofessional.’
Seattle Weekly
May 19 — 25, 2004
Jon Magnusson outlines his concerns for reporters on Thursday, May 20.
IS THE NEW Seattle monorail being properly planned to allow expansion of a citywide system? Will four miles of single-guideway track serve future ridership growth? And, for crying out loud, will or won’t the West Seattle Bridge fall down under the added weight of a monorail track and train if struck by an earthquake?
Those are a few of the questions posed Thursday, May 20, by widely respected Seattle structural engineer Jon Magnusson, who thinks the public has been misled about the design and appearance of the city’s planned ride in the sky — a claim that was denied by monorail officials, who were barred from Magnusson’s press conference. The criticism also provoked an angry response from a monorail construction team official, who called Magnusson “unprofessional.”
“My intent is not to kill” the monorail, Magnusson says, “unless it doesn’t pass muster. If it doesn’t work, why are we spending that kind of money on something that doesn’t work?” To him, “The monorail project is in danger of becoming our generation’s Alaskan Way Viaduct … one that will have to be torn down by our children.”
Magnusson, the first authoritative engineer to speak out against the project, says he isn’t waiting around for the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) or City Hall to come up with answers to the issues he’s raised. He has formed his own task force of private engineers, including those from his Seattle-based structural engineering firm, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, to review what he calls the monorail’s potential structural and planning weak spots and issue a report, in two weeks.
Eric Wilson, spokesperson for the Seattle Monorail Project says the questions raised by Magnusson aren’t necessarily new or unanswered. “There was nothing substantially apparently shared at [Magnusson’s] press conference that, to the best of our knowledge, we haven’t discussed and gone over with the public at community meetings.” SMP sent a few representatives to the press conference to hear the claims firsthand but were barred entry by Magnusson’s staff, Wilson says.
“Jon is a respected member of the engineering community,” Wilson adds. “But we also have some of the best people anywhere who do transit systems. … We feel real good about the team we have assembled.” The expansion planning, single-track sections, and bridge load are issues all resolved in environmental impact statements and other planning documents, he says.
THE $1.6 BILLION monorail project is expected to open its construction bids June 15. The idea is to break ground this winter and start building a 13.7-mile Green Line from Crown Hill to West Seattle — the first of several monorail lines planned to crisscross the city. Two consortiums, Cascadia Monorail Co. and the recently re-grouped Team Monorail, are expected to submit bids.
Magnusson says his firm was involved — though without a contract — in some of the original planning last year and officially dropped off Team Monorail last month. Team Monorail has said, perhaps correctly, he was never a member of their team, and Magnusson said, also likely correctly, he was. There were no signed contracts. But according to e-mail between Team Monorail and Magnusson and other documents Magnusson read aloud at the press conference, he and his firm were involved in “a small part of the project” as structural engineer for the monorail stations as a sub-consultant.
SMP AND TEAM MONORAIL, in a return volley of e-mails released Thursday, questioned Magnusson’s claims and motives. As Tom Stone of Team Monorail said in an early-Thursday message to Magnusson: “As I have told the media, MKA was never on the team and never did any work for the team.” There had been discussion of the firm possibly serving as a sub-consultant, but “No formal agreement was ever reached, no paper exchanged hands. The only evidence of any discussions is that because Chris and you apparently attended an initial meeting, Granite [Construction] took your business cards and put you on an initial contact list. You cannot ‘resign’ from a team that you were never a part of. Further, I consider it incredibly unprofessional to have done this [speaking out] without even having the professional courtesy, let alone not having taken the time, to come and talk with us first about whatever concerns you have.”
As “only an engineer,” Magnusson says he didn’t fully appreciate how wild the monorail’s political terrain was until word leaked of his planned press conference, where the first questions put to him were about his motivation. Magnusson denies he is part of any of the supporting or dissenting factions and has contributed money to neither side. (His firm is involved in the new Washington Mutual building on Second Avenue, which would be affected by the monorail’s alignment, but he says his firm’s portion of that work is completed.) By dropping out of the Green Line project, his company lost a potential multimillion-dollar contract, Magnusson claims. “From a business standpoint, we’d be a lot better off shutting up,” Magnusson says. But, at the very least, his critical review might mean “we’ll end up with a much better monorail project.”
Right now, it’s a project that has moved too far too fast, leaving design flaws in its wake, he says. “You need to know what you’re buying before you sign that contract,” says Magnusson, who has honchoed more than $2.5 billion in construction projects and whose firm has projects in 43 states and 35 countries.
THE MONORAIL’S already-issued request for bid proposals, which Magnusson’s task force will study in more detail, does not include all facets of the project, Magnusson says. Monorail officials have said they will work out the fine details after a bid is accepted.
Magnusson called that naive and “a fantasy.” The DBOM — design, build, operate, and maintain — bids have to be specific, or you don’t get what you need, he says. “It has to be in the RFP [request for proposals] or it will get value-engineered out, to use the terminology,” Magnusson says.
His task force, whose report he will release to the public and city officials, will study the question of using 24-year-old seismic standards to gauge the quake worthiness of a West Seattle Bridge burdened by the monorail’s added weight. Also, he wants to further explore the budget- cutting use of a single guideway on four miles of the otherwise dual-beam line, suspecting the single-track portions might handcuff expansion in later years and create even greater delays in times of train breakdowns.
Like many who question the project’s deviations from the one narrowly approved by voters in 2002, Magnusson wants to know what, exactly, the line will look like — just how big are the guideways and those massive switches?
He feels SMP has been deceptive in its recent ad campaign that, among other things, depicted scenic, sunset-mountain-water views out the monorail’s windows as it passed through town. “This is not the system being planned,” he says. “Every second you’ll get a flash of a view corridor” as the train moves along Second Avenue. “This is propaganda … it’s not honest.”
|
‘National security threat’ just taking photos of metro; Charges racial profiling. McGill student was conducting research for urban planning professors
Montreal Gazette
May 19, 2004
A McGill University student claims he was the victim of racial profiling when he was arrested while taking pictures at a metro station on Sunday.
Shanake Seneviratne, 20, was photographing buses and metro cars at the Sauve station that afternoon when he was stopped by transit cops and charged with impeding the flow of traffic inside a station. “There was no one in the corridor and I only weigh 160 pounds, so how could I be blocking traffic?” Seneviratne said.
Seneviratne does research on public transportation for three urban planning professors at McGill. That, he said, is what he was doing.
He was taken to a room in the station, where the two Montreal Transit Corp. officers quizzed him and wrote him up a warning ticket for the infraction. Then in walked Montreal police.
Seneviratne was handcuffed, placed in a cruiser, read his rights and was told he was “a threat to national security” as he was taken to the police department’s northern operations centre. There, he was fingerprinted, photographed, searched, placed in a holding cell and interrogated by Montreal police officers and a plainclothes RCMP officer. After six hours, he was told he was free to go.
Seneviratne contends his dark skin caused him to be mistaken for a terrorist, although that precise word was never mentioned. “This is discrimination, racism at the very least,” he said. “They kept asking me where I was from and I told them I was born in Canada. They kept asking where my parents were from, was I associated with any groups at McGill and what was I doing taking pictures in the metro, that this was against the law,” said Seneviratne, who is of Sri Lankan descent.
Seneviratne is demanding a written apology from the transit corporation, Montreal police and the Mounties. “I have no idea why all this harassment was made against me, other than (it was) racially motivated due to the fact that I belong to a visible minority.”
The Montreal Transit Corp. did not return calls for comment. However, the zealousness of the police officers might have resulted from a letter delivered to a police station Thursday that threatening an act of violence in the metro.
Montreal police played down the significance of the letter yesterday, saying it was just one of many notes and tips they receive frequently. The contents of the letter are under investigation and could not be divulged, Constable Steve Morrisette said. “But there is nothing that has led us to believe there is any imminent threat in our territory.”
Police are increasing foot patrols in metro stations, especially during rush hours, as part of a plan instituted in February. But they acknowledged that current events have played a part in the decision to patrol stations.
|
U.S. issues mandatory rail-security rules
United Press International
May 20, 2004
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson announced the country’s first-ever mandatory rail-security measures Monday.
Hutchinson said the measures represent “the first time in the history of mass transit that the federal government has taken the leadership role in setting a federal security standard for passenger-rail and mass-transit systems.”
The department will not direct new funding to enforce or implement the standards, but Hutchinson said inspection teams of Transportation Security Administration and Department of Transportation employees are slated to make at least 16 site visits this year to check transit authorities’ security measures.
He said inspectors might perform additional spot checks in response to specific reports of problems. “We really look at this as a partnership, but at the same time, standards are not significant if there’s not some compliance capability,” Hutchinson said. “We expect compliance.”
The standards, which Hutchinson said were developed in cooperation with transit authorities, will apply to Amtrak, commuter-rail systems and subways.
The new standards will require all U.S. rail operators to designate security coordinators for the Transportation Security Administration to contact regarding rail-security issues and will require some operators to remove or harden trash cans that could provide cover for terrorist bombs.
In addition, rail operators will be required to conduct inspections for suspicious or unattended items, to ask passengers and employees to look for such items and to guarantee that their security measures remain consistent with federally established threat levels. The standards will require some transit operators to employ canine explosive teams to screen baggage, passengers, stations and trains.
Hutchinson said the standards were not prompted by any specific threat or intelligence but said the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, Spain, had underlined their importance. “Madrid, I call it not a wake-up call, but a reminder,” Hutchinson said.
Some critics have questioned what they say is the Department of Homeland Security’s myopic focus on air security, saying the $11 billion spent on air security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is out of proportion with the $150 million dedicated to improving rail security.
Hutchinson denied such accusations, however, saying homeland security spending is well matched to the most pressing threats. “You deal first with the threat and weapon that has been used, and then you close out additional vulnerabilities,” Hutchinson said. He said the proposed Department of Homeland Security budget for 2005 includes increased funding for rail and transit security.
At the forefront of current U.S. efforts to protect trains from terrorist attack is a pilot program underway at the New Carrollton, Md., train station, which serves both Amtrak and Maryland Rail Commuter trains. That 30-day program, begun May 4, is testing explosives-screening equipment to check both passengers and luggage.
Hutchinson said the program has been a success so far. “The passengers received it well, time was not a particular problem,” he said.
Homeland Security spokesman Dennis Murphy said the second and third 30-day phases of the program are set to continue as planned.
Murphy said the next phase will take place at Union Station in Washington, D.C., where explosives-detection equipment will be used to screen bags held in the station’s temporary storage area. The details of the third and final stage of the program have not yet been released, but Murphy said it will include installing detection equipment inside a train car.
The measures being tested in the pilot program highlight the difficulties associated with tightening rail security.
Since rail systems are relatively open, with large stations and passengers often getting on and off at many different points, airport-type security measures are generally considered unworkable for trains, and developing new systems may take time.
Still, a number of security improvements have been the focus of active consideration.
Passenger and employee vigilance, the encouragement of which is codified in the new security standards, is often cited as a cornerstone of successful rail security. Subways and other rail systems across the country have launched public-education campaigns encouraging passengers to report suspicious items or activity to authorities.
Some rail companies have placed patrols at key points along their tracks, such as the mouths of tunnels. Others have increased security at stations by increasing patrols or video surveillance.
Extra security training for rail employees has been widely recommended, but reports indicate few rail workers are well versed in emergency or evacuation procedures.
Several bills have been proposed to ramp up rail security measures, including a Senate bill introduced the day after the Madrid attack to dedicate $515 million to upgrade railroad security and $777 million to modernize several major metropolitan tunnels, but no additional federal funding has been approved so far.
|
Donor offers to buy CSX line for rail, trail use
Memphis Commercial Appeal
May 20, 2004
An anonymous donor is offering to buy an old Midtown-to-Cordova railroad line and give it to the city for light rail and possibly a trail for bikers and walkers.
Pete Aviotti, special assistant to the mayor, announced the development Wednesday at the Regional Rail Steering Committee. The steering committee adopted a resolution to accept the donation.� Key approval of a Midtown-to-Cordova light rail line would have to come from the City Council and Federal Transit Administration.
“The donor has said if light rail is not used (on the line) in the next 25-30 years, then he’d like for the city to make it a bike and hiking trail,” Aviotti said.
The donor contacted Memphis City Councilman Jack Sammons, who told Aviotti on Monday. Sammons, Aviotti said, “is the only person who knows the anonymous donor.”
Sammons could not be reached Wednesday.
The local line of CSX Transportation runs 13.3 miles from near the Union-Poplar viaduct, across East Memphis, under the I 240/40 east interchange, atop the north edge of Shelby Farms and through Cordova before ending at Macon and Lenow.
It’s a clear, 100-foot-wide path along one of the city’s most congested transportation corridors. The right-of-way connects neighborhoods like Binghamton, Highland Heights, East Memphis and old Cordova, the 4,500-acres of Shelby Farms parkland, (the largest urban park of its kind in the nation) and commercial centers along bustling Germantown Parkway.
CSX won federal approval last year to discontinue service on the line.
The railroad has received several inquiries in recent days, including one from Shelby County government, spokesman Meg Scheu said Wednesday. The railroad declined to give a ballpark estimate of the price tag. “We have to pay for appraisals,” Scheu said. “They aren’t made until a level of understanding has come between us and someone offering to buy the property.”
MATA has 7 miles of existing light rail, including the new, 2-mile Madison Line between downtown and Cleveland. The transit authority plans within the next eight years to extend light rail 9 miles between the Medical Center and Memphis International Airport.
MATA’s long-range plans include building lines south toward DeSoto County, southeast toward Germantown and Collierville, and north toward Millington.
The CSX corridor is not part of MATA’s light-rail plan. But that could change, said Tom Fox, MATA’s director of planning and capital projects.
Seven years have passed since MATA created its long range corridor plan, and the agency needs to update it, Fox said Wednesday. The population density of Cordova’s neighborhoods is less than ideal for light rail, but a series of park-and-ride lots might make it work, Fox has said.
“I think it’s something that can add greatly to what we’re trying to do,” MATA president Will Hudson said.
The possibility of a way for cyclists and walkers to go between Midtown and Cordova without competing with cars stirred some excitement Wednesday. “I think there is a tremendous need . . . for the commuter as well as the recreational biker,” said Bill Waters, president of the Memphis Hightailers bike club in 2001-2002.
The community may not have to choose between using the right-of-way for light rail or a trail, said Jeff Ciabotti, director of trail development for the Rails to Trails Conservancy. “The idea of shared-use corridors is really catching on around the country,” he said. “We call them ‘rails with trails.’ “
|
Shutterbugs beware
Trenton Times
May 20, 2004
Impromptu photography is a lifeblood for railroad enthusiasts and for those who work in the transportation industry, but NJ Transit is trying to put a stop to it, claiming that for security reasons it has the right to control whether people take photos of its property.
The mass transit agency’s policy has raised civil liberty concerns among rail enthusiasts and an expert in photography rights. “There’s no legal authority for anyone, including government, to prohibit photography of just about anything in public view,” said Bert P. Krages, an attorney from Portland, Ore., who specializes in photographer’s rights.
Although the agency hasn’t publicized it, a policy was implemented at least as far back as 2000 that requires permits for people taking photos of agency property, according to NJ Transit spokeswoman Janet Hines.
The free permits can be obtained from the agency’s real estate division, and it usually takes a day to obtain one after an application, which can be faxed or e-mailed, is completed, Hines said.
The agency, she said, fears people taking photographs of trains, railroad structures and other equipment may not always be train buffs, especially after the March 11 train bombings in Spain and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although the policy was put into effect before both events.
“Things |
