News | Swindler | Articles

Directors Derail Ballot Proposal; Some Had Hoped A Vote On The Project Would Spur Congress To Fund A Light-rail Alternative.

Daily Pilot [Orange County, Calif) July 17, 2004 SANTA ANA - After a spirited debate on whether the Centerline light-rail project should go on the November ballot, the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors voted narrowly against it. Friday, the board could muster only four votes to put CenterLine - which is already in the final stage of preliminary engineering - on the ballot in November. It needed six. Nine board members attended the meeting. The vote was purely advisory and would have had to be approved by the county Board of Supervisors. CenterLine would run 9.3 miles, from Santa Ana to John Wayne Airport through Costa Mesa. Half of the money for the project is coming from Measure M, the half-cent sales tax to fund transportation improvements in Orange County, passed by voters in 1990. The board, which is mostly made up of elected officials from around the county, was discussing putting CenterLine on the ballot at this stage because of the difficulty of procuring half a billion dollars of federal funding for the project. Some board members felt a vote of the people would send a message to the Orange County congressional delegation that residents want a light rail transportation alternative. Only one of the six local Congress members - Loretta Sanchez - supports CenterLine. But those opposed to putting CenterLine on the ballot said it was not necessary for two main reasons: voters already approved the development of a light rail system with Measure M and because the board represents the people and already voted to move forward with CenterLine in January. Construction is set to begin in 2006, and to open in 2009. “Why are we here?” asked board member Miguel Pulido, the mayor of Santa Ana. “I think we’re elected to make tough decisions. Don’t peel [CenterLine] off and say, ‘Let’s put it out there and see what happens.’ That’s irresponsible. I think we’re on the first-yard line, ready to score a touchdown. I think we can turn our Congressional leaders around.” While Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, whose district includes Costa Mesa, has already made it clear that he won’t support federal funding of CenterLine, even if a majority of voters are in favor of it, others are still mulling it . Rep. Chris Cox, whose district includes Newport Beach, said he was disappointed that the voters won’t get to cast their ballots on the CenterLine proposal. “If CenterLine is going to be the next decade-long commitment for the federal government in Orange County, that will move aside any other priorities, we need to have solid backing of public opinion in order to sustain that course,” Cox said. Costa Mesa Mayor Gary Monahan, who did not attend the meeting, said he’s glad CenterLine will not appear on the November ballot since there will be so many issues vying for voters’ attention, including a proposition strongly supported by mayors. “There’s only so much time and energy to go around as far as proponents or opponents or even the general voters have on so many issues,” Monahan said. Some of the transportation board members who hoped CenterLine would go on the ballot said passage of Measure M was not a valid vote for CenterLine, since the measure just mentioned a general light rail system. “Measure M did say light rail, but it said we should use existing right of way, which CenterLine does not, and be rapid, which CenterLine is not,” said Chris Norby, a member of the Board of Supervisors. Others who wanted Centerline on the ballot were concerned that even if it did get on in November, more money would be spent on the project between now and then by transportation agency staff members. “They have a certain amount of money set aside for this and will keep spending it,” said Bill Campbell, another member of the Board of Supervisors. “So we might spend $60-70 million more and have nothing to show for it [if it fails].” Pulido said that putting CenterLine on the ballot would be its death knell. After the vote, he said he would continue lobbying local members of Congress, to convince them that CenterLine has the will of the people behind it. “A lot of people who are important to [the Congress members] - business leaders, community leaders - [support it],” Pulido said. “I think they need to see more of those leaders.”

Monorail’s First Day Smooth As 30,515 Use New System

Las Vegas Review-Journal July 17, 2004 The Las Vegas Monorail drew 30,515 passengers on its first day of service Thursday, according to company officials, who declined to say whether the number met projections. “We’re thrilled with the response we received our first day of carrying passengers,” Jim Gibson, chairman and CEO of monorail operations company Transit Systems Management, said in a prepared statement Friday. “Considering the magnitude of the project, everything went very smoothly. The comments we’re hearing from the public have been overwhelmingly positive,” Gibson’s statement said. “We’re grateful that Las Vegas visitors and locals alike seem to be enjoying the monorail.” After inaugural celebrations Wednesday, the $650 million, privately financed system on Thursday began whisking paying passengers on a 4.4-mile track between Sahara and Tropicana avenues behind the east side of the Strip. Prior to opening day, monorail officials said they did not expect ridership in the near-term to hit the anticipated daily average of 50,000 riders. That number has been assailed by monorail opponents, who claim the typical turnout will be less than half that. About 40,000 daily riders are needed for the system to break even financially. Early opening day, stations and trains were busy but not jam-packed. Officials said there were standing room-only crowds aboard trains by midday. Each train is designed to carry up to 125 standees in addition to 75 seated riders. As many as seven of the system’s nine trains were operating at any one time Thursday, officials said. The crowds did not come close to taxing the system’s ridership capacity of 6,000 riders per hour. Under current operating hours of 8 a.m. to midnight, capacity is 96,000 riders per day. One sign that the opening day crowd surpassed expectations was the amount of money collected. Officials said they had to make an unscheduled cash collection from automated ticket kiosks, some of which became stuffed with bills. Those kiosks are scheduled to be emptied of cash once every few days, according to officials. “On a first day, everybody has to purchase a ticket. Someone buying a three-day pass won’t be going back to a ticket machine,” monorail spokesman Todd Walker said. The system collected $98,436.50 in first-day fares from riders, according to officials. Walker reported no problems with the the monorail line’s driverless, computerized control system, which had suffered glitches during testing earlier this year that contributed to repeated delays in the start date. Officials spent Thursday monitoring passengers buying tickets, getting on trains and being carried to their stops. For the most part, they saw no problems. “We’ve seen some slight changes we can make to make it even more user-friendly,” Walker said. Targets for change could include the ticket kiosks, which some commuters were unsure how to use. “They’re user-friendly, but we can make it easier to understand,” Walker said. Other changes will depend on how and when riders use the monorail in the coming months. “You have to get through a week and through a convention and through the seasons to see what you need to adjust,” Walker said. The system’s first major test might be this weekend, when Strip tourist volumes typically peak for the week. Officials declined to speculate if larger crowds were expected today. “We’re going to be there and we’ll see,” Walker said. “I don’t expect more or less (people). I expect a lot of people.”

2 Suits Challenge Transbay Terminal Plan

The San Francisco Chronicle JULY 17, 2004 A planned expansion of the Transbay Terminal has run into legal turbulence in the form of two lawsuits this week challenging the environmental impact report approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for the project. The two suits filed separately in San Francisco Superior Court charge that the board violated a state environmental law last month when it unanimously approved the report. The ambitious project would transform the existing bus terminal at First and Mission streets into a hub for regional bus companies and Caltrain riders, with links to BART and San Francisco’s Municipal Railway. The project would also accommodate high-speed rail. Jack Myers, a private developer who is building a residential tower on land needed for the expanded terminal, said in a complaint filed Thursday that the environmental impact report approved by the Board of Supervisors was not sufficient because it failed to take into account his project. “It’s just vacant of any meaningful discussion about our property,” Myers said. “Everybody knew that (the residential tower) was about to go under construction.” Myers, whose plans call for a 51-story residential high-rise at 80 Natoma St., has been waging a nasty real estate battle with regional planners of the terminal project who say they need his parcel for underground tracks for high-speed rail service. In a second suit filed Friday, a group of businesses, tenants and building owners in the area said the EIR failed to take into account alternative, less disruptive sites for the new terminal. They contend that if the project is built at First and Mission, it would force many businesses in the area to relocate or close. “There is a total lack of due process here,” John Gasser, a local business owner, said in a press statement. Supervisor Chris Daly, who is a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the regional agency guiding the terminal project, said the board had considered the arguments of both Myers and the business group before it approved the environmental document. “According to our planning department and our city attorney, the report is adequate,” Daly said. Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, said neither suit appeared to have much merit. She said the California Environmental Quality Act, which both Myers and the businesses are invoking, states that the environmental impact report has to take into account only existing buildings. “80 Natoma is a vacant lot, so we’re confident that his suit has no merit,” Ayerdi said. She said she had not yet seen the second suit, but she dismissed the notion that the regional planners hadn’t considered alternative rail alignments, noting that they had reviewed at least 30 options. She also rejected the business group’s argument that the terminal should be built between Main and Beale streets because it is a less developed area with fewer businesses than Second Street, the area of concern in the second suit. “We’re charged by state law to keep it at First and Mission,” she said. She said the planners also had local authority for the site, noting that the San Francisco voters had approved Proposition H in 1999 requiring that the city build a new bus terminal at First and Mission streets.

Metro Officially Breaks Ground on Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line Light Rail Project

PR Newswire July 17, 2004 The following press release is issued on the behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: Metro officials joined local, state and federal officials, today, to break ground and begin construction on the Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line light rail project after the agency secured a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) last month from the Federal Transit Administration. This is truly an historic day for Los Angeles and for Eastside residents who rely heavily on public transit to get where they need to go,” said Metro Board Chairman Frank Roberts. “After waiting decades for a rail line of their own, the Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line, once completed, will link this community with direct access to downtown Los Angeles and beyond.” The Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line is Metro’s highest-priority rail construction project. It will include eight stations and serve one of the most densely populated areas of Los Angeles County from Union Station eastward through Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles to a terminus at Pomona and Atlantic boulevards. It’s a time to celebrate a great victory. After more than ten years of struggling to bring rail access to the highly transit-dependent communities of Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles, we will break ground on this crucial link to the regional transportation system,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina. “This would not have happened without a united community, united local leaders, and a united congressional delegation. We should all be proud to say, ‘Next Stop: East L.A.’” Cost of the project is projected at $898.8 million with half of the funding coming from the federal government ($490.7 million) and the rest coming from state and local funds. Last month, construction contracts to build the extension were signed and executed on the project, which is expected to begin service in December 2009. The Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line will offer faster and more convenient access to many destinations. With the construction of the Eastside Extension, the communities of East Los Angeles and Little Tokyo will be connected by Metro Rail to Long Beach, Hollywood, and the San Fernando Valley, Downtown Los Angeles, Pasadena and more. It is with a great deal of excitement and pride that I join the many leaders of this community who worked together to make today’s groundbreaking of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension a reality,” said Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34th). “For more than a decade, leaders past and present have fought tirelessly to overcome the many obstacles that have threatened our efforts to bring affordable and efficient transportation to the residents of East Los Angeles. The Gold Line is important to our communities because it will help enhance the quality of life for families by increasing their mobility and access to jobs and key services. I can’t think of a better cause for a community celebration.” Estimated ridership on the Eastside Extension is projected at 23,000 weekday boarding passengers by the year 2020. The hours of operation will coincide with Metro’s other rail lines (approximately 4 a.m. to 2 a.m., seven days a week). Estimated running time from Union Station to Pomona/Atlantic will be 17 minutes. I am very proud, today, to celebrate the groundbreaking of the Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line,” said Los Angeles City Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa. “The communities in Boyle Heights, Little Tokyo and East Los Angeles will now be linked to Union Station and the growing Metro Rail system and make transportation to the rest of the city and county easier, safer, and more enjoyable. I am proud to be part of the team, including our congressional delegation, that worked together to secure federal funding to make this project possible and I look forward to continuing to work with the Metro and local leaders to connect diverse parts of the city.” The six-mile extension will include eight additional stations with stops at Little Tokyo/Arts District, Pico/Aliso, Mariachi Plaza, Soto Street, Indiana, Maravilla, East LA Civic Center and Pomona/Atlantic. A 1.8-mile segment running through a densely populated area in Boyle Heights will be constructed underground featuring two underground stations. The remainder of the system will be build at street level. In June, following the approval of the FFGA, Metro executed a $600.4 million contract with Eastside LRT Constructors to begin construction. Eastside LRT is a joint venture of Washington Group International, Obayashi Corporation and Shimmick Construction Corporation.

Norfolk Southern Decides It Wants To Be On Board For Commuter Rail Service

Winston-Salem Journal (Winston Salem, NC) July 17, 2004 For years, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. has wanted nothing to do with commuter rail service. Now, however, Norfolk Southern, an Eastern rail giant that has long been the state’s principal freight hauler, wants to help run the local passenger trains planned for the Triad, company and government transportation officials say. The company’s change of attitude began after meetings with state and local transportation officials last winter. Those officials had been worried about Norfolk Southern’s plans to sell land that contains an unused section of track in downtown Winston-Salem to the Piedmont Triad Research Park. They feared that the move would take away space needed for future commuter lines through downtown. The effort to create local commuter rail service is being led by the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation, or PART, as a part of its mission to find ways to reduce traffic on the Triad’s highways. PART plans to put a system of 33 miles of passenger rail in place between Winston-Salem and Greensboro, with service planned to start in about 10 years. Norfolk Southern is one of the four biggest rail companies in the nation. Its routes cover 21,500 miles in 22 states, including 1,441 in North Carolina. It runs from Maine to Florida and as far west as Kansas City, Kan., company officials said. A commuter system that meets design criteria for both the company and PART could save substantial time and money for both, and provide revenue for the company to maintain and help operate the system. PART officials hope to have the deal finalized next month. Under the provisions: Essentially the entire 100-foot-wide rail corridor through downtown would be preserved. Research Park officials would get either the land or air rights needed to move ahead with projects that encroach on parts of the right of way. Norfolk Southern would have an opportunity to help operate any future passenger system. The exact shape that service would take will be defined later. Until that happens, Norfolk Southern will keep running freight on one of the tracks. The rest of the land will be designated for future rail use, removing the company from federal requirements to keep the track maintained. As a result, the old tracks will likely be ripped up and the property paved over until needed. PART would have the responsibility of reworking the corridor with new tracks and bridges as needed. PART and state rail officials said that the deal will help PART, because the authority won’t have to build a rail organization from the ground up, something other municipalities have had to do. This could help PART get commuter rail service up and running sooner. They also said that Norfolk Southern would benefit by having the public help pay for maintaining part of its vast statewide rail network. However, PART and state officials say that the public could be the biggest winner. The deal could help make commuter rail service more feasible and make sure that the region’s rail lines stay open for freight, which could help lower the rising number of trucks on the Triad’s highways. North Carolina has about 3,300 miles of rail line, about 2,200 miles less than it did at the peak of rail service 80 years ago state rail officials said. Norfolk Southern hasn’t been directly involved in transporting people since its predecessors, the Norfolk and Western Railway and Southern Railway companies, stopped passenger service about 30 years ago, said Robin Chapman, a company spokesman in Norfolk, Va. An agreement in the Triad would be among the first for the company in the country, Chapman said. The company is discussing similar deals in several places throughout its system, including Charlotte and Central Virginia. The Charlotte system is expected to be completed several years ahead of the Triad, said Allan Paul, an assistant director of the N.C. Department of Transportation’s rail division. Norfolk Southern’s interest in commuter rail service is being driven by business opportunities linked to the re-emergence of passenger rail as a mode of public transit, Chapman said. He said that traditionally, Norfolk Southern officials have approached passenger and freight from the position that the two can’t co-exist. In recent years, that has gradually changed to “yes, they can,” if conditions exist for maintaining the company’s primary objective of serving freight customers, he said. “We want to protect our freight franchise,” Chapman said. Chapman said that the possibility of contracting with public-transportation authorities to help operate and maintain their systems would give the company a chance to add revenue by using expertise and a track system it already has. “We always look for opportunities to put our core competency to use, and our core competency is running railroads,” Chapman said. He also said that although officials say that they don’t think passenger service will work everywhere, they do feel that it’s inevitable in some places. Where commuter systems do occur, the company wants to be the first in line to run them. “These operating arrangements aren’t something we’re actively seeking,” Chapman said. “But when the opportunity arises, we want to be ready to take advantage of it.” Brent McKinney, PART’s executive director, said that the discussions started out bumpy, but all sides were able to work through the difficulties. “What could be better than having a partner with their level of expertise at running rail,” McKinney said. “This is a good fit. Because we won’t have to start from the bottom, this puts us way ahead.” McKinney also said that public investment in rail lines is justified in order to keep them available for freight. According to PART studies, about 534 million tons of freight are shipped by truck on North Carolina’s highways. That number is expected to rise to about 640 million tons by 2010 and more than 800 million tons by 2020. On U.S. 52 through Winston-Salem, trucks already make up about 15 percent of the traffic. On Interstates 40 and 85 east of Greensboro trucks make up about one out of every four vehicles. McKinney said that situations is only going to get worse. “We talk about commuter congestion on roads, but we rarely talk about freight on our highways,” he said. “We’re going to have to take some of these trucks off the road; then motorists will have room to travel.” Paul agreed, saying that the corridor is just as essential for moving freight as it is passengers. “From a DOT perspective, both are important,” Paul said. “Not only are we there to help PART, but we have an equal obligation to Norfolk Southern because they provide freight transportation which pulls traffic off highways. Protecting these corridors is an important part of the N.C. DOT’s program for future rail use.”

Eastside Extension Finally Under Way; Gold Line Electric Trains Should Be Operating In 2009 After 15-Year Wait For Trib: Eastside Extension Finally Begins Ground Broken After 15-Year Wait, Gold Line Trains To Begin In 2009

Pasadena Star-News (Pasadena, CA July 17, 2004 For people on the Eastside who have seen a proposed train to their part of town be studied, approved, planned and even funded only to be shelved 2009 cannot come soon enough. That’s when a six-mile Metro Gold Line route to East Los Angeles is scheduled to open. On Saturday, transit planners and politicians who battled to bring the $898 million light rail to fruition celebrated its groundbreaking during a ceremony at Union Station. “This was a line that was promised almost 15 years ago,’ said Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who represents the area, serves on the MTA board of directors and is one of the Gold Line’s most ardent backers. “It’s going to be serving the most highly transit- dependent population anywhere in this county.’ Although the Eastside is criss- crossed by the 101, 5, 10, 60 and 710 freeways, one-third of the people who live there do not have access to a car, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The project came tantalizingly close to being built a decade ago but as a subway, several speakers recalled at the groundbreaking, held where the Gold Line tracks dead-end at Union Station. The Eastside train was originally planned as an extension of the Metro Red Line. By 1994, its environmental review had been completed and the federal government had provided funding for the rail system. Preliminary engineering a significant preconstruction task was finished in 1995. But in early 1998, MTA suspended the Eastside Extension and other rail projects because of financial constraints. Advocates regrouped, studied other transit options, and chose electric-powered light rail as a less costly, more feasible alternative. The Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension which will have eight stations along its route through Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights and East L.A. will connect with the 13.7-mile Pasadena Gold Line. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, who represents the area, was credited with rallying congressional support for the Eastside Extension which, in June won $490 million in federal funding. “All aboard, Los Angeles! Next stop, East L.A.!’ Roybal-Allard said, noting payment of the first year’s installment $60 million was approved Thursday by a House subcommittee. The Eastside is bustling with large-scale projects, many near a future Gold Line station, noted Los Angeles City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa. White Memorial Medical Center is undergoing a $325 million addition and renovation, the councilman said. The Gold Line’s Boyle Heights station will be built near the 91-year-old hospital, where the rebuilding may be complete by the time Gold Line trains begin service. The Los Angeles Unified School District plans to build a high school at First Street and Mission Road, near where Gold Line tracks will cross over the Los Angeles River; the city is building the Boyle Heights Youth Technology and Recreation Center on Fourth Street, near the rail route; the Los Angeles city Housing Authority is redeveloping the Pico-Aliso Village public housing project; and the Los Angeles Police Department will rebuild its aged Hollenbeck Station, on First Street in Boyle Heights. The Gold Line’s Soto Street station will be near the police facility, expected to be finished in 2007.

Arrogant Yes, But The French Know How To Run Trains

The Independent (London) July 17, 2004 How delightful to start this on one of the fastest trains in France, gliding effortless from Marseilles to Paris at 185mph, arriving in just over three hours. How splendid to find so much choice in this new double- decker train, with special coaches for silence, sections for mobile bores, and a lower-deck compartment for smokers, sealed off from the rest. How agreeable in the comfortable buffet car to be able to choose between a hot croque monsieur and delicious salads, instead of between cold British sandwiches. And how still more enjoyable to look out on the motorway alongside the track, and to watch the train overtaking even the fastest Mercedes, and to see the cars jamming up near the entrance to Paris, as the train races on towards the Gare de Lyon. And the next day, on the Eurostar from Paris to London, how surprising to be gliding through Kent on the new, smooth high-speed track. Can this really be Britain, if the train is so fast? Oh yes, it is, we realise as it finally slows down to the usual snail’s pace at Surbiton to rumble erratically into Waterloo. And after changing on to South West Trains, there’s no doubt: first there’s a signal failure in Woking, then the train breaks down at Salisbury. We’re back in Britain, all right: the country which invented railways, and which has forgotten how to run them. Now back at home, Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport, has announced yet another turnabout, after all the other turnabouts since British Rail was privatised. He will abolish the Strategic Rail Authority and give his own civil servants direct control over the long-term planning of the railways. Of course, it’s a step in the right direction: at least now we know where responsibility lies, and the Government accepts the need for a single plan. The problem is that many of our past failures began with the Department for Transport - which now has few people left who really understand railways. And few people believe that Darling really has the boldness or political clout to push through a serious revival of British trains - of the kind that the French have achieved. When the sleek blue Eurostar trains first arrived at Waterloo there were high hopes that high-speed trains would extend into Britain, linking the rest of the country to Europe. But they were soon dashed by the car lobby, abetted by Mrs Thatcher. We built expensive Eurostar coaches and sleeping cars, designed to run from the North of England to the Continent, and then left them to rust in the countryside. The plans for high-speed track were delayed and cut back, and there was no overall scheme. In a few years’ time, travellers from Paris will at last arrive on fast trains at King’s Cross - only to find themselves waiting forlornly for a rattling old Circle Line train to get across London, instead of the fast RER Metro trains which link the French stations and suburbs. So why have the French done so much better in planning their transport? British politicians have always been clear about the reason: French railways are run by arrogant technocrats, who are much less bothered by democracy, and who can defy strict accountability, which would be intolerable in Britain. And it is true that the cost to the French taxpayer is much more than it looks. Two weeks ago, a new crisis emerged in the financing of the French state-owned railways. The French deputy Herve Mariton, who had presided over four months of hearings, revealed a “colossal” total debt of EUR41bn (pounds 27.3bn), concealed by “unbelievably complex” accounting divided between three separate bodies, and based on dubious economic reasoning. And the debt would become much heavier after the massive plans to expand the French high-speed network over the next 20 years. But the debts are not colossal compared to the debts of Network Rail in Britain, and French governments and taxpayers will almost certainly continue to finance the expansion. For they have seen how their railway technocrats and engineers have satisfied passengers and transformed the country, adding to the quality of life, bringing cities closer to each other, and improving the cities themselves. And they know that the benefits cannot be calculated by short-term balance-sheets or bottom lines. But in Britain, despite Alistair Darling’s new plans, the financing of railways will still depend on short-term solutions, subject to constant changes and pressures from private companies, as we have seen in the decade since they were privatised. And the car lobby will still be given preference. Darling’s latest proposal is not to put railway tracks alongside the motorways, like the French, but to put still more motorways there, which will raise money from tolls. While the French have real competition between cars and trains, the British favour competition between cars and more cars. And the social consequences become increasingly clear, as British cities are disintegrating and being replaced by American-type “edge cities” totally dependent on cars, with long-term social and environmental costs which are incalculable. So whenever I cross the channel - as often as possible - I still say, like Laurence Sterne in 1768, that “they order the matter better in France”. The French technocrats may be an arrogant elite; they may fudge the figures and be less accountable than Darling’s civil servants in the short term. But they have a much more genuine understanding of public service; they know how to run railways, and how to give passengers what they want, with a genuine choice. And in 20 years, they and their debts will all be forgiven.

Monorail Changed To Avoid Disputes

Jakarta Post July 17, 2004 To minimize losses ensuing from “social costs” from the construction of the monorail, developer PT Indonesia Transit Central (ITC) has decided to alter route of the Blue Line from Kampung Melayu, East Jakarta, to Roxy, West Jakarta. The developer has proposed that the Blue Line not pass through crowded Jl. Lontar in Tanah Abang, Central Jakarta, which was considered less lucrative a route, said ITC director Sukmawaty Sjukur on Friday. Instead, it has proposed that the line pass along congested Jl. K.H. Mas Mansyur from Kampung Melayu, running directly through the three-story- high suspended arcade connecting Tanah Abang Textile Market and the shopping mall across it. Sukmawaty said the monorail tracks would be elevated to a height 12 meters above the arcade, which would also mean higher construction costs. However, she was optimistic no technical problems would occur during construction of the elevated line. She said the hike in costs would be covered by the fund allocated to clear a 13,300 sq m plot on the original Jl. Lontar site, and the alteration would not significantly affect the construction schedule. “It is more important not to incur social costs from the land clearance.” Sukmawaty said the proposed change was based on two main considerations: one, to avoid any disputes that might arise from landowners who would be affected by the project and two, to prevent property speculation. She said the ITC wanted to avoid the possibility of prolonged land disputes, which could affect the US$600 million monorail project, and to prevent arbitrary increases in the price of land affected by the project. She said the proposed new route, however, had yet to receive approval from the administration, adding that ITC executives would meet next week with an assistant to the city development affairs secretary, Suena, to discuss the change. The Blue Line serves 13 stations along the 12.2 kilometer Kampung Melayu-Roxy route, and is expected to be complete by 2007. Meanwhile, the Green Line serves 17 stations along a 14.8 kilometer route through prime business areas including Kuningan, Sudirman and Senayan. The line is to be finished by the end of 2006. About 900 piles will support the two monorail lines. Separately, Suena said the city administration had received a letter from President Megawati Soekarnoputri requesting it to reroute the Green Line so it would not circumvent the Bung Karno Sports Complex. “I will discuss the matter with the Bung Karno Sports Complex management,” he said. The monorail is projected to carry up to 270,000 passengers daily, with fares ranging between Rp 3,500 and Rp 7,500 for a one-way trip. PT ITC — a consortium comprising PT Adhi Karya, Global Profex Synergy and PT Radiant Pillar Pacific — owns a 55 percent stake in PT Jakarta Monorail. The remaining 45 percent stake belongs to British-based consortium Omnico, which groups Omnico Holdings Ltd., Hitachi Asia Ltd. and four Singapore partners.

No Solution Anytime Soon To LRT Traffic Tie-ups

Minnesota Public Radio July 18, 2004 Looking at a computer screen in the city’s traffic control center, transportation design engineer Scott Tacheny can watch in real time how the traffic signal at 46th St. and Hiawatha Ave. is working. The signal takes two minutes or so to go through a cycle directing cars to stop, go and turn. As a train approaches the intersection, the signal shifts in the middle of a cycle to stop all east-west traffic. When the trains go by, the traffic signal’s cycle is disrupted, changing how it works in relation to the other signals. Traffic control center Much like a police squad car or an ambulance racing to an accident scene, the train is given the power to change traffic lights in its favor along this stretch of the corridor. This ability, known as pre-emption, allows LRT to keep to a schedule and travel the length of the track in about 25 minutes. But as the train zooms by, cars trying to cross Hiawatha that might have expected a green light in 30 or 40 seconds, now have to wait for the intersection cross arms to go down, the train to pass and the arms to go back up. Larry Martin is one of the drivers who frequently finds himself stacked behind dozens of other cars on his way to and from work. “Typically I’ll get stuck in a long traffic tie-up that will be several blocks long, waiting to get a handful of cars across the Hiawatha Ave. intersection,” Martin said. “It gets particularly problematic if I get stuck behind a school bus or a city bus.” Martin said he sometimes sits 10 or 15 minutes waiting to get through one intersection. Since light rail started and the problem became apparent, city engineers have tried several tweaks to move the cars better. City traffic engineer Dallas Hildebrand said staff is running out of options. “We’ve attempted various scenarios on movements and timing at the intersection, to try and minimize the impact on traffic as best we can,” Hildebrand said. “What we have out there today is probably as good as it’s going to get.” At the city’s request, the Federal Highway Administration has agreed to send experts to look at the problem to see if it can be fixed. The agency has experience with complex traffic systems. But city officials will also explore down-grading the LRT’s pre-emption status. That would require the trains to stop if the traffic signal is red, which is how the trains operate in downtown traffic. “There really is nothing left for us to try and implement, short of potentially changing the treatment that’s afforded to the light rail vehicles as they approach signalized intersections,” Hildebrand said. Any change in the train’s relationship to the traffic signals is a major undertaking, and not supported by Metro Transit. Spokesman Bob Gibbons said slowing them down would violate the agreement made when accepting $334 million in light rail funding from the federal government. “We have a contract with the Federal Transit Administration, and a contract with our customers, to deliver service in the rush hour at seven- and-a-half minute frequency,” Gibbons said. “We would be unable to satisfy the federal requirement and the needs of our customers if the trains stopped at the intersections south of downtown.” Gibbons said the pre-emption given to the trains also ensures safety, by closing off the intersections when the trains approach. LRT is increasingly popular among riders. Metro Transit estimates ridership the second week of operation at 108,000 passengers. That’s well above the agency’s predicted weekly average of 67,000 riders. No one is able to keep track of the number of frustrated motorists stuck at intersections — waiting for the trains to pass.

Twin Underwater Tunnels For Light Rail Make Sense

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette July 18, 2004 People on radio talk shows, in letters to the editor and in taverns keep carping about how the Port Authority will waste $400 million to bore twin tunnels under the Allegheny River as part of extending the light-rail system to the North Shore. “We don’t need tunnels,” they argue. “Use the Fort Wayne Bridge,” they propose, referring to the old dual-level railroad bridge that Norfolk Southern Railway and Amtrak share at the northeast tip of the Golden Triangle. They also believe if the T is extended, then modern trolleys should go to Oakland. Or Edgewood, Monroeville, Cranberry or Pittsburgh International Airport. But it’s a wonder the T is going anywhere. In May 1996, the first Republican majority on the Allegheny County Board of Commissioners in 60 years ordered the Port Authority to scrap expansion plans to both the North Shore and Oakland (the so-called “Spine Line”). Commissioners Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer said the $1.4 billion project was too expensive and unnecessary. It took several years, but at the city’s request, the authority revived what has become the North Shore Connector, which will link Downtown to the sports venues, parking and new buildings across the Allegheny, much as the T has tied Station Square to Downtown. The authority also agreed to extend the subway to the new convention center. Furthermore, the Federal Transit Administration doesn’t often give money or authorize projects for communities that do not pay a local transit tax and-or provide at least a 50 percent share of local matching funds. Although we pay none of the former and only a meager 3 1/3 percent of the latter, the FTA has offered to pay 80 percent of the bill anyhow, thanks to the authority’s political connections and its hard lobbying. PennDOT will put up a 16 2/3 percent match. While federal and state money still come out of your pocket, it’s money not going to St. Louis, San Diego or Provo, Utah. More food for thought: The twin tunnels aren’t $400 million tunnels. The entire project is $363 million. Boring the twin tunnels is estimated to cost from $55 million to $60 million, not including the tracks, power, signals and lights. The rest of the money will be used for those things and four stations, elevating the line across the North Shore and buying eight new light-rail vehicles. As the Port Authority’s sponsor and underwriter, Allegheny County’s 3 1/3 percent share of the official $363 million project budget amounts to $12 million to leverage $351 million in federal and state funds to benefit the region. The cost to the financially troubled city of Pittsburgh is $0, albeit city residents are also county taxpayers. It would cost as much to repair and convert the bottom deck of the Fort Wayne RR Bridge for LRV use as it would to build the twin tunnels. Salt brine that cooled boxcars hauling produce to the Strip District in the past century leaked and continues to contribute to structural deterioration. An all-new, double-track, light-rail bridge over the Allegheny River also would cost as much as using the Fort Wayne Bridge or boring the twin tunnels. The $55 million to $60 million isn’t just for the 800-foot-long twin tunnels under the Allegheny River but also covers excavation to points 800 feet north to General Robinson Street on the North Shore and 800 feet south to Penn Avenue on the Downtown side, where a new Gateway subway station will be built. By building a new Gateway Station with inbound and outbound platforms, the authority can ease rush-hour backups on the rest of the system. Because Gateway has only one platform, it takes too long to unload and load riders and move on. The T to the North Shore is not just for baseball and football fans. Have you seen the new hotel going up there? Or the new headquarters for Equitable Resources? Did you read recently about breaking ground for the new Del Monte Center, where 600 people will work? OK, so you’re worried about an underwater tunnel. More than 100 of them have been built, including two under the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia. None leaks more than the Liberty Tunnel under Mount Washington, a mile-long, 80-year-old land tunnel used by 60,000 cars and trucks a day. Some of you may react angrily and challenge what I’ve written about the twin tunnels, the route, cost estimates and just about everything else. But the public hearings ended two years ago. The Port Authority is hopeful of soon signing a “full funding agreement” with the Federal Transit Administration. And the contract to bore the tunnels is to be awarded within five months. Time to quit whining. Get on with it! Real gold standard. The Port Authority goes by the “gold standard.” I appreciate the glitter, but the real money is in Orange County, Calif., part of metropolitan Los Angeles. Voters passed a ballot measure in 1990 that established a 0.5 percent sales tax to raise money for local transportation projects through 2011. Measure M, as it’s called, has raised almost $4 billion. Earlier this month, a citizens oversight committee charged with seeing that projects comply with the measure’s intent endorsed spending $340 million for a nine-mile light-rail extension to John Wayne Airport. If this metropolitan region were half as generous, the Port Authority could expand light rail east, west and north of Pittsburgh. There might be enough extra money to run them for a reasonable fare.

Amtrak Grapples With Aging Equipment

New York Times July 18, 2004 AMTRAK is still struggling to find the money for the capital improvements it says it needs to return to a state of good repair, but the railroad says it is making progress, and is putting more coaches and locomotives on the rails, buying new car carriers for the Auto Train, and working with states for expansion of rail service on corridors of less than 500 miles. On any given day, fewer than 80 percent of Amtrak’s cars are in service. “There are days in the Northeast Corridor when we could fill every seat we could put out there, “ said David Gunn, Amtrak’s president, at a briefing in June where he explained the railroad’s five-year plan. The lack of cars is “costing us money,” he said. His goal is to concentrate the railroad’s resources on car repair and raise the percentage of cars in service to over 85, thus putting another 75 to 100 cars on the tracks. In addition, he said, Amtrak would buy new cars for the Northeast Corridor, beginning in 2007. The cars on that route were acquired soon after Amtrak’s creation in the early 1970’s and, on average, they are 28 years old. “High failure rates due to deferred overhauls are impacting service reliability,” according to the railroad’s five-year plan. But the plan to purchase new cars assumes more generous aid than the $1.2 billion that Congress provided last year. The cars that carry automobiles on the Auto Train, from suburban Washington, D.C., to suburban Orlando, Fla., date from the early 1960’s, the era of Studebakers and Ramblers. There are 64 of them, but beginning in February, Amtrak will replace them with 80 new carriers. Amtrak is also working with officials in several states to improve rail service. In contrast to earlier proposals around the country for high-speed trains running on new tracks, often where no service exists now, the new proposals are mostly for modest improvements, adding an extra track at some bottlenecks, improving signal systems to allow for higher-speed operations, and rebuilding stations. In some cases, improving the tracks will allow use of existing equipment for more trips each day. With more frequent service, more passengers will come to the routes, experts say. The route from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, Pa. which is owned by Amtrak, is already being rehabilitated. Among others included in the railroad’s five- year plan was a route from Washington, D.C., through Richmond, Va., and into North Carolina, passing through Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte. The work involves adding short stretches of track, a new bridge, realigning curves and renovating or rebuilding stations. On another, from Chicago through Milwaukee and on to Madison, Wis., some rails and switches between Chicago and Milwaukee would be replaced, and tracks and signals near Madison would be improved. Track and signal improvements would eventually allow operation at 110 miles an hour over part of the route. In California, state transportation officials highlighted a route from San Luis Obispo south through Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Diego, and another north from San Jose through Oakland and Sacramento to Reno. While the railroad expects ridership to grow, the five-year plan cites concerns about security. Spurred by the March 11 attacks on trains in Madrid, the Transportation Security Administration has been working on adapting airport security techniques to the rails. In June, the security agency conducted a three-week test of luggage screening at Union Station in Washington. On some weekday long- distance trains, checked bags were run through airport-style screening equipment, including X-ray machines. Screeners also used bomb-sniffing dogs and wands that sense explosives. The object was to see what such measures would cost, and what delays, if any, they would cause. Before the Union Station test, the agency tried searching carry-on items and passengers. At New Carrollton, an Amtrak stop between Washington and Baltimore, passengers were put through a machine that sniffed for explosives, and their bags run through an X-ray machine. There was no ban on pocket knives and similar objects that are not allowed on planes, but the railroad does ban guns, swords, axes, explosives and hazardous chemicals. The goal in both tests was to see how well the procedures and equipment would work. One question at New Carrollton was whether sensitive electronic scanning equipment could function in parts of train stations that lack heating or air-conditioning. The idea was that it might be rolled out in a hurry if officials believed there was a threat to rail security. The government did not state publicly what level of performance would constitute success in the drill.

Eurotunnel’s UK Investors To Seek Clarity On French Rescue Strategy

The Business July 18, 2004 A group representing Eurotunnel’s 150,000 UK retail shareholders will turn up the heat on the Channel tunnel’s new management on Monday by demanding more detail on how it plans to prevent creditor banks taking over the company. The UK shareholder consultative committee will press the new management for signs of a “solid recovery and solid strategy” when they meet the French management for the first time in London on Monday morning. They will also be seeking a clear indication of how the company plans to reduce its debt mountain. One shareholder said: “We want to know how the debt is going to be dealt with. We believe Eurotunnel’s cards are marked and are expecting some sort of dilution of our shares but hope the company can manage to pull something out of the hat.” Also on the agenda of Monday’s meeting is an early indication of the Channel tunnel’s interim results. Eurotunnel’s new board of directors dramatically ousted the previous board in a shareholder coup last April after a revolt led by would-be politician Nicolas Miguet. The freshly installed French board was given three months by Eurotunnel’s creditors to come up with a credible rescue plan - or face the prospect that creditors seize control of the tunnel by a process known as substitution. Earlier this month, the board set out its initial thinking on how it will see the tunnel over a cash-flow crisis in 2006. That is when arrangements guaranteeing a minimum income from railway traffic expire and compulsory debt repayments start. If low levels of rail traffic continue, the company will face a precipitous drop in income. Proposals to address the recent downturn in performance centred on making E40m of annual savings and making its pricing more sophisticated. The board sees potential for increasing traffic volumes on the company’s car and truck shuttles and for striking new deals with rail operators, particularly Eurostar, the cross-Channel high-speed passenger service. Eurotunnel must come up with firm business plans for the next three years by October. The rebel shareholders - spurred into action after seeing the value of their investment plummet - had originally said they were in favour of putting pressure on the British and French governments to provide financial support. They also said they intended to force Eurotunnel’s creditor banks into restructuring its E6bn debt mountain. Both governments have said they will not inject state money into the project. It is forbidden anyway by the treaty governing the tunnel’s construction.

Private Monorail Avoids Paying State Taxes

LAS VEGAS SUN July 19, 2004 The much-anticipated Las Vegas Monorail, which opened last week after more than six months of delays, quietly accepted a state tax exemption for charities more than a year before the first trains ran. Company officials convinced the state Taxation Department in March 2003 that the Las Vegas Monorail fit a vague set of criteria in Nevada tax law that would allow it to avoid state taxes. Charles Chinnock, executive director of the Nevada Department of Taxation, said the Las Vegas Monorail company qualified in a category that allowed the company to be termed a nonprofit organization. Under the 1995 law, nonprofit groups can seek tax-exempt status if they “provide services that are otherwise requested to be provided by a local government, the state or the federal government.” While the law does not specifically regulate large-scale transportation projects, members of the state tax commission believed the $650 million project performed a necessary function for the congested tourist corridor and awarded the exemption, Chinnock said. “It was deemed to be charitable under the circumstances that they were providing a service that government normally would,” he said. Chinnock estimated that about 5,000 organizations apply for tax exemptions each year, roughly 65 percent of which are approved. The law also dictates that entities must reapply after five years. Normally, they consist of animal shelters and similar services where governmental assistance is not available. The monorail’s tax break is not the only one of its type in the state. The state has also awarded tax- exempt status to the Northern Nevada Transit Coalition and Amtrak. According to a report that first aired last week on KLAS-TV Channel 8, the monorail could also be exempt from county property taxes of about $3 million a year. Todd Walker, a spokesman for the monorail, underscored the project’s public service angle, saying the trains will lessen traffic in the heavily traveled Strip area. “We do fully fulfill a public purpose for the people of Las Vegas,” he said. There are few, if any, similar privately funded projects to point to as a benchmark, said Edward Neumann, a civil engineering professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who specializes in public transportation projects. However, as with many large-scale public-private partnerships, government entities often provide “sweeteners” to companies footing the bill for risky projects. “It’s hard to get the government to completely underwrite bold new ventures, and sometimes there need to be sweeteners,” Neumann said. “Anything that can make the economics work might require some kind of public favor or some kind of safety net under it.” The monorail was fully funded through a $650 million tax-free bond issue. The company also took out a $23 million insurance policy to offset potential losses. Monorail officials say they will know if the project will recoup its costs in 90 days. The project took in more than $98,000 on its first day of public service, according to a statement from the company. An estimated 30,000 riders boarded the trains. Ruth Jones, a tax examiner for the Department of Taxation, said the agency looks at whether an applicant qualifies for federal nonprofit status but that it does not automatically mean it will not have to pay state taxes. “It’s a consideration but it’s not a determining factor,” Jones said, noting that not all state-exempt entities are federally exempt. The monorail received federal tax-exempt status under IRS code 501c4, which the agency defines as an organization devoted exclusively to “promote social welfare,” before it applied with the state, Walker said. Such companies are not allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions. The system, named for late former County Commissioner Bob Broadbent, shuttles passengers along a roughly 4-mile route from the MGM Grand to the Las Vegas Hilton with five stops in between. Plans are currently in the works to connect the route to downtown Las Vegas and, eventually, to McCarran International Airport. The Strip-to-downtown leg will be financed by $450 million in federal money, low-interest loans and bonds. The project opened for public service Thursday after a succession of computer and mechanical glitches pushed the opening date back more than six months.

Move To Step Up Luas Line Tests

The Irish Times July 19, 2004 Luas tests on the Tallaght to Connolly Station line are to intensify from today in an effort to combat delays in opening the “Red Line”, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) has said. The second Luas line had been expected to start operating in August. However, a spokesman said there was a possibility that that target would not be met. “It is possible that there will be delays. We want to put the line into operation as soon as possible, and we will be pulling out all the stops to bring it on track as quickly as we can,” said RPA spokesman Mr Tom Manning. From this morning, Luas would be conducting “intensified tests” on the line, running trams up to every 10 minutes until the service was ready to go. Suggestions that the line had been delayed because of the construction of a ramp at Connolly Station were “not true”, said Mr Manning. “We always said that the end of August was a target. There are 14kms of track running through streets for the most part. It’s a very difficult line.” Testing on the Green Line from Sandyford to St Stephen’s Green had taken six weeks, and Connex, the company contracted to run Luas, told the RPA on Friday that this was sufficient test time. However, Mr Manning said he would not give a new proposed start date. “When we give a date we want to be able to stick to it, and we can give no absolute date at this time.” A slight derailment of a tram on route to Sandyford Station on Saturday evening was “a very minor incident”, and not a safety worry, said Mr Manning. The tram was heading from a local depot to Sandyford just after 6 p.m. when its front wheels left the track. No passengers were on board at the time. The Luas service from Balally to Sandyford had to be suspended for a short time, and passengers were transported between the stops by a shuttle-bus. “This sort of thing is common enough in light rail systems, and in rail systems in general. We don’t know what caused it yet, but it will be investigated.” The incident would have “no impact” on the official opening of the new cable-stay Dundrum Luas bridge this evening. The William Dargan Bridge has been named in honour of “the father of Irish railways”. Father Daniel Dargan, a Jesuit priest, descended from Mr Dargan, will officially open and name the award-winning bridge. The Minister for Transport, Mr Brennan, is due to attend the ceremony, which starts at 6.30 p.m. at the Dundrum Luas stop. William Dargan (1799-1867) was responsible for building the Harcourt Street Line, which has now become the Luas Green Line. He lived nearby at Mount Anville, and was a regular user of Dundrum Station. RPA accepted the recommendation of the selection committee that naming the new bridge in honour of Mr Dargan would be a fitting tribute to a pioneer of public transport in Ireland. Asked about the number of passengers using the Green Line, Mr Manning said that the company was very pleased that more than 140,000 had used the service in its first commercial week. He said that figures to date were “40 per cent ahead of target”.

Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, Amtrak President Gunn Announce Keystone Corridor Improvement Plan; Philadelphia-Harrisburg Trip Will Be Shorter; Safety to Be Improved

PR Newswire July 20, 2004 Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell and Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer David L. Gunn today unveiled a reinvigorated plan to bring faster, safer and more frequent passenger train service to the Keystone Corridor between Philadelphia and Harrisburg. “I look forward to the day when riders can make it between Philadelphia and Harrisburg in 90 minutes,” Governor Rendell said. “I look forward to the day when continuous welded rails carry electric trains for a safer, more comfortable 104-mile trip on a reinvigorated Keystone Corridor. I look forward to the day when Amtrak increases the number of roundtrip trains between these two cities to 13 from nine, drawing motorists and their passengers from the Schuylkill Expressway, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and other crowded roadways in the Lancaster-Harrisburg area.” “We thank Governor Rendell for his leadership in supporting this project to improve mobility in Pennsylvania,” said Amtrak’s Gunn. “This is an extremely important project for several reasons. First, it will bring the Harrisburg Line to a state of good repair after years of deferred maintenance, greatly improving service to passengers using this growing route. Second, it demonstrates how incremental improvements to existing rail corridors can go forward at reasonable cost and show real results in the near term. Third, it is a living example of a project among the eight Tier I corridor routes in Amtrak’s five-year plan. But if the other corridor projects are to proceed, federal matching funds are critical.” Governor Rendell and President Gunn said that Amtrak and the Commonwealth have agreed to a new plan that will accelerate some $100 million worth of infrastructure improvements through the end of 2006. Besides on-going track and tie installations, electronic traction cables, communications equipment and bridge structures will be upgraded. The amended agreement totals $145.5 million with the state and the railroad each sharing half the cost. By the fall of 2006, trip times for local trains will be cut to 105 minutes from 120 minutes. Travel time for express trains will be 90 minutes. Work on the corridor initially began in 2001 but was halted because of Amtrak’s financial situation and near shutdown that summer. The next year a $20 million capital plan was approved. Work is focusing on the elimination of all remaining jointed rail on the line, replacing it with continuous welded rail, which greatly improves ride quality. The Governor said a separate agreement between PennDOT and Amtrak will cover the closure of the three public at-grade crossings in Lancaster County, allowing for safer, faster train service. Renovations of selected Amtrak stations along the corridor will also be pursued. The three at-grade crossings to be closed to vehicular traffic in Lancaster County include: Newcomer Road in the Borough of Mount Joy and Rapho Township; Eby Chiques Road in Rapho Township; and Irishtown Road in Leacock Township. Improvements or connections to nearby roads will be made before the three at-grade crossings can be closed. The work is expected to begin in 2006. The renovation of three selected Amtrak stations along the corridor is moving forward. Local officials for the stations in Lancaster and Elizabethtown are completing design work and financing plans. The Harrisburg Redevelopment Authority is reviewing a final design plan and awaiting environmental clearance before improvements can begin at the Harrisburg Transportation Center. Additionally, the Susquehanna Area Regional Aviation Authority is meeting with Amtrak to review costs to construct a new station adjacent to the Harrisburg International Airport (HIA). “Having a modern transportation infrastructure in this busy, congested part of the state will both speed our economic development and improve our quality of life, and I applaud Amtrak for working with us to bring these upgrades to the people of southeastern Pennsylvania,” the Governor said. Philadelphia is the third busiest station in the national Amtrak System, with the 30th Street Station serving more than 3.5 million riders annually.

Government Scraps Trams Extension; Three New Routes Were Planned In Greater Manchester

BBC News July 20, 2004 Plans to expand Manchester’s tram network have been scrapped, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has said. The Metrolink extensions were earmarked to go to Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton and south Manchester. But Mr Darling said the tram networks in Manchester, Leeds and South Hampshire would not go ahead because they were proving too expensive. Manchester City Council said it was an “appalling decision” and a “major blow” to Greater Manchester. The joint statement by council leader Richard Leese, chair of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE), Councillor Roger Jones, and Lord Peter Smith, leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA). It said the announcement “fundamentally fails to recognise the inherent success of Metrolink to date.” “The decision is all the more disappointing at a time when there is increasing evidence that other departments of state are recognising the pivotal role this city region should play in the economic revival of the northern regions, to counterbalance the growth and development of London and the South East.” Mr Darling announced �340m would be given to Transport for London to help improve transport to aid London’s 2012 Olympics bid. Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley, said the decision would be met with “anger and disappointment” by residents. “To stop the scheme at this stage I find, and I am sure virtually everyone in Greater Manchester will find, unacceptable,” he said. Adrian Smith, 24, who commutes daily in to Manchester from Oldham, said he had been looking forward to using the link. “The traffic from Oldham to Manchester is a nightmare. With a local Labour MP (Michael Meacher) and a Labour government supposedly keen on public transport, it never occurred to me that the scheme would be scrapped. Why is London getting so much money for transport for the Olympics but Manchester is still waiting for the Metrolink that was promised to us for the Commonwealth Games?”

Athens Tramway Opens:

Light Rail Transit Association 20 July 2004 Forty-four years after the tram last ran in central Athens, on Monday 19 July, they made a triumphal reappearance, and within the first three hours the tram had carried more than 20,000 people according to officials. The new system comprises three lines (Syntagma-Neo Faliron, Syntagma-Glyfada and Neo Faliron-Glyfada), serving mostly the seaside suburbs. Extension plans have already been unveiled. It is expected that a total of some 80,000 passengers will use the 24 hour tram service daily. The project cost 380 million Euros. The system includes 35 AnsaldoBreda Sirio trams, covers more than 16 miles and includes 47 stops. A map of the system can be found on the Greece.com website

Athens Olympics: Tram Officially Begins Commercial Operation In Athens After 44-Year Absence

Athens News Agency July 20, 2004 Trams officially returned to the streets of Athens on Monday after an absence of 44 years with the start of commercial operation of the new tram service built specifically for the Athens Olympics in August. At a ceremony on Monday morning attended by both the present and former leadership of the Greek transport ministry, the first of the three Olympic transport projects was turned over to the public. The other two are the suburban railway and the metro extension to Athens airport. The sleek new trams little resemble their quaint and noisy predecessors of yesteryear, however. At the present phase, the tram lines extend over 26 kilometres, from the centre of Athens up to the seaside suburbs of Faliro and Voula. There are 47 stations along the route where passengers can get on and disembark, roughly one every 500 metres, while the tram’s average speed is estimated to be around 23 kilometres an hour. Each tram will have two air-conditioned carriages of ultramodern design, with easy access for the handicapped, while the tram system as a whole is expected to carry up to 80,000 passengers a day. This Monday and Tuesday passengers can travel on the service without a ticket, while from Wednesday they will have to pay 0.60 euros or 0.40 euros if they are making a connection from some other form of transport. Those under 18 can travel at half price for 0.30 euros. Transport Minister Mihalis Liapis on Monday stressed that the tram was an environmentally-friendly, modern and cheap mode of transport that would allow commuters to travel comfortably, quickly and safely in the capital. Former transport minister Christos Verelis stressed the need to carry out planned extensions to the tram network that will extend it to over 100 kilometres. Column: Bush is Missing the Train Pulse of the Twin Cities (Mn) July 21, 2004 Take the A Train, ride that Wabash Cannonball, hear the clickity- clack of the Orange Blossom Special. Trains are more than a part of our history — they’re a rich part of our culture. But are they a part of our future? I’m not talking here about the enormous potential of long-distance trains — upgrading Amtrak and building a top-of-the-line high-speed train system between our population centers. Rather, I’m focused today on the promise of rail travel within our great metro areas. I’ve ridden these local systems in the Bay Area, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere — they’re simple, handy, efficient, fast, inexpensive, and a joyous way to get to where you’re going. They also move hundreds of thousands of people a day without creating traffic jams or smog; and they create thousands of good jobs at good wages. Here’s what one observer says: “Mass transit is an excellent substitute for roads.” Those are not the words of some anti-auto Earth Firster but of Paul Weyrich, an icon of right-wing thinking. To him, urban train systems make all kinds of sense and are a legitimate focus for federal, state, and local spending. Public demand for these systems is strong — ridership is up 21 percent in the last five years; new systems in Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, and elsewhere are exceeding expectations, and there’s a backlog of 200 local transit projects seeking federal matching funds. There’s the problem. The Bushites — tagged by Weyrich as “THE most anti-rail administration” in our country’s history of mass transit — is trying to gut federal support. “In their zeal for fiscal conservatism,” writes Weyrich, “they are prepared to scuttle one of the most successful government programs of all time.” “Missing the Train,” a new report by the Sierra Club, highlights projects in Tampa Bay, Portland, Houston, Milwaukee, and elswhere endangered by Bush’s cuts. To get a copy, call 202-675-7915.

Mayor touts trolleys for Madison; Tells of success in Portland, Ore

Wisconsin State Journal/Capital Times July 21, 2004 Mayor Dave Cieslewicz’s plan for a Madison trolley car line was met with cautious optimism this morning from board members of Downtown Madison Inc. Cieslewicz showed pictures from his recent tour of Portland, Ore., and its light rail trolley system. He visited the Pacific Northwest city in mid-June in a group that included city planners, City Council members and private developers. “We need to develop a market and culture in Madison of people who will live car-free,” Cieslewicz said. The pictures showed ultra-modern trolley cars carrying Oregonians through downtown Portland. The trolley cars have been tremendously popular in Portland, with restaurants offering “trolley specials” and 5,600 people riding the trolleys daily - well beyond the initial estimate of 3,500. Ald. Robbie Webber was part of the Portland trip and said she was excited about the public-private partnership that built the Portland system. A nonprofit organization was formed to eliminate federal red tape, and private sector money helped fund the endeavor. The trolleys run on a fixed rail route, so savvy marketers began selling condominiums four years before the line’s completion based on the transportation amenity. Webber said although Portland is more than twice as large as Madison, it is a good example of how mass transit can improve a city with multiple lakes and a narrow isthmus. “I’ve heard people say that Madison’s not big enough for projects like this,” Webber said. “But I think what people sometimes miss is that because of its geography, the extremely compact downtown and compact campus area and a really, really vibrant downtown area, Madison has characteristics that other cities its size do not have.” Joe Krupp, president of Krupp General Contractors, was part of the Portland group and said he was “somewhat skeptical” at first. “Coming back, I’ve felt much more positive,” Krupp said. “The most impressive thing I saw was its impact on land use.” Cieslewicz also showed pictures of Portland’s trolley shelters and joked that they “decided not to spend $100,000” per shelter. The shelter was a basic, off-the-shelf model and Cieslewicz argued that the contemporary metal design showed a practical, yet attractive, way to save money. The Portland system is 2.4 miles long and cost $57 million to build. Yearly operating fees are $2.7 million and are paid through several sources, including regional transportation funds, box fares and parking revenue. The mayor did not have an estimate for how much a similar system would cost in Madison. Cieslewicz also showed pictures of a trolley stop and pointed out the advantages of such a system to disabled riders. Madison Metro buses do accommodate wheelchair users, but their use can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Portland trolley stops have a ramp up to a platform, so wheelchair users enter and exit without needing help from the driver. “If you were in a wheelchair, you would feel no different than someone who walked on and walked off,” Cieslewicz said. “It was absolute equality.” Sue Haine of the QTI Group said her daughter has lived car-free in Portland for the past year and supports exploring the possibility of a trolley system in Madison. The resident of Middleton said she hopes suburbs will be included in long-term plans. “I understand the point of wanting to start in high density areas,” Haine said. “But we should seriously consider both downtown and service out to the suburbs.” Besides her personal interest in improved public transportation, Haine said, she sees the need for it through her company’s staffing services. She said there is a need to provide better transportation to get temporary workers to and from work. However, a Madison trolley will not roll down the streets in Madison in the very near future. Portland started the process in 1990 and had its opening ceremonies in 2001. “By Madison standards, that’s record-breaking speed,” the mayor joked. During a question period, the response ranged from personal anecdotes of positive experiences with mass transit in Europe to questions about density needs to support a trolley system. Cieslewicz said there is no set density figure that he knows of, but pointed out that Madison used to have a trolley that went down Regent Street from 1890 to 1935, when it was destroyed by an ice storm and never rebuilt. That trolley line was family-owned. The mayor ended his presentation by asking the business people in the room to consider taking part in a public-private partnership like the one in Portland, and observing that the government alone “won’t get it done.”

San Diego Example Of Light Rail’s Success

Arizona Republic July 21, 2004 This fall, voters will have several major decisions to make, but one of the most important for us in Maricopa County will be among those at the very end of what promises to be a long ballot. That’s where we’ll find local issues - below the presidential race and other federal contests, after all the state and local offices, beyond the judges and past the statewide initiatives and referendums. Way down the ballot will be Proposition 400 - the proposal to extend our one-half-cent sales tax to pay for transportation system improvements. The $15.8 billion proposal includes a comprehensive package of system extensions and enhancements. Roughly two-thirds of the total in the 20- year plan will go for freeways and streets. An additional 17 percent will pay for more buses and bus system improvements. But those two items, making up approximately 85 percent of the package, are not what’s getting all the attention. That honor goes to the project using the remaining 15 percent: light rail. The plan calls for extending the light-rail system beyond the Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa boundaries, beyond the portion already being paid for by those cities. There are some in our community who absolutely believe light rail is a waste of money. They would tell you that there will never be enough riders to justify the cost. “Our population density won’t sustain it. The money would be better spent on almost anything else.” The recent run-up in gasoline prices has changed some of the math, but both sides of this argument can still make the numbers work to prove their point. The justification for light rail, however, goes beyond the hard costs. It’s not just about the dollars. It also has to do with the role light rail can (and should) play in a complete, fully integrated urban transportation system. A few weeks ago, I had the chance to visit San Diego on business. We had a half day of free time built into our schedules, and I took the opportunity to take a ride on that city’s light-rail system. Like Phoenix, San Diego is a relatively young city that has done most of its growing up around the automobile. Rail has been a latecomer to its transportation mix. They’ve had a bus system for years, and the argument was made by some that the money they are spending on rail would have been better spent on bus system improvements and other things. But the reality of the San Diego Trolley in operation is belying those concerns. What I found during my light-rail ride, midmorning on a weekday, was a system being heavily used by a wide cross section of that community. There were tourists headed to visitor destinations, students headed to or from school. There were lots of folks on shopping trips, and even more headed to or from work. What the trolley line is providing San Diego is exactly what is envisioned for light rail in Phoenix. It’s the backbone of the public transit system. The park-and-ride lots at the trolley stops were being heavily used. Each stop is directly linked to complementary bus routes. The system is even designed to allow bicycle riders to bring their two-wheelers on board with them. The trolley doesn’t take you to your doorstep, but it provides a regular, efficient and high-capacity core that makes the rest of the system - which does deliver you to your doorstep, or close to it - work. Light rail, in a contemporary urban setting, isn’t designed to stand alone. It’s expected to provide the linkage and support that makes all the other parts work better. For San Diego, the trolley has made the difference between a mediocre transit system and one others are now looking to as a model. It’s a system that provides San Diegans and their visitors with affordable, accessible and reliable access to their community - where they work, where they live and where they play. The system Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa are building, the one we will be asked to help extend this fall, can do exactly the same for us. David Howell is a 17-year Valley resident. He and his wife live in Phoenix. Howell can be reached at dandjhowell@aol.com. The views expressed are those of the author.

Riding The Greed Line ; Unlike Seattle’s, A New Monorail On The Gridlocked Strip In Las Vegas Is A Sure Bet.

Seattle Weekly July 21 - 27, 2004 On the morning of July 15, the sky is an open oven, humidity approaching 50 percent, and TV promises a summer monsoon will rake the Las Vegas valley. But at the Sahara Station monorail platform, Kim Pedersen, president of the national Monorail Society, is too excited to worry about fire and lightning before breakfast. His entourage, a half-dozen society members sporting cameras and monorails.org shirts and caps, chants “Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!” They pump their fists and mill about anxiously while a refrigerator-sized security guard from Wackenhut blocks the turnstiles, awaiting the stroke of 8. Competing with the society pep squad is a long line of less-organized monorail fans, including some dressed as zoo animals. Along with tourists in cutoffs and thongs, they are queued up to take an inaugural ride on the new $650 million, privately financed Las Vegas monorail. The 4.4-mile, casino-to-casino train is mostly a commuter line for craps players, sliding through the back streets of Vegas. It is also a test run for Seattle’s planned 13.7-mile, $1.6 billion Green Line.The Las Vegas system, financed by the gambling and entertainment industry and serving the Las Vegas Strip, was built by a team headed by Bombardier Transportation of Montreal, which spearheads a group hoping to win the Seattle monorail bid next month. As Seattle City Council member Peter Steinbrueck put it, after a May visit to Las Vegas, this train “gives us an idea where we want to go.” Or not go Before the official opening, some Vegas celebs are breaking in Bombardier’s sleek, 72-seat, four-car trains (with standing room for another 150). They are painted up in gaudy promotional themes to help raise more than $50 million a year in advertising from Monster Energy drinks, Nextel, and others. The slope-nosed train promoting the Hilton’s Star Trek show warns, “Resistance Is Futile.” So was some monorail planning. Chronic software glitches during testing caused trains to arrive early and others to arrive late. Doors wouldn’t open in stations. A heavy drive shaft fell off a car and clattered on the pavement 20 feet below. The monorail opened six months late and has left Bombardier and partner Granite Construction facing $12 million in penalties for delays. It all held together, though, for last Wednesday’s star tour. Singer Gladys Knight is delighted by the reasonably swift 14-minute ride from the MGM Grand to the Sahara. Penn & Teller- the one who talks, anyway-eyes his costumed fellow entertainers and wonders about riding the rails with a guy in a rubber suit. Comedian Rita Rudner is satisfied just not to get mugged. Though Las Vegas officials project a daily ridership of 50,000, on opening day, despite all the hoopla, just 30,000 showed, most of them presumably tourists. At $3 a pop, says Las Vegas Sun columnist Susan Snyder, “The monorail is not intended for the hired help.” But then, this is Vegas, home to the Liberace Museum, 99-cent margaritas, and an Elvis impersonator on every corner. They have even invented a machine that takes your money and, with the exception of a cherry here and there, whirls fruitlessly. The monorail is the fusion of this weirdness, taking you sin-to-sin on a tight schedule. For Pedersen and his sky riders, the monorail is their Vegas payoff and 8 a.m. their number. “We’re going to ride it like crazy,” says Pedersen, of Fremont, Calif. “We’re excited about it because they’re eventually going to move to downtown,” extending the line to Glitter Gulch, “and eventually go the airport, and I believe it will go to the suburbs someday.” Pedersen, a serious sky-rail hobbyist who cruises the Net for monorail news, is familiar with Steinbrueck’s apparent epiphany in the desert. A once-wary supporter of the troubled Seattle Monorail Project (SMP), Steinbrueck seemed to have discovered something in Vegas even more spiritual than the Chapel of the Bells. While wincing at the Vegas monorail’s “brutalist” 30- to 40-foot support columns and overhead switching platforms, he returned to Seattle anxious to improve on those designs and get the Green Line rolling. That was great, Pedersen says of Steinbrueck’s conversion. But he doubts there’s a way to slim down the columns for Seattle. “That’s the size they have to be to hold these systems,” he says. Besides, in Vegas, where the Z-shaped rail route travels behind the casinos about a block off the Strip, the big columns and heavy guideways compete mostly with parking-garage architecture. “And I don’t think the columns are all that unattractive,” says Pedersen. “It’s a good design.” He has a point. The beige T-, H-, and L-shaped columns and 10-foot-thick crossbeams blend into the desert background. In supersized Vegas, amid steroidal Romanesque resorts on the nearby Strip, the monorail is a scale-model train in a billionaire’s playpen. Though Steinbrueck wasn’t earlier able to take a test ride on one of the driverless trains, I climb aboard with the Monorail Society. Before opening day ends, I notch 20 rail miles and tour all seven stations, including one that now links the city’s big off-Strip convention center to the nearby hotels. The spartan stations, some with hotel access ramps, all have elevators, escalators, and automated ticketing machines. The train cars are comfortable and air- conditioned, and the line has an emergency catwalk its full length. The monorail’s quiet swoosh and automated destination announcements (interspersed with casino promos) are remindful of Seattle’s airport subway-but with a panoramic view that includes a bar featuring female mud wrestling. At the least, it beats riding a bus on eternally gridlocked, eight-lane Las Vegas Boulevard, the Strip, where transit passengers are allowed to pile in until someone in the back of the bus shouts, “I can’t breathe!” Still, the bus is $2 and monorail fares are $3 one way, $10 a day, $20 for 10 rides. The casino investors, who formed the nonprofit Las Vegas Monorail Company (LVMC) to run the line, financed it in part through $450 million in bonds. Though it claims to be a private venture, the monorail relies on the state’s bond guarantees to underwrite its financing, and as a nonprofit, LVMC doesn’t have to contribute millions in taxes. LVMC will get its return from the fare box and from predicted increased tourism along the Strip, already crowded with visitors and bustling with construction cranes. Investors are also sitting pretty if the line is expanded to downtown, since the plan is to seek mostly federal money for that leg. Taxpayers would likely be on the hook for the airport extension, too. Other than-surprise-the possibility the public has been misled about a major transportation project, what’s the lesson of Las Vegas? LVMC has the advantage of being privately owned and can better control its destiny. But it did so in ways not out of the reach of a tax-supported bureaucracy like the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP). Vegas built its system away from heavily used streets. It took to the side of the road rather than running trains down the middle. Almost all of the track is comprised of dual guideways. The line had an uncomplicated, workable plan from the beginning. And it used a design-build-operate-maintain bid process that, although SMP plans to do the same, could be a minus in Seattle. SMP plans to concentrate its line on congested corridors, sometimes in the middle of them, with little expectation of easing gridlock. It will also use less-efficient and riskier one-rail tracks for almost a third of its line, and, unlike the Vegas system, the Seattle monorail will dominate downtown and neighborhood air space. With a request for proposals sometimes lacking in specifics, SMP is also leaving part of the decision making to its two bid teams-one headed by Vegas veteran Bombardier, the other by Hitachi. If it wins the bid in Seattle, financially troubled Bombardier would be on the rebound from multimillion-dollar mistakes in Vegas. If delays should crop up in Seattle-anyone believe they won’t?-how will the threat of more fines affect a company that also lost $174 million in its first quarter this year? Then there’s that comparable cost thing. The Vegas monorail cost about $160 million a mile. SMP says it can do the job for about $110 million a mile. How can that be? The Vegas group had no Ship Canal to cross, no West Seattle Bridge to stride, no downtown skyscrapers to wend around, no hard turns to make or appreciable grades to climb. Vegas has built what it considers a streamlined system, even if its function is just a cut above the monorail at Disney World (another Bombardier system). How does Seattle build a more extensive commuter line for considerably less? “Well,” says Todd Walker, the Las Vegas monorail’s spokesperson, “I don’t know if you can strictly compare the two. Start with the stations. We’ve got seven in four miles. You’ll have comparatively fewer per mile. And our stations are very large.” Construction costs can also vary widely, he notes. Still, Seattle will have 19 stations over 14 miles, and some will be sizable-one 10 stories tall. Another Vegas monorail official says that they’re having trouble with Bombardier’s cars-one of which last Thursday night was vibrating loudly from a rubbing sound. He’s been to Seattle, the official adds, “and I can’t imagine with all those hills and water that you’d be able to build it cheaper than on a desert floor.” Vegas nonetheless thinks it can show Seattle and other cities the monorail way. Officials were especially happy to get an opening-day e- mail from Steinbrueck last week, saying thanks for the inspiration. “We have a great relationship with Seattle,” says spokesperson Walker. “Especially with Peter and Joel Horn,” SMP’s executive director, “who has been here, too. I think Las Vegas serves as a good example for Seattle.” Now there’s a slogan for our welcoming signs.

Metro Stands By Northside Light Rail ; Despite Rumors, Residents Are Told Plans For Route Will Move Ahead

Houston Chronicle July 21, 2004 Metro’s president reassured a group of northside community advocates Tuesday that the transit authority is proceeding with plans to break ground on schedule for a light rail extension into their neighborhoods. Frank Wilson, who assumed office two months ago, told about 30 North Corridor Coalition members that the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s voter- approved expansion plan remains intact despite comments from several new board members suggesting that preferred alignments need to be re- examined. “The board has made absolutely no policy change whatsoever,” Wilson told the group of community and business leaders from northern Harris County and southern Montgomery County meeting at the Wyndham Greenspoint hotel. “The program remains on the schedule that we’ve published.” Metro still intends to submit the Northline extension of the Main Street line, as well as the Southeast line toward Hobby Airport, to the Federal Transit Administration next month for fiscal year 2006 funding consideration, Wilson said. He said that the authority will continue examining “every possible option” for those corridors. “But let me reiterate: We are not changing the policy,” Wilson said. “We are not delaying the programs.” Concern has grown in the past month among backers of the light rail extension from downtown to Northline Mall - which would continue to Greenspoint and Bush Intercontinental Airport in future years - about Metro’s commitment to building that section first. That was the promise made to voters during last fall’s campaign for the $7.5 billion 2025 Metro Solutions expansion plan. At the June board meeting, several directors suggested it would be prudent to take another look at previously rejected routings along freight railroad lines. That would remove the light rail tracks from city streets, allowing trains to go faster and reducing the risk of collisions with motor vehicles, which have plagued the Main Street line in its inaugural year. Many North Corridor Coalition members reject the need to revisit the chosen alignment, which is planned to traverse several city streets between the University of Houston-Downtown and the mall. The group has been pushing for northside light rail since 1998. Ervin Baumeyer, representing the North Houston/Greenspoint Chamber of Commerce, was among those who expressed frustration. “I thought we studied it to death, and now they are looking at a restudy of it?” Baumeyer said. But some members said they understood the board’s desire to review the routes, particularly given the 47 train-vehicle collisions involving the Main Street rail, all but one of which have been blamed on motorists’ errors or traffic violations. “When we did a lot of our work over the last five years, MetroRail had not been in operation yet,” said Joe Wozny of the Cy-Fair/Houston Chamber of Commerce. “Had we known then what we know now about the stupidity of Houston drivers, we might have thought a bit differently. The real issue I see here is the reliability of the system.” Elected officials who represent the neighborhoods the Northline rail extension is planned to pass through are not pleased with talk of re- evaluating the route. City Councilman Adrian Garcia said the ballot language from the Nov. 4 transit referendum and campaign material from Metro “seem to be very specific as to what the boundaries of the project are.” Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia said her constituents are generally supportive of the existing Northline alignment. “Then we got a rumor that they were starting to look at going down Hardy,” she said. “I have some grave concerns about moving it.” Garcia wonders whether a move to the Hardy freight railroad corridor might conflict with the county’s plan to extend the Hardy Toll Road into downtown. “To try to make a change would require a lot of study,” she said. The current proposed route “went through community meetings and thorough planning, and if anybody wants to change it, I think they should put it through the same process. I don’t want these decisions to be made in a vacuum,” Garcia added.

Battle For The Son Of Supertram

Yorkshire Evening Post July 21, 2004 TRANSPORT chiefs in Leeds were today defiantly insisting that the city’s Supertram dream is NOT dead in the water. Bosses at Metro said yesterday’s announcement that the Government would not be approving the light rail plans in their current form had come as no surprise. They pointed out that Transport Secretary Alistair Darling told them as long ago as January that the scheme’s spiralling price tag was unacceptable. Metro chairman Mick Lyons said that since then the city had been looking at ways to reduce the near- � 1bn cost of the system to the � 500m level that originally won Government support in 2001. Coun Lyons told the Yorkshire Evening Post that the intention had always been to go back to the Department for Transport during the autumn with a revised set of proposals. He went on: We remain determined to bring the scheme and all the economic, social and environmental benefits that come with it, to Leeds and West Yorkshire. The YEP understands that Metro is optimistic it can make the scheme happen for � 500m without compromising either the size of the network or the quality of service it would provide. A spokesman for the DfT confirmed it would give full consideration to any fresh light rail submission from the city. He said, however, that Leeds would have to show from scratch that its revamped proposals were affordable and represented value for money. The spokesman stressed that getting the likely bill for the scheme down to � 500m again would not automatically entitle the city to the funding the Government set aside for it three years ago. In the Commons Labour’s Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) said he was disappointed about news that Leeds’s tram proposals had not been approved. As reported in later editions of last night’s YEP, Mr Darling said yesterday that no Government could back a project that had seen costs rise so dramatically. He went on: We need to look urgently at how light rail can be made affordable. Looking back over the last 20 years it has cost more to provide light rail here than elsewhere in Europe. Proposals for a tram system in Leeds were first unveiled in the late 1980s. Seven successive bids for support were turned down by the Government before Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott finally gave the project the green light in 2001. He agreed to plough � 355m into the network, with local sources such as developers and the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority supplying the remainder of the cash. Serving Lawnswood in the north, Whinmoor in the east and Stourton in the south, it was hoped the trams would ease Leeds’s chronic road congestion problems by carrying 22 million passengers a year. It was initially expected that construction would begin in earnest this year and 16 months ago preliminary work got under way on the A61 Hunslet Road. However, in October the YEP revealed that concerns were mounting in Whitehall about the rising cost of the scheme - and soon afterwards it emerged that the Government was being asked to contribute another � 350m to it. Following Alistair Darling’s thumbs-down to that request in January, Metro admitted that Supertram had already set taxpayers back about � 40m.

Merseytram Scheme Must Stay Within Agreed Budget; There Will Be No Extra Funds, Says Darling

Daily Post (Liverpool) July 21, 2004 THE pounds 230m scheme to bring trams back to Merseyside will not go ahead if costs rise, Alistair Darling warned last night as he scrapped three similar projects. The Transport Secretary issued a stern warning that no extra funds were available as he shocked Manchester, Leeds and South Hampshire by rejecting their light rail plans. The move leaves hopes for a network of tram schemes in tatters, with only Merseytram and extensions in London and Birmingham still in the pipeline. And it adds to the pressure on Merseytravel to deliver Line One without being forced to ask the Department for Transport for more than the pounds 170m provisionally granted. The Df T made clear it still expected to give final approval to the 12-mile Line One, as long as planning approval is granted following the recent inquiry. But a spokesman said: “When we sign the cheque we will need to be certain that the Merseytram scheme still offers value for money. It means that, to be certain of getting the funding, it needs to be the scheme to which we have given provisional approval, at the same price. “ Rising costs have been blamed for the demise of all three schemes axed yesterday, with thegovernment’s bill to extend the Manchester Metrolink soaring from pounds 282m to pounds 670m. In Leeds, ministers were asked to cough up pounds 500m, instead of pounds 355m, and in South Hampshire the bill was pounds 270m, rather than pounds 170m. All three operators have now been told to go back to the drawing board and come up with cheaper alternatives, perhaps by working more closely together. Mr Darling told MPs: “No government could accept these schemes as they are on the basis of these cost escalations. We cannot therefore approve them. “ Ministers are furious that light rail schemes are far more expensive in Britain than in the rest of Europe, a fact highlighted by a recent National Audit Office report. However, they are optimistic that costs can be more tightly controlled in Merseyside than elsewhere because a different procurement process has been adopted. Rather than decide upon a scheme and then work out the bill, Merseytravel has worked backwards by fixing on a maximum cost and then calculating what could be afforded. Line One, from Kirkby to Liverpool, ending in two loops around the city centre and the waterfront, is intended to be ready for 2008 Capital of Culture year

When The Government Threw Out Plans For A Massive Expansion Of The Metrolink Tram System Yesterday It Threw Away The Trust Of The People Of Greater Manchester

Manchester Evening News July 21, 2004 WHEN the government threw out plans for a massive expansion of the Metrolink tram system yesterday it threw away the trust of the people of Greater Manchester. Weasel words and false promises have betrayed us. BETRAYED when John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, came to Manchester in 2000 and pledged the scheme would be built, saying the city had “led the way” in providing integrated transport. BETRAYED when Prime Minister Tony Blair described the expansion in 1999 as “exactly the kind of infrastructure project we need”. BETRAYED when Transport Secretary Alistair Darling stood up in the House of Commons and announced a contract deal worth �520m in 2002. For the last four years we have taken the government at its word that it would help create a transport system fit for the 21st century. This newspaper campaigned hard for the Big Bang expansion and we celebrated, along with our readers, when it was approved. Every financial evaluation of the scheme has been positive. As we crawled along jammed streets and put up with gridlocked town centres, we believed the government when it said things would get better. We had a vision of a transport network worthy of this great conurbation, a network which would allow people to move freely and quickly, a network we know they want to use and which would be the foundation for a �1m-a-day boom. Mr Darling said in 2002 that Metrolink had proved safe and reliable, he was approving cash for three new lines and building was planned to start the following year. Yesterday Mr Darling changed his mind, blaming escalating costs - but in the next breath announced billions of pounds for the south east transport infastructure. Many said it was a stab in the back for our region. Mr Darling says “no government could accept these schemes as they are on the basis of these cost escalations” - not even a government which watched the amount of grant funding for London’s Millennium Dome increase from �399m to �628m? Not a secretary of state who yesterday found �340m for transport projects to support London’s bid for the 2012 Olympics? Not even a secretary of state who is backing London’s �10bn Crossrail scheme which, in his words, presents “funding challenges”? The Department of Transport has already spent �200m on advance planning work for the Metrolink expansion. Is that now to be wasted? Tell that to the people of Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton under Lyne and Wythenshawe. Mr Darling should visit those towns and tell people face to face why they cannot have their Metrolink. The people of Greater Manchester have had enough of ministers praising the area as an example of regeneration and then ploughing taxpayers’ money into London. The very least we expect is that the �520m which was pledged should be honoured. That way, at least a start can be made to expand the network. And for an extra �7.5m each year for the next seven, the two east Manchester lines could be built by attracting private funding. Every MP in this region has a duty to protest at the highest level - and we appeal to our readers to send us their views for a petition to Parliament. Mr Darling says he cannot, or will not, foot the bill. We say the cost to Greater Manchester, and to the New Labour government, will be incalculable if he does not get this scheme back on track. Shame on you.

Transport Blueprint: Tough Funding Talks Ahead After Green Light For �10bn Crossrail Link

The Guardian (London) - Final Edition July 21, 2004 Long cherished plans to upgrade London’s transport network and realign the capital’s “axis of prosperity” were boosted yesterday by the government’s backing for Crossrail and confirmation that the East London line extension will also go ahead. The transport secretary, Alistair Darling, paved the way for the East London underground line extension - connecting Hackney in the east with Chelsea in the west - by providing an extra �340m for Transport for London and allowing it to borrow a further �2.9bn for the period up to 2010. But it was the government’s embrace of Crossrail, albeit guarded, that attracted most attention. The new underground line has long been sought by London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, to improve the transport infrastructure across the capital and to help east London compete with the affluence of west London. Mr Darling said the government decision represented a “milestone in the history of London as we seek to build a transport system fit for the 21st century”. He said he would consult until next summer on funding mechanisms. Mr Livingstone predicted “tough negotiations”. Crossrail will link the Isle of Dogs in the east and Heathrow airport in the west, with new stations at Liverpool Street, Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street and Paddington. Existing suburban rail services will also be able to run through London from as far east as Shenfield in Essex to Reading in Berkshire. Yesterday’s announcement followed a feasibility study, conducted by Adrian Montague, Network Rail’s deputy chairman, which gave the project the green light but warned that the �10bn cost could rise. It said that without direct funding from the Treasury, the new line could suffer from a funding gap of up to �8bn. Funding proposals included levying a charge on public transport tickets across greater London, possibly under a “stakeholder” scheme giving travellers partial ownership of Crossrail. London’s businesses could contribute between �2bn and �3bn. Mr Montague ruled out running trains in time to coincide with London’s bid for the 2012 Olympics. At the earliest, services could run through central London by March 2013, with a full line operating from Heathrow to Kent and Essex by January 2016. Mr Montague said the “planets were broadly in alignment” towards getting Crossrail built but declined to predict whether construction would begin within a decade. “I’m not a betting man,” he said. While many believe Crossrail will bring long-term gain, some fear the tunnelling work will disrupt their lives. Storeowner Adbul Quayum Jamal, 34, in Brick Lane, east London, said locals had not been consulted. “It will cause us a hell of a lot of noise, and congestion and pollution. By the time it is built most of our business would have closed down.” The actor and director Steven Berkoff, added: “The East End is full of uninteresting dreary streets. The tunnel should take a different route.” Campaigner Caroline Hamilton said local people felt let down. “The local council is saying that we are white middle- class moaners. How dare they?” Helal Abbas, the leader of Tower Hamlets council, said it backed Crossrail in principle but would ensure disruption was kept to a minimum. “People need to look at the bigger picture. The regeneration effect this will have on the area is something for which we will have to pay a price

Rejection Of Northern Tram Plans Prompts Suspicions Of London Bias

The Guardian (London) July 21, 2004 The north suffered a double blow yesterday with the announcement by the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, that tram schemes on each side of the Pennines were being knocked back for “gruesomely” over-expensive budgets. There was fury in Labour-controlled Manchester over the loss of the “Big Bang” extension of the existing - and successful - Metrolink tram network to cover Oldham and Rochdale to the east of the city and Ashton-under-Lyne and south Manchester. “This is a major blow to Greater Manchester and an appalling decision,” said Roger Jones, chairman of Greater Manchester passenger transport authority. “It fundamentally fails to recognise the success of Metrolink and its contribution to the regeneration of this area.” The Manchester MP Graham Stringer called the decision “appalling and unjustifiable” and warned of a “gloves-off” fight to change the decision. By contrast in Leeds, where a coalition of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens ousted Labour last month, transport chiefs were ready for the news that the proposed �500m Supertram is prohibitively expensive. The West Yorkshire transport authority, Metro, said that a revised “Slimmertram” would be put forward as soon as possible. The Leeds system, with three lines in the early stages of construction, has gone �140m over budget, with the public sector contribution capped. Yesterday’s decision was flagged up by National Audit Office criticism earlier this year of soaring light rail system budgets. “We remain determined to bring the scheme and all the economic, social and environmental benefits that come with it, to Leeds and West Yorkshire,” said Mick Lyons, Labour chairman of Metro. There may be changes to the planned 20 miles of line to snake out to the north, south and east of the city. The Greater Manchester PTA said that it was “steadfast” in its determination to build a Metrolink extension in some form. The scheme’s costs have risen by around �1bn, and the junior transport minister Kim Howells signalled last week that a request for �520m from Whitehall would be rejected by Mr Darling. Both sides of the north were united in suspicion of a “London-weighted” transport strategy in the light of Mr Darling’s commitment to the �10bn Crosslink rail service and extensions to the light rail network in the capital. Mr Jones of Metrolink said: “The decision is all the more disappointing at a time when there’s increasing evidence that other departments of state are recognising the pivotal role Greater Manchester should play in the economic revival of the northern regions, to counterbalance the growth and development of London and the south-east.” The Lib Dem spokesman in Oldham, Tony Dawson, said: “One day they tell us funds are seriously stretched and they cannot guarantee to fund our supertram system through Oldham and Rochdale; the next week they are promising �10bn to a new train system in London.” The Say Yes for Yorkshire campaign for a regional assembly said the tram decision could influence voting in the referendum due in November. The joint committee of passenger transport authorities, PTEG, said both tram schemes were “vital to the future prosperity of Britain’s major cities.” Its chair, Kieran Preston, said: “Congestion charging has the potential to raise additional funding in the future but our city regions need better public transport now.” Manchester transport bosses are angry at the rejection of plans for an extension to the Metrolink

Straphangers Tell Cabbies: Take A Hike

The New York Post July 22, 2004 Higher taxi fares have apparently driven more commuters to take buses and subways, with riders taking a MetroCard swipe at more expensive yellow cabs. Weekday and weekend bus and subway ridership shot up in May, according to an MTA ridership report expected to be released today - just as a 26 percent hack hike went into effect. Average weekday bus and subway ridership grew to 7.3 million in May - up 2.6 percent compared to the same month last year. Weekday subway ridership reached 4.76 million in May - up 2.7 percent compared to the same month last year. Weekday bus ridership soared to 2.56 million - up 2.3 percent compared to the same period last year. The Taxi and Limousine Commission raised rates on May 3, elevating the cost of an average 2.6-mile taxi with five minutes’ waiting time from $6.85 to $8.45. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority raised bus and subway fares 50 cents to $2 in May 2003. TLC spokesman Allan Fromberg said preliminary numbers show a “small decline” in yellow taxi ridership. “Coming into the summer, you always see a small seasonal dip,” he said. “People go on vacation.” Fromberg said complete statistics wouldn’t be available until later this year. The MTA credits ridership growth to the city’s strengthening economy. Beverly Dolinsky, executive director of the New York City Transit Riders Council, a transportation watchdog group, said there is a connection between higher cab fares and growth in mass transit. “People opt to take a bus or subway, especially on shorter trips when you notice that a ride costs a few extra dollars,” she said. Bus and subway ridership grew even more on weekends. Overall weekend ridership reached 7.4 million - up 7.2 percent compared to the same month last year. Weekend subway ridership reached a 30-year high for the month of May, climbing to 4.7 million riders - an increase of 7.5 percent compared to last year. Weekend bus ridership reached a 28-year high for the month, reaching 2.7 million passengers - up 6.7 percent compared to last year. Some riders said they have changed their habits. “You get there at the same time whether you take a cab or a subway,” said Maxi Ojeda, 26, an administrative assistant from The Bronx. “I haven’t taken a cab in months.” Tanisha Williams, 18, who comes from Brooklyn and works as an intern at a law firm, said taking a taxi is never an option because it’s too expensive. “I don’t take cabs at all,” she said. “I take the bus on the weekends and the subway to work. Paying for a cab is too much.”

May Day

Average bus and subway ridership skyrocketed in May, when taxi fares jumped 26 percent, compared to the same month last year.

Weekday subway ridership: 4.76 million riders - up 2.7 percent
Weekday bus ridership: 2.56 million riders - up 2.3 percent
Weekend subway ridership: 4.7 million riders - up 7.5 percent
Weekend bus ridership: 2.7 million riders - up 6.7 percent

Source: MTA The following item was taken from the American society of Mechanical Engineers email bulletin “Capitol News” dated July 22, 2004.

TSA Begins Third Phase Of Rail Security Experiment

As part of the third stage of a pilot program exploring new measures for rail security that began July 19, passengers may be screened for explosives while traveling on Connecticut’s Shoreline East commuter rail. Passengers boarding from one of the eight Shoreline East stations may pass through a specialized railcar equipped with on-board screening technology as the train is in motion. This pilot will mark the first ever attempt to screen passengers while in motion. Completed at the end of May, Phase I of TRIP consisted of screening of the passengers and their carry-on baggage for explosives at the Amtrak/MARC rail station at New Carrollton, Md. Phase II tested checked baggage screening at Amtrak’s Union Station in Washington, DC and was completed in early July. Shoreline East Commuter Rail passengers are urged to check the Shoreline East commuter rail website, http://www.shorelineeast.com for additional information.

U.S. Department of Transportation Announces Funding For Durham/Raleigh Regional Rail System

U.S. Department of Transportation July 22, 2004 FTA 29-04 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) today announced a grant of $17.2 million to help fund a planned 32.2-mile regional rail system from Durham to North Raleigh, North Carolina. “Regional rail will relieve road congestion, protect the environment, and connect workers to jobs,” said FTA Administrator Jennifer L. Dorn. “The Bush administration is committed to transit because it connects commuters to the rapidly expanding economy.” The grant awarded today brings the total federal funding for this project to $62.6 million and will be used by the Triangle Transit Authority to support final design activities, engineering and project management for the Durham/Raleigh regional light rail project. The project, which includes 16 stations and 13 park-and-ride lots, begins at Duke Medical Center in Durham and ends at Spring Forest Road in Raleigh. Four stations will be in the city of Durham, two in Research Triangle Park, two will be in the town of Cary, and eight stations will be in the city of Raleigh. All stations will have bus connections and the stations in downtown Durham and downtown Raleigh will connect to planned multi- modal centers. In addition, the downtown Cary station will be next to the Amtrak station.

From A Rail Car, A New Way To See The City

Southwest Journal (Minneapolis) July 22, 2004 Journalists have spilled thousands of words in recent weeks touting Minneapolis’ new light-rail system, but there’s one theme they’ve missed: Light rail is a great new way to see the city. We’re all used to seeing Minneapolis from the regular grid of city streets and avenues. As seen from the street, the city often looks flat and two- dimensional, with endless blocks of building facades facing out like a huge stage set. However, like some giant three-dimensional video game, the light-rail line twists behind those formal facades, swoops over the streets, and shoots along corridors far from the normal grid. The first time I rode the light rail I was so disoriented that — despite having lived here for 25 years — I didn’t have a clue as to where I was. The effect is exhilarating. I felt as if I were seeing Minneapolis for the first time. Near the Metrodome stop, the tracks twist and turn through the backyards of industrial buildings such as the Valspar complex. This brightly painted group of buildings is a familiar, highly visible landmark for drivers cruising I-94, but the light rail runs so close you can read the artist’s signature, and see much more of the wild and wonderful design. At Cedar-Riverside, the tracks stop in the shadow of the enormous Riverside Plaza housing complex. From the freeway, this looks like a vertical concrete slum, another example of subsidized public housing gone wrong. But a closer view reveals it to be a vibrant, colorful component of a neighborhood teeming with life. The Franklin Avenue stop sits at the end of Cedar Avenue, long home to the Cabooze and a few vaguely threatening biker bars. But from the light- rail car these colorful bars look more quirky than scary. At Lake Street, you soar up to a modern glass-and-steel station, and enjoy a western view down Lake Street. At that height you can truly appreciate the scale and vastness of the city grid, stretching toward the horizon. When you’ve lived in one city for a long time and driven the same routes day after day, the city can begin to seem drab and ho-hum. You stop seeing its delights; you stop appreciating its wonders. For a city junkie such as I, riding the new light-rail line is downright intoxicating. It’s like discovering a whole new dimension in an old friend. And while our light rail doesn’t reveal as much of the city’s hidden life as does Chicago’s El (from which train riders can stare right into people’s kitchens), it does offer a much more realistic view of Minneapolis. Perhaps the best comparison lies in the difference between streets and alleys. Houses set their formal faces toward the street, but the alley side shows how people truly live. So, too, light rail reveals more about what this city is really about.

Woes at Union Pacific Create A Bottleneck for the Economy; Unexpectedly Strong Demand Leads to Rolling Delays; No Easy Fix for Christmas

Wall Street Journal July 22, 2004 TEMPE, Ariz. — Glenn Miller thought he could rely on Union Pacific Corp. That was before the U.S.’s largest railroad started falling behind on deliveries to his wholesale lumberyard, which is connected to Union Pacific by its own rail spur. A series of orders took about a month each to arrive at Miller Wholesale Lumber Co. when they should have taken about 10 days. In the spring, one lumber shipment from Oregon spent three months riding the rails, including an unscheduled detour into Pennsylvania on another railroad. Union Pacific tried using a trucking company, but multiple loads of wood were warped by the desert sun and one went to a competitor by mistake. The snafus cost more than $200,000, Mr. Miller estimates, because he had to buy lumber on the spot market to meet his obligations. “It’s a nightmare for guys like me,” he says. The Union Pacific system, stretching from the Midwest to the West Coast, has been gripped by a series of operational breakdowns. Failing to anticipate a surge in demand for shipping, the railroad has found itself without adequate staffing to handle the extra freight. As a result, parts of Union Pacific’s network have come close to seizing up, with labor shortages creating rolling bottlenecks and delays. Freight yards and tracks have been so clogged that entire trains have been stuck for days. The railroad can’t move empty cars quickly enough to pick up shipments, which are taking days or even weeks longer than they should to reach their destinations, if the railroad is able to carry them at all. Union Pacific, based in Omaha, Neb., is now turning away customers. The company’s troubles, the worst since its massive service breakdowns of the late 1990s, come at a pivotal time for the recovering U.S. economy. In total, railroads carry more than 40% of U.S. freight volume, and Union Pacific controls nearly a third of that business. It carries about $300 billion a year of raw materials and finished goods. The regular tide of foreign-made DVD players, sneakers and other big sellers will begin reaching U.S. shores this month for the critical holiday season. With trucking companies and other railroads also squeezed for space, Union Pacific has become a major business constraint that could create shortages for retailers and higher prices for customers. In addition, rail analysts are expecting a strong grain harvest this year, which will further strain Union Pacific’s system. Robert Sappio, a senior vice president at APL Ltd., an ocean shipping line owned by Singapore’s Neptune Orient Lines Ltd., expects rail service to bog down once the peak shipping season gets under way. “I anticipate that despite the very best efforts of our partner, the UP, there will be congestion and delays,” he says. APL serves fashion houses and other importers that need goods delivered from Asia. Its customers are already demanding discounts