Tram to the slaughter: the cancellation of the extension to Manchester’s tram link caused outrage, but council leader Sir Howard Bernstein is hell-bent on reversing the decision

Property Week September 24, 2004 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL IS one of the few local authority figures with the clout to stand up to central government. So following the shock cancellation in August of plans to extend Manchester’s Metrolink, transport secretary Alastair Darling has a real fight on his hands. Sir Howard Bernstein has vowed that the extension will go ahead, despite the government’s refusal to provide the necessary 520m [pounds sterling] funding, revealed at the same time as its commitment to part-fund London’s east-west Crossrail link. The promise will be welcomed by property developers and landowners, which had been relying upon the extension when drawing up their plans for the city, and the council, which had already spent 20m [pounds sterling] acquiring sites for the line. The proposed route would have formed phase three of the Metrolink project, creating routes in east Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale — all vital regeneration areas that have been dealt a severe blow by the government’s unexpected decision. Bernstein is standing firm. ‘We will reach an agreement with government which will enable us to move forward in the next few weeks,’ he tells Property Week. ‘It has to go ahead. There is no option.’ This indicates the importance of the Metrolink to Manchester and begs the question: why would the government back down on a commitment that was seen as a certainty, and necessity, by the city? The official line is that the costs — initially forecast at 282m [pounds sterling] — were spiralling out of control. But angry Mancunians firmly believe that their city lost out to London’s Crossrail because the Olympic bid for 2012 needs new infrastructure. ‘From a personal point of view, I would love to see London get the Olympics,’ says CB Richard Ellis’s director Chris Dudhill. ‘But if that’s to the detriment of much-needed transport infrastructure in Manchester, then I think that’s a disgrace.’ This view seems to be accepted by Bernstein, who comments wryly: ‘We are not London, after all. We are used to not being given things on a plate.’ Building assumptions Those who thought the extension in Manchester was already in the bag have further reason to be angry. In addition to the 20m [pounds sterling] the council has spent on land assembly, private developers have started to build along the proposed route. Dudhill estimates they may have spent another 20m [pounds sterling]. ‘The route goes through some pretty tasty residential areas,’ he says, ‘and I expect that a lot of brownfield sites may have been picked up in anticipation.’ One of the sites affected is the North Manchester Business Park in east Manchester, where Matrix Securities has agreed to fund a 110,000 sq ft (10,025 sq m) building to be let to Fujitsu. ‘It’s a done deal,’ says Dudhill. ‘It will be built and occupied in anticipation of the Metro going there.’ East Manchester is the key to the council’s regeneration plans and it is generally accepted that if the council backs down and accepts a watered-down proposal for the tram to be developed in phases, the route to east Manchester would be the first to be built. Oldham and Rochdale’s Pathfinder project, one of nine in the country aimed at turning around ailing housing markets, was also relying on the new lines to boost its regeneration plans by providing easy access to Manchester city centre in one direction and the planned Kingsway business park in the other. Pathfinder director Alastair Graham comments: ‘Our plans are not reliant on the extension but it would be much more beneficial if it went ahead.’ A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport admitted that negotiations with the council were ongoing, but insisted that the expansion was ‘still very much in the balance’. Yet the city is determined to get the plans back on track and, with Bernstein leading the charge, they stand more than a fighting chance. The council has already made itself heard by organising a minute-long ‘noise protest’ in Manchester city centre on Thursday 16 September. ‘We have already spent 20m [pounds sterling],’ he says, ‘and there is a whole range of regeneration programmes that are already halfway through on the back of it happening. It’s just not right that without any consultation we are told that something we have been working hard for is potentially being cancelled without anyone understanding what the real impact of that decision may be. ‘We are responding to major disquiet a bout the way this has been cancelled and are giving them support in making sure Metrolink is firmly back on the government agenda.’ It may happen in phases, and it may happen more slowly than was anticipated. But if this stalwart of local government has anything to do with it, public opinion will win over Whitehall and Manchester will get its tram.

Two tram-train triumphs

Railway Gazette International October 2004: City News LAST MONTH saw further progress on tram-train development in the Netherlands, with the placing of infrastructure contracts for RandstadRail and approval of Leiden’s RijnGouweLijn project. On September 1 the city government of Den Haag announced the award of a €26m contract to Siemens Nederland and BAM Rail for the infrastructure elements on the first phase of RandstadRail. To be completed by July 2006, it covers the conversion of ProRail’s Zoetermeer and Hofplein line. BAM will be responsible for the civil engineering work, with Siemens supplying the signalling, interlockings, train detection and ATP. HTM has already ordered a fleet of 52 RegioCitadis LRVs from Alstom to operate the Zoetermeer line. The converted Hofplein line between Den Haag and Rotterdam is to be linked to the Rotterdam metro and will be worked by heavier metro trainsets. A few days later, Transport Minister Karla Peijis reached agreement with representatives from Zuid-Holland to go ahead with the 50km RijnGouweLijn between Gouda and Leiden, which is expected to open in 2010. Pilot tram-train services have been running between Gouda and Aalphen aan den Rijn since June 2003 (RG 4.03 p225). These will be extended over upgraded ProRail tracks to Leiden Lammenschans, from where new tram tracks will be laid through the city to the North Sea resorts of Katwijk and Noordwijk. The Transport Ministry has agreed to provide €140m for the project, and local and provincial authorities will contribute €90m.

Bangkok strategic expansion plan

Railway Gazette International October 2004: City News AMBITIOUS plans to expand the growing network of urban rail routes in Bangkok over the next six years were endorsed by the government on September 7. Faced with continuing road congestion problems, Transport Minister Suriya Jungungreangkit has put forward proposals to expand the city’s urban rail network from 44km to 291km at an estimated cost of 480bn baht. Top priority will be a 33km elevated line running east from Makkasan to the new Suvarnabhumi International Airport, priced at around 30bn baht. Seven consortia are bidding for a concession to build and operate this line, and a preferred bidder is due to be selected by November. Other priority schemes include an extension of the existing elevated Skytrain line from Sathorn to Tha Phra and Bang Khae. A public-private partnership is envisaged for the development of a 23km elevated north-south line above SRT’s main line between Bang Sue and Rangsit. Intended to make use of the support pillars for the abandoned Berts elevated motorway and metro network, this line would serve the existing airport at Dong Muang. The government’s Transport & Traffic Policy Office believes the line can be completed by 2008 at a cost of 39bn baht. The government is expected to provide 60% of the cost, and the private partners the remaining 40%, earning a 12% rate of return. In the longer term, the 160km/h electrified line would be extended alongside SRT tracks at ground level to Ayutthaya, 82km from the capital. Suriya’s master plan includes three more metro lines, serving Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani and Samut Sakhon. Other high-capacity routes would be created by upgrading SRT’s existing rail corridors. On September 15 shareholders in Skytrain operator Bangkok Mass Transit System Corp approved a 39bn baht debt restructuring to be put to creditors before the end of this year. It calls for 12bn baht worth of debt to be converted to debentures, and 14bn to be converted to equity, giving secured creditors a 28�8% stake and unsecured creditors 28�1%. Another 8bn baht of debt would be written off and the remaining 5bn repaid over 18 years.

Delhi holes through

Railway Gazette International October 2004: City News AT 08.30 ON September 3, a tunnel boring machine broke through at Delhi Main station after a 900m drive from Chawri Bazaar station. The breakthrough, attended by Delhi Metro Rail Corp Chairman Anil Baijal and Managing Director E Sreedharan, marked the completion of all tunnel boring on the first phase of the network. In total 4km of the 11km Line 2 linking Delhi University with Central Secretariat runs in bored tunnel and the remainder is cut-and-cover. Over the past two years, conventional and earth-pressure balance TBMs have completed eight separate drives, and two short sections between Chawri Bazaar and New Delhi were excavated using NATM. Finished internal diameter of the single-track bores is 5�7m. DMRC expects to start revenue services on the first 4km of Line 2 between Delhi University and Kashmere Gate in December, and to open the rest in June 2005.

Interurban study

Railway Gazette International October 2004 DETAILED DESIGN studies are underway for the construction of an interurban railway in Puerto Rico. It will act as a feeder to the San Juan Tren Urbano metro line now expected to open by the end of this year. The 20km interurban is due to be operational by 2008. It would start from the elevated metro station at Cupey in San Juan and run southeast to the satellite town of Caguas, which has around 300000 inhabitants. Around 18km of the route would follow the central reservation of the existing PR-52 highway, one of the two congested main roads between the towns. Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority has commissioned a consortium of Innovative Transport Inc, Semaly and Ray to undertake the US$12�1m study. ITI will manage the project and produce cost estimates, Semaly will undertake route planning and prepare the technical specifications, and Ray is in charge of the civil engineering elements. The contract follows an initial feasibility study conducted by ITI and Semaly last year. Preliminary design studies are to be completed by February, with detailed specifications to be completed by the end of 2005.

First rails laid in Valenciennes

Railway Gazette International October 2004: City News CEREMONIES were held in Valenciennes on September 7 to mark the start of tracklaying for the town’s light rail network. President of local transport authority Siturv Francis Decourri�re, European Investment Bank Vice-President Philippe de Fontaine Vive, the President of the Porte du Hainaut conurbation Alain Bocquet jointly presided over the welding of the first rails (right). Centre of a conurbation with 350000 inhabitants in northern France, Valenciennes is planning to develop an H-shaped network, of which 18km should be completed by 2007. Line 1 will be 9�5km long with 19 stations. It will run from Dutemple in Anzin via the railway station and town centre to terminate on the university campus at Aulnoy. Journey time is estimated at 25min, and opening is scheduled for June 16 2006. Line 1 is expected to cost €243m at June 2001 prices. Valenciennes has ordered 17 Citadis 33m long trams from Alstom, the first of which will be delivered in March 2005. Construction work is being undertaken by Beugnet Hainaut, Colas Nord Picardie, Jean Lefebvre and Screg Ramery, with major structures by Norpac and Quillery. Track and signalling are being supplied by Vossloh, with rails from Corus. Electrification work will be the responsibility of Amec Spie Rail, Forclum Ingénierie and Norelec Industrie.

Linz inaugurates mini ‘U-Bahn’

Railway Gazette International October 2004 CELEBRATIONS were held in the Austrian city of Linz on August 31 to mark the opening of a 1�9km section of tramway which includes a 1km double-track tunnel under the main station. Linzer Linien began regular services on following day. First proposed in 1976, the ‘U-Bahn’ involved diversion of the 900mm gauge tramway away from the existing route at Goethekreuzung, then through a curved tunnel beneath the �BB station to rejoin the old route at Bulgariplatz. Construction began in July 2001, with funding of the €69�8m project split evenly between the City of Linz and the Land of Ober�sterreich. Trams on north-south through routes 1 and 2 have been diverted via the main station, which was formerly on a short branch served only by route 3. All three routes now serve the station, where tram, bus, �BB and Linzer Lokalbahn rail services are being integrated to improve interchange. The new route also includes an underground stop at Unionkreuzung and a stop in cutting at Herz-Jesu-Kirche.

Derailed; Trams

The Economist October 2, 2004 Too much demand in China and too little in Croydon THOUSANDS of Mancunians have attended demonstrations about a government decision to halt the planned extension of the city’s tram system. Trams were a snazzy symbol of Manchester’s aspirations for continental modernity when they started running in 1992. The Labour government liked the idea too: in 2000 it said that it wanted 25 more schemes by 2010, on top of existing metros in Tyneside, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and London. The trouble is that estimated costs soared to £900m from an initial £489m, while the planned subsidy for the next 30 years rose from £150m to £510m. And a recent report from the National Audit Office, a spending watchdog, said that light rail schemes were proving poor value for money. Sheffield’s trams expected 22m passengers a year by 2000 but now carry just over 12m. The Croydon tram in south London forecast 26m passengers a year; it now has just under 20m. So even though £220m has already been spent on preparatory work, the government has blocked not only the new Manchester lines but also a £500m scheme in Leeds and a £270m one in Portsmouth. Opinion in Manchester is outraged — not about the profligacy, but by the loss of prestige. Angie Robinson, chief executive of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, says that the government has been divided: shortly after the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, blocked the tram project, John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, backed a report on northern regeneration which argued that the tram extension “is critical to unlocking the full economic and social potential of the area”. Local Labour MPs have persuaded Tony Blair to set up a working party to find ways of making the scheme cheaper. That will be hard. Geoff Inskip, deputy boss of the agency promoting the project, says that about 40% of the cost increase is due to inflation in construction materials, such as steel for rails. That’s true for all construction projects: China’s economic boom is gobbling raw materials and raising prices. The second problem is that poor performance of existing schemes means that banks now think trams are risky. They are prepared to provide less money and at greater cost in both interest and equity. Mr Inskip hopes to use new powers to make buses connect with trams rather than compete with them. But that would mean municipal control — and subsidy — for Manchester’s presently deregulated bus services. Jim Battle, Manchester City Council’s deputy leader, says that without the new tram lines, regeneration schemes costing several hundreds of millions of pounds in east Manchester and outlying towns may fail. But such arguments may raise the risk further in bankers’ eyes: they imply that the trams’ future fare income depends on jobs as yet uncreated. Stephen Glaister, a transport economist at Imperial College, London, says that risks like these are what private financing reveals. That’s better than letting ambitious local authorities go ahead, leaving risks uncosted and the taxpayer to pick up the tab if things go wrong. Mr Battle says that the council is pondering how to reduce the risks to private backers so as to make the scheme more attractive. If political pressure means that the government accepts this face-saving compromise, Manchester’s council-tax-payers may need to brace themselves.

Bus maker adopts GM hybrid-electric system

The Toronto Star October 2, 2004 Hybrid-electric technology isn’t limited to small cars or trucks. In fact, it may provide the biggest payback, in terms of energy savings and environmental benefits, when applied to high-consumption vehicles such as buses. General Motors has developed a full-hybrid technology for such applications, with potential to improve fuel economy by up to 50 percent and reduce emissions by up to 90 percent compared to a conventional diesel. The GM hybrid system uses dual electric motors to provide regenerative braking that slows the bus down and captures the energy in an advanced battery system. The stored electrical power is used to restart the bus from a stop, reducing diesel engine use. A Winnipeg company, New Flyer, has adapted the GM system to the company’s line of transit buses already in use in several American cities. BC Transit, the provincial agency responsible for municipal transit systems, has signed a contract making it the first Canadian jurisdiction to adopt the hybrid buses. The agency will buy six 12-metre (40-foot) diesel-electric hybrid buses for delivery in the spring of 2005. Three of the buses will go to the Victoria Regional Transit System and three to the Kelowna Regional Transit System. New Flyer says several other Canadian transit systems, including the Toronto Transit Commission, have expressed an interest in the “green” buses, which are said to offer advantages not only in environmental quality but in lower operating and lifecycle costs.

Commuter railcars would have a light touch; Capital Metro, with voter approval, would buy self-propelled diesel trains such as those used on light-rail lines

Austin American-Statesman October 3, 2004 You could call it commuter rail lite. Or light. If Capital Metro voters approve passenger rail Nov. 2, agency officials say they would probably use a type of train car that, at least in two current North American applications, is referred to as light rail. Even the layout of the 32-mile line, from far suburban Leander to the heart of Austin, is something of a hybrid between true commuter rail and light rail, with widely spaced stops in its first two-thirds and a cluster of tighter stops near downtown. Whatever the phraseology, Capital Metro officials have zeroed in on the type of hardware they would put on the tracks if voters give them the OK for the $60 million-plus project. Their choice for railcars, or “train sets” in the jargon of the industry, would be so-called diesel multiple units. The agency says that these self-propelled trains are the best fit for the line, given the relatively modest ridership predictions in the early years and the proximity of homes to the tracks in some spots, along with cost and other operational considerations. These trains, unlike light rail in its typical incarnation, do not run off of electricity drawn from overhead wires. Instead, each 100- to 120-foot-long car would have a smallish diesel engine and a driver’s cab at each end. Thus the word “multiple” in the name. That configuration, among other things, allows to the train to reverse direction without some sort of roundabout. The driver can simply walk to the other end and take off. The cars, according to Capital Metro train consultant Jim Graebner, would have a low floor for boarding. “So you just walk right in,” Graebner said, or, for those with wheelchairs, roll right in. “We’re talking maybe 20 seconds for the doors to be open.” Such vehicles, various manufacturers say, can go up to 100 miles per hour. But Capital Metro spokesman Rick L’Amie says much of that horsepower would remain untapped in the interest of safety. “Our maximum speed would be about 60 miles per hour in areas where there is open space and the track is straight,” L’Amie said. “When we go through those sensitive neighborhoods, the speed would not be that high.” The Capital Metro track, in use for more than a century but recently refurbished, runs through a number of neighborhoods in north Central and East Austin. In parts of Crestview and Wooten, the rail corridor is just 50 feet wide. The distance from train windows to kitchen windows in many cases is well less than a stone’s throw. Finding a way to minimize train noise had some influence on Capital Metro’s choice of train technology, but were not necessarily the controlling factor. Diesel multiple units by all accounts are much quieter than the heavy, powerful diesel locomotives and passenger cars used in most commuter rail service. Aside from political considerations — voters rejected “light rail” in 2000 — the expected ridership of 1,700 riders initially would not justify the hefty costs of installing electric wires and associated equipment for true light rail. Traditional commuter train sets pulling double-decker passenger cars are cheaper, less than $3 million per vehicle rather than the $5 million Capital Metro estimates for the diesel multiple units, but use at least four times the fuel. “That locomotive can pull 10 cars, so you have a lot of excess power,” says Lonnie Blaydes, a transportation consultant who formerly ran Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s commuter rail line. “Fuel usage is measured in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. .. . Because (diesel multiple units) are self-contained power units, you always have the appropriate amount of power for the car.” Capital Metro would have to have several times its expected passenger load to move to that old-style equipment, and would probably increase the frequency of runs or add a car or two to each train before getting to that point. Capital Metro officials say the smaller, one-deck diesel multiple units also accelerate faster, an advantage in the southerly part of the route when the train would make five stops in about seven miles. In 1997, Capital Metro brought to Austin a diesel multiple unit, a shorter version called the RegioSprinter, for a two-week trial on portions of the same Leander-to-Austin line. More than 10,000 people lined up to sample the ride. Capital Metro officials and Blaydes, among others, say diesel multiple units have been used for years on Europe’s extensive rail network. But in North America, only a handful of transit agencies have diesel multiple units on the track or on order. New Jersey Transit’s seven-month-old River Line makes the 34-mile run from Camden to Trenton with the vehicles, carrying about 5,600 passengers each weekday on what the agency calls a light-rail line. The five-mile O-train in Ottawa, Ontario, a starter line for what is expected to be a citywide light-rail system, likewise uses the cars. Those train cars in New Jersey and Ottawa are “light” in at least one other significant way: The cars are not officially compliant with Federal Railroad Administration requirements for passenger trains that run in conjunction with freight trains on the same line. To gain that designation, the cars’ structure would have to be much heavier so as to minimize injuries and deaths in the event of a collision with a much larger freight locomotive. Capital Metro likewise plans to buy or lease, or hire a subcontractor to acquire and operate, cars that are not “FRA-compliant.” Federal regulators allow the use of such trains as long as freight service is segregated in time from passenger service. Capital Metro’s freight line, which extends much farther west and east than the 32 miles for the commuter service, currently has up to five freight trains a day and night on it. Capital Metro thinks it can segregate freight and passenger traffic to the satisfaction of the railroad administration. The heavier, freight-compliant cars are not necessarily more expensive, Blaydes said. But consultant Graebner and John Almond, manager of Capital Metro’s rail project, said one of their primary considerations will be that the trains coming here have been in service elsewhere. And the only manufacturer making such an FRA-compliant diesel multiple unit vehicle, Colorado Railcar Manufacturing LLC, though it has an order from the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority for a handful of such trains, does not yet have one in service.

Commuter rail a tight fit for neighbors

Austin American-Statesman October 3, 2004 Capital Metro’s railroad track has long had an intimate relationship with the Crestview and Wooten neighborhoods in North Central Austin. The right of way is just 50 feet wide through much of the area from Lamar Boulevard northwest to U.S. 183 — it’s typically broader in other neighborhoods — and the chain-link backyard fences are literally spitting distance from the track. A few people have taken the liberty of appropriating some of that skinny buffer for little gardens. And the warning horns of the two or three freight rail trains each day, which by law have to be blown before approaching cross streets such as Anderson Lane, have been an eternal irritant. Thanks to a change in federal law that will take effect in December, and installation of special gates and intersection horns at four Crestview-Wooten streets by Capital Metro, that problem will disappear soon. But in November, Crestview and Wooten residents, along with the rest of the voters in Capital Metro’s service area, will have to decide whether to bring 12 more trains a day (albeit very short and fast ones) through the neighborhoods. The 32-mile commuter rail line would run from Leander to downtown Austin. When Capital Metro voters had a similar choice in the unsuccessful 2000 light rail election, those neighborhoods said no, narrowly in Crestview and by a 3-2 margin in Wooten. For the rest of the electorate, this rail plan is noticeably different: much, much less expensive and unobtrusive, with no trains running on city streets save for a couple of blocks downtown. In Crestview and Wooten, though, the trains will still come through. Capital Metro is trying to address the noise issue by opting for a relatively quiet type of diesel locomotive. And at least in the early years, there would be only 12 to 15 runs a day. The trains, just 140 feet long and traveling at least 30 miles per hour, will flash past in just a few seconds each. Last month, the agency sent people to a Crestview neighborhood meeting, where rail opponent Jim Skaggs and rail advocate Glenn Gadbois debated the merits of commuter rail. Chip Harris, the Crestview Neighborhood Association president, said most of the people there had concerns about the line; he’d like Capital Metro to lower the rail bed into something like a 10-foot trench to muffle the noise. Others were concerned about cost effectiveness and what kind of station Capital Metro would build at Lamar on Crestview’s east side. But it’s difficult to know what those murmurings will mean, if anything, on Nov. 2. Meeting participation is highly unscientific. And although light rail lost in almost two-thirds of all voting precincts in 2000, overall the referendum failed by less than 1 percent because of heavy margins in central city precincts. That includes three East Austin precincts in Delwood and French Place along the rail line. If enough suburbanites are mollified by the lower cost and negligible disruption, and the central city folks stay on board, Crestview and Wooten will be seeing a few more trains by the end of the decade.

First of trolley fleet’s new cars on horizon; Transit directors review 11 next-generation vehicles being readied

The San Diego Union-Tribune October 3, 2004 SACRAMENTO — The smooth contours were new but the brilliant red was unmistakable even at a distance. The first car in a new fleet for the San Diego Trolley sat motionless on the manufacturer’s barren test track as a small group from the Metropolitan Transit System walked up to kick the tires, so to speak, and to get a feel for the interior. “There’s your baby,” said project manager Walter Sklomeit from Siemens Transportation Systems. The gleaming light-rail vehicle with its rounded nose is still at least eight months from carrying its first paying passengers. The interior isn’t finished and there are problems to solve with some of the seats. Yet, even 500 miles from home, the newest trolley is a standout from its older siblings in the San Diego system. Looks aside, the main attraction of the $36 million, 11-car fleet is a state-of-the-art design with low floors that allow passengers to move in and out without climbing stairs. The seating configuration is new, windows are bigger and electronic signs inside will identify station stops, a plus for anyone who has ever strained to hear muffled or drowned-out announcements over the older trolleys’ speakers. “People will really like this car,” said Harry Mathis, a trolley enthusiast and nonvoting member of the Metropolitan Transit board. “It’s going to be a comfortable ride on the inside.” The delivery date to San Diego — possibly mid-to late October — is uncertain because of unresolved questions over a paint job. It goes into service in May or June with the opening of the Mission Valley East extension of the trolley, a $496-million connection between the Mission San Diego station and La Mesa that also runs onto the San Diego State campus. The new line is expected to add more than 11,000 passengers a day to trolley ridership, which currently averages about 73,900. Limits told Now for the letdown. Initially, the new S70 model cars will be used only along a 19.4-mile stretch between Santee and Old Town, which will be designated the Green Line. Platforms at existing stations on that line will be modified to handle the new cars, but that’s all the budget can accommodate for now. In the standard three-car configuration, new cars will be sandwiched between two older models, also for reasons involving the way platforms are built. With only 11 new cars — which is all the transit budget could support — many passengers will find themselves back in the familiar U2 (cars numbered in the 1000 series) and SD100 (2000 series) vehicles, even along the Green Line. None of the older cars, now approaching 24 years in service, will be replaced. Yet, after transit officials visited the manufacturing plant last month, they agreed there’s a lot going for the new trolleys. “I obviously like the car very much,” said Leon Williams, chairman of the Metropolitan Transit System board, who snapped pictures of the trolley. In and out The biggest innovation is the low floor, which permits passengers to get aboard with a simple baby step instead of two or three big ones. Passengers in wheelchairs will roll in and out of the cars over a short bridge plate that extends from the car to the station platform, creating a short ramp between the trolley station platform and the car. The procedure is faster and easier than the mechanical lifts used on existing trolleys. Two bridge plates are on each side of the vehicle, serving the middle two doors. Passengers operate them by pressing an illuminated button off to the side of the door; the door remains shut while the plate moves in and out of position. The bridge plate is the reason trolley stations have to be raised two inches to accommodate the S70s. Otherwise, the ramp will be too steep for wheelchairs. Inside, the low floor accounts for 70 percent of the interior of the car, hence the S70 model designation. In the remainder, where the floor must be elevated to accommodate propulsion equipment, passengers walk up one step in the center aisle and up a second step to reach their seats. The trolley system carries about 7,100 passengers in wheelchairs a month. But all passengers, including anyone with limited mobility or those with their arms full, should find the low entries easier to use. “Everybody is going to be getting in and out of this car much quicker,” said Robin Stimson, director of business development for Siemens Transportation Systems. The face-to-face seating configuration of current trolleys was changed to a more conventional setup. Except for a middle section, all seats in the front half of each car face forward; those in the rear face back. “A lot of people don’t like that eye-to-eye contact,” trolley chief Peter Tereschuck said. The cloth-covers to the seats can easily be replaced in case of damage or vandalism. Trolley doors slide open and shut in one smooth lateral movement, instead of the double-folding type used on the current model. With fewer moving parts, they’re expected to require less lubrication and other maintenance. When closed, they’ll appear completely flush with the wall of the car for a more streamlined look. Windows up front and along the sides are bigger than those of the current trolleys and are contoured to be flush with the trolley’s side panels instead of being held by a rubber frame. Buttons to open the trolley from the inside are on the doors, instead of on stanchions. The low floor requires two articulated accordion-like sections in each car, instead of just one. Problems uncovered In their visit to Siemens, the San Diego officials uncovered a few problems. A row of seats near the trolley’s wind screens have so little leg room that transit officials are considering whether to remove one seat and rotate the other so it faces the aisle. That would create a net loss of four seats in each car. “We’re not going to leave the seat the way it is,” Tereschuck assured. The visitors also were surprised by the amount of black paint along the bottom of the car. With tinted windows and a new touch of black at the top of the trolleys, Williams said the new model looked “like a black car with red on it.” Trolley officials expected a color scheme in which the band would line up with a similar stripe at the bottom of the older models. The Metropolitan Transit System decided last month to have the work redone — three cars and 80 doors will have to be repainted — and to seek reimbursement for the estimated $85,000 to $90,000 cost. The work could delay delivery of the first car by two to three weeks, unless the agency decides to have it performed by its own paint contractor. Trolley officials also were unsatisfied with the texture of the red paint film on the first car, saying it fell short of the mirror finish they expected. “The issues are really minor,” said Paul Jablonski, chief executive officer of Metropolitan Transit. “The nose is very appealing, very contemporary. I think the interiors are nice.” Gad Shaanan Design of Solana Beach and Montreal designed the interiors, adding color features and a serpentine stripe along the floor, among other touches. The company also custom-designed the shape of the trolley nose. The S70 was first put to use in Houston at the beginning of the year, with a much rounder beak. It wasn’t just an aesthetic choice, Tereschuck said. Because the San Diego model is more than five feet shorter than Houston’s, its blunter nose will preserve passenger capacity. The San Diego design on the S70s also is being used on the cars Siemens is building for a new light-rail line in Charlotte, N.C. The first of the new models, to be numbered 3001, has been operated on the test track at the Sacramento plant, although some trouble-shooting prevented Siemens from offering a demonstration the day of the San Diego officials’ visit. Inside the 190,000-square-foot plant, several other cars bound for San Diego were in varying states of assembly. Workers were welding sections of an under-frame together at one station and grinding out the welds at another. A fiberglass shell, fabricated at the plant, awaited painting. Also on hand was an older trolley, trucked up from San Diego to jump-start compatibility testing on brakes, acceleration and other systems. While the initial order of 11 cars is small, it’s possible the low-floor cars could become replacement vehicles for any older ones that get phased out of the fleet. The planned Old Town-to-University City extension of the trolley, which transit officials would like to get under way before the end of the decade if funding is available, probably also would be designed to accommodate the newer models. Wherever the vehicles become available, Stimson said the trolley agency should be prepared for a public preference from Day One. “New cars become very popular,” he said. “Everybody wants to ride on the new cars.”

DART project at turning point

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS October 3, 2004 The future of a Dallas Love Field light-rail tunnel is getting clearer, but the toughest decisions and deadlines loom large. Federal officials, at DART’s request, will review two sets of plans for light-rail service to northwest and southeast Dallas County. One option includes a $160 million tunnel to Love Field; the other does not. DART must make a final decision by Nov. 9, more than two years after debate began. Since 2002, officials with the city of Dallas and Dallas Area Rapid Transit have gone back and forth about the merits — and possible risks to other rail projects — of building a Love Field tunnel. “I got clear directives from three council people that this tunnel is not to risk the southeast rail line,” said DART board member Lynn Flint Shaw of Dallas. DART officials say they expect federal officials to give both projects recommended ratings. That rating allows the project to compete in Congress for $700 million in federal funding. Without the federal money, the rail projects could be delayed indefinitely. Although both probably will be recommended, the non-tunnel option is expected to receive a better cost-effectiveness score, with subsidies of between $19 and $21 per rider. The tunnel option would come in at about $23 to $25 per rider. Cost-effectiveness is one of several factors Congress considers as it doles out transit construction money, but some congressional representatives want it to have even greater weight than it has. That means the DART board still could face a difficult decision Nov. 9 after federal officials announce their scores for the tunnel and non-tunnel plans. Another factor for the DART board at decision time: A tunnel probably will delay rail line openings by five to six months, according to a worst-case scenario presented to transit officials last week. The debate last week centered on a funding deadline faced by the city of Dallas. The city agreed to pay about half of the tunnel’s cost, and most of that money was supposed to come from a $3 surcharge added to each plane ticket at Love Field. The city submitted the paperwork last October, but the Federal Aviation Administration had more questions last month. Dallas supplied the answers and is awaiting a final decision from Washington, which could come as late as Jan. 15. DART needs that answer by Nov. 9. Without it, the transit agency’s decision becomes much easier. Officials say they would have no choice but to abandon the tunnel plans and move forward with an option that would include a street-level rail spur abutting the terminal. DART board members also want the city to provide firm commitments for the remaining $27 million. The city received commitments for some of that money from Dallas County commissioners, and more could come from a future bond election. A promise to include the needed money in a bond election may not be good enough for some DART board members. “I want to see us go into Love Field. My concern is that, here we are at the 11th, 11th, 11th hour, and we’re still not advancing in the [financial] commitment category,” said board vice president Mark Enoch, who represents Farmers Branch and Rowlett. Building a tunnel later probably would be cost-prohibitive, said Michael Morris, director of transportation for the North Central Texas Council of Governments. “If you don’t do Love Field now, the math will never work out to do Love Field in the future,” he said.

METRO’S PROPOSAL

Houston Chronicle Oct. 4, 2004 If Houston can have better transportation for less money, state and federal government should support the project. The administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, Jennifer L. Dorn, promises leadership that will deliver the highest value for the investment. She declares her commitment to seeking transportation solutions that use new, innovative ideas. She desires to build partnerships with local communities. Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority has a bold, innovative and thrifty proposal for expanding its fledgling rail system. The plan, if approved in Washington, would expand the system in four directions for less money and in less time than similar projects have required in other cities. Given Dorn’s commitment to innovation and the most value per dollar, she would seem a natural and enthusiastic champion of Metro’s proposal. Metro wants the federal government to fund 100 percent of two expansion lines, while Metro would fund the other two. Metro pledges to complete its share before the federally funded lines are finished and paid for. The plan calls for completion of the four lines two years before they could be brought on line using traditional federal funding formulas and timetables. In their first debate, President Bush accused Sen. John Kerry of sending mixed messages. That is precisely what Metro has received from Washington. First Metro had to have a referendum, with rail transit components and routes spelled out on the ballot. After voters approved the referendum, Metro is urged to review its plan in light of new technologies and competing interests. For a decade, Houston was arbitrarily and wrongly barred from receiving federal funds for rail transit. It now proposes to make up for lost time with an innovative, efficient project to extend rail throughout the central city. Metro’s first rail line, paid for with local funds, has outperformed ridership expectations. It is spurring development. Both experience and fairness commend Metro’s rail expansion proposal to federal transit officials and influential Texans in Congress.

TRAIN WRECK MTA’S SHINY $27B DREAM IS ON COLLISION COURSE WITH REALITY

Daily News (New York October 4, 2004 Calling Caroline Kennedy. Bill Gates. The Rockefeller family. Or some other fund-raiser or deep pocket who can save our bankrupt subways. You didn’t know New York’s sprawling mass transit system is about to run out of dough? Well, hang on to your straps. Every five years, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority issues a new plan for rebuilding and expanding the system. The latest plan, covering 2005 to 2009, weighs in at a scale-busting $27.6 billion. But here’s the sorry punch line: They’ve only got $5.9 billion — 21% of what’s needed — to spend. The repercussions of this budgetary Chernobyl are mind-boggling. Let’s run the numbers. First, there’s what transitcrats call “the core capital program.” This is the basic must-do list of projects that keep the system running: New buses and subway cars. Miles of fixed tracks. Refurbished tunnels. Rehabbed electrical systems. The five-year tab for these projects alone: $17.2 billion. Then there’s the expansion part of the plan, which gobbles up another $10.4 billion. This includes trifles like building a new Second Ave. subway ($3.2 billion) and linking the Long Island Rail Road into Grand Central ($6.3 billion). And where does the MTA expect to get this windfall? The state? The feds? Riders? The Ford Foundation? The agency dug itself into a huge hole in the ‘90s when its fiscal finaglers foolishly refinanced billions in debt. That freed up a few short-term bucks. Then the agency sold off just about every asset that wasn’t nailed down — and some that were — to raise even more cash. “They’ve one-shot this thing to death,” said one insider. “Now it’s reality time. The days of smoke and mirrors are over.” The solution? Unless MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow concocts a miracle, kiss those expansion projects goodbye. Even Kalikow grants he’d “drop” the Second Ave. subway and the LIRR link “if they got in the way of the core [capital] program.” But he vows to keep all the projects moving forward, hoping he can pry loose new funds from somewhere. Good luck. He needs $11 billion just to cover the next five years of core projects. One practical step would be to revive the commuter tax that Albany absurdly axed in 1999. Pledge the proceeds to the MTA. Suburbanites who ride the system and who’d pay the tax might just accept that arrangement. Next, there’s advertising income. The bluebloods won’t like it, but Kalikow and Co. should be willing to stick a Coke logo on every square inch of the system, if that keeps it running. Then, force MTA engineers to get more for our capital dollars. The subway cars they spec out cost about $2 million, as much as a middle-class worker earns in a lifetime. Extravagant. Do nothing, and the fallout could be devastating. “Unless this problem is addressed decisively, the subway system could revert to how it was in 1979,” said former MTA chief Richard Ravitch. And that wasn’t much fun, unless you’re nostalgic for crime, track fires and graffiti.

LIGHT-RAIL LEGACY ASKS TOO MUCH FROM TOO FEW

The Oregonian October 4, 2004 Back in May, TriMet realized its light-rail expansion plan was short about $24 million. And it was about to miss a federal deadline to get 60 percent of the funding for the Clackamas County extension. So the transportation agency persuaded City Hall to go back to an oft-tapped well: Downtown property owners. These are the folks who paid to lay down the streetcar tracks. They pay for the green-outfitted workers who clean up sidewalks and hand out maps of area retailers. They pay for the holiday lights that hang from downtown tree limbs. And when parking tycoon Greg Goodman wanted to push his idea for a winter ice-skating rink at Pioneer Courthouse Square, downtown property owners were charged $1 million to add to Goodman’s fund-raising pot. Now, these same folks are being hit up for $24 million so TriMet can extend light-rail tracks between Union Station and Portland State University. The money also would install brick sidewalks, ornamental street lights and trees, and refurbish some intersections and traffic signals so they’re “like new.” The state of Oregon will be assessed $7 million for PSU’s property. That spreads the rest of the $24 million bill among mostly commercial property owners who already are having a hard time filling their office, retail and public parking spaces. Near the transit mall, especially, vacancy signs are staying up and parking rates are going down. Also on the billing list are churches, museums, theaters, public parks and libraries. Multnomah County is still waiting to hear whether it gets a free ride. City Hall did exempt 1,800 condo owners, including those who can afford the ultra-chic pads in the Pearl, that go for $500,000 and up. All owners of single-family homes also are left out. So are federally owned properties and low-income rentals. Now, a protest group — which includes heavy hitters such as Goodman, developer Tom Moyer and Realtor Barry Menashe — is asking property owners to fight the way the city is proposing to pay for the light-rail expansion project. Members also complain that the light-rail expansion will not, in fact, improve their property values. In fact, they say, it will bring more traffic congestion, noise, vandalism and panhandling. “It’s 110 percent a matter of fairness,” Goodman says. “In my opinion, it’s a very good project, but frankly, they’ve got to find some other way to fund it or go way, way down on the bill.” Most commercial property owners will get charged up to $5.25 per $1,000 of property value. For a $5 million building, for instance, the owner would pay $26,500. And the city charges 6.75 percent interest to finance it over 20 years. The final assessment, though, won’t come until 2009, after property values naturally escalate. “At some point, you just have to stand up and fight for what’s right,” Goodman says. “Even if you lose.” Smaller-property owners are just happy that someone with some influence is paying attention to their predicament. Seven days after the Portland City Council approved the LID on Sept. 1, Maxine Selberg got a notice that she will be charged $3,547 for one Northwest Portland property and $2,852 for another. “Finally, finally, somebody is trying to hold back this tide of assessing people,” Selberg says. “Something’s got to stop them. I’ve been assessed for everything that comes along.” City officials believe they can meet the letter of the law in charging the downtown property owners for the light-rail project. But who really wins if the end result means we lose downtown vitality? Our dwindling number of downtown businesses don’t need one more excuse to abandon this city for a better deal elsewhere. And government-backed deterrents that stick it to businesses when the economy is down don’t stimulate economic growth, they retard it. A public hearing on this issue was scheduled for Wednesday but was postponed until Nov. 10. Mark your calendars to witness who really is getting a troubling ride out of town.

Tunnel project is chugging along; Criticized as too expensive and undoable, Bergenline stop is due to open in ‘05

Newark Star Ledger October 5, 2004 The challenge for transportation officials was daunting — how would they build a new train station deep beneath one of New Jersey’s most densely populated cities? Getting the trains through was not the problem. The 121-year-old Weehawken rail tunnel through the Palisades was already being used by freight trains and simply needed to be expanded and modernized to carry the trolley-like cars of NJ Transit’s Hudson County light rail system. But carving out a new underground station and providing a safe, practical way for passengers to get down to it — that would be the hard part. So they started small, by first drilling a 14-inch hole near Bergenline Avenue in Union City, down through almost 160 feet of solid rock. Then, they slipped a tungsten-steel cutting device down through the hole and slowly pulled it back up, clearing out a wider opening that measured 8 feet, 6 inches. After that, they set off small explosives to expand the hole to 40 feet in diameter — enough to accommodate three elevators to carry passengers from street-level to the train platforms — as well as emergency stairs. The $150 million tunnel and station project remains a work in progress and is not scheduled for completion until late next year. When it opens, it will become New Jersey’s first new underground rail station in seven decades. “How often do you get to work on something like this? A tunnel and a station within a tunnel,” said Steven Santoro, the NJ Transit engineer who is overseeing the project, as he looked down on the construction work in Union City. “At the beginning of the project, it was thought to be undoable,” said Martin Robins, executive director of Rutgers’ Voorhees Transportation Center. “They felt it would cost too much money, that there was too much rock to go through.” But there was a strong political push for the Bergenline Avenue station from elected officials in northern Hudson County, especially from Rep. Robert Menendez, who was the mayor of Union City in the late 1980s when the route of the light rail system was being planned. So the project’s engineers found a way to make the station happen. They modeled their work after a light-rail station in Portland, Ore., that was built within a tunnel, 260 feet below the surface of a hill. “The payoff is hopefully going to be very high by providing transit access to the North Hudson market,” Robins said. “They’re counting on this being a major station.” Within five years of its completion, NJ Transit is expecting the Bergenline Avenue station to handle 8,200 riders a day. But not everyone has great expectations for the tunnel station. “They should have never gone through the Weehawken Tunnel,” said Al Cafiero, an aide to state Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen). “It’s too expensive. It’s not worth it. They should have gone farther north.” In addition to the $150 million construction cost, NJ Transit also paid $11 million to acquire the property from Conrail and spent another $100 million on road improvements that helped provide an alternate route for the freight trains. The tunnel is part of a $1.2 billion, 5.1-mile section of the light-rail line that will go from Hoboken Terminal to Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen after construction is complete. The overall $2.2 billion project would stretch 13 miles from Bayonne to North Bergen. Officials want to expand the line into Bergen County, perhaps up to Tenafly, but they do not have the money for the next phase. Nothing in the expansion would rival the task of building the system through the Weehawken Tunnel, which was originally constructed in the 1880s. Passenger railroads used the tunnel until the 1950s and then it was a freight route until 2002 when NJ Transit began renovations to accommodate the light-rail project. The tunnel, about three-quarters of a mile long, had to be widened by several feet to make room for emergency walkways in case riders had to evacuate trains. In the station area, the expansion of the tunnel was most dramatic. Its width was expanded from 26 feet to 66 feet, its height raised from 20 feet to 32 feet. More than 50 truckloads of debris were hauled away just from the work done to secure the eastern entrance to the tunnel. During that stage, workers who were lowered on ropes from the top of the Palisades pried loose rocks from the facade with crowbars. Inside the tunnel, occupational health regulations required that decades of soot from diesel trains had to be cleaned from the walls before construction crews could begin work. The widening has been completed and the underground station already has taken shape. Next will come the laying of the railroad tracks and the overhead electrical wires to power the trains. “It’s a complicated job,” said Santoro, “especially because we’re working in such confined space.”

Airtrain Newark three-year anniversary

M2 Presswire October 5, 2004 AirTrain Newark, the rail system that transports tens of thousands of passengers each day and provides a fast, convenient connection from New York City and New Jersey to Newark Liberty International Airport, celebrates the three-year anniversary this month of its link to NJ Transit and Amtrak service along the Northeast Corridor Rail Line. Riders using AirTrain Newark to connect to NJ Transit or Amtrak trains can travel safely and swiftly between midtown Manhattan and the airport’s passenger terminals in about 35 minutes — without the hassle of highway traffic. AirTrain Newark, which began service in 1996 as an on-airport monorail, was extended by one mile in 2001 under a $415 million Port Authority initiative that created a direct connection to trains operated by NJ Transit and Amtrak. On average, about 4,000 passengers use this rail link every day to travel between the airport and points throughout the metropolitan region, and more than three million passengers have used it since it opened in October 2001. The highest one-day total was on 26 November 2003 with 8,941 passengers. In addition, about 30,000 passengers per day use the free, on-airport portion of AirTrain Newark to travel between passenger terminals and parking areas, rental car facilities and hotel shuttles. Port Authority Chairman Anthony R. Coscia said: “AirTrain Newark is one of several recent initiatives at Newark Liberty International Airport that benefit the airport community as well as the entire region. Every element of our $3.8 billion redevelopment plan, which includes improved roadways, new parking garages and larger cargo facilities, was designed to create a more efficient airport that effectively serves the needs of more than 31 million annual travellers and supports more than $11 billion a year in regional economic activity.” Port Authority Executive Director Joseph J. Seymour said: “As we celebrate the three-year anniversary of the AirTrain Newark rail link, we also continue to look ahead to new projects that will enable us to meet projected passenger growth and remain competitive, such as the $20 million study recently authorised by our Board that will help identify the best ways to modernize and expand Terminal A.”

Commentary: ‘Cash-strapped’ public transit

United Press International October 5, 2004 Cash-strapped” and “public transit” are practically synonymous in city after city around the United States. Public officials profess a goal of getting more people out of cars, but funding of public transportation has been woefully inadequate and America’s roads are clogged with more and more cars, trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles. Anyone held captive daily in rush-hour traffic knows the lament. They say, “I’d leave the car parked in the driveway or a commuter lot if there was good, cheap, clean, dependable public transportation” — the kind of service middle-class professionals usually have from affluent suburbs to downtown and back. Traffic experts say the Chicago area has the third-worst congestion in the United States after Los Angeles and New York. Riding public transit after rush hours is a crapshoot. Sometimes the trip is quiet and the bus or railcar nearly empty; other times you’re in the Wild, Wild West. Despite a recent crackdown on people sleeping on buses and trains, strange things still happen on public transit between the rush hours — public urination, con artists running “3-Card Monty” games, and just plain nuttiness. A pigeon once hitched a ride from downtown Chicago to the suburbs inside a railcar. I had to remind the young man who picked it up to release it at a door to be sure to wash his hands immediately: City dwellers know the “flying rats” are not doves and can carry nasty viruses and diseases. New York is an exception to the mass-transit situation. The Big Apple has invested heavily in improving public transit, the lifeblood of the overcrowded metropolis, but the wheels are falling off public transportation in other cities. Transit officials in Boston are begging lawmakers for “several hundred million” dollars for capital improvements for the MTA, which faces a $436 million operating deficit next year. Bostonians face fare hikes, higher MetroCard prices, increased tolls and service cuts. The Chicago Transit Authority’s proposed “gridlock budget” is another example. CTA President Frank Kruesi unveiled two budget proposals Monday. A $1.02 billion “regional mobility budget” anticipates $82.5 million in new state funding. The other — a $911.7 million “gridlock budget” — would eliminate 30 bus routes, scrap overnight rail service after 10 p.m. forcing customers to wait longer and walk further to use buses, and double the cost for the disabled who need special-service vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts. The “gridlock budget” would save $55 million by eliminating 34 million rides. CTA’s vice president of finance said 34 million rides is equal to half the yearly service of Metra and Pace, two transit agencies that serve the suburbs. That’s not exactly a recipe to get long-suffering motorists to give up driving. Is the “gridlock budget” more of the usual scare tactics employed by the CTA to get state funding in a tight-budget election year? Maybe, but Kruesi, an appointee of Mayor Richard M. Daley, says he’s dead serious about the draconian service cuts on or before Jan. 1. “It’s not scare tactics,” Kruesi said in an interview with Chicago Public Radio. “Gridlock will be the result of a failure to invest in public transit.” If the state Legislature doesn’t ante up for public transit, cuts could begin as early as November. “This is not a threat. This is a fact of life,” Kruesi said at the news conference where he unveiled the two budgets. The worst-case cuts would eliminate 1,200 jobs and severely impact service in predominately African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods on the far south, south, southeast and southwest sides. Working-class people without vehicles to get to and from work simply would be abandoned. The economic impact of the cuts would affect the entire city. “Let me be absolutely clear. The CTA does not want to cut service,” Kruesi said. “But without adequate funding we cannot continue to operate at current service levels.” Jacqueline Levy of the watchdog Neighborhood Capital Budget Group suggests a development-impact fee on builders. “When you’re building high-density projects and creating suburban sprawl the developers ought to be made to kick in,” she told Chicago Public Radio. She criticized the CTA’s budget, which she said had hidden expenses. “The budget’s not transparent. The budget ought to connect the dots between if we spent this money — here is the improvement and performance that we will get as an output,” said Levy. Public transportation needs to be a top priority. Gov. Rod Blagojevich must show political will to finance public transportation. It took him just six weeks to pass legislation in the General Assembly doubling tolls for the Illinois Toll Highway Authority from 40 cents to 80 cents at each individual tollgate. Doubling the fee for curb-to-curb service for people in wheelchairs is not the answer to the agency’s budget problems. Like many states, Illinois faces a budget deficit, so the additional $82.5 million is not likely to come in the fall veto session in Springfield. State lawmakers are more likely to give the CTA a loan that can be forgiven later. Kruesi says even if the Regional Transit Authority gets an additional $82.5 million in 2005 for the CTA it will not keep up with rate of inflation — but it will be better than nothing. “There’s nothing magic about this,” he said. “It’s really a question of the region’s commitment to public transit and the understanding particularly by people who don’t use transit, or don’t use it often, that gridlock will be the result of a lack of investment in transit.”

Mass-transit ridership slips despite record gas prices

CBS MarketWatch October 5, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) — Record-high U.S. gasoline prices have failed to sharply boost use of mass transit, with ridership actually dropping in some of the nation’s highest-cost markets. Commuter train and bus ridership is down slightly in Chicago and Los Angeles this year and little changed in New York, despite gas prices near or above $2 a gallon in those metropolitan areas. The slack demand is prompting transit officials to question how high gas prices must go to break the bond between U.S. commuters and their cars. A Chicago Transit Authority spokesman put the breaking point at $3 a gallon, while a Los Angeles County transit official put the figure at $10 for his auto-addicted area. “We wanted to believe rising gas prices would force people onto public transportation,” said Jake Satin-Jacobs, a performance manager for the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “It seems, at times, as though retaining personal, individual transporthas a higher priority than what the kids have to eat.” Ridership across major cities Los Angeles commuters, while warming to mass transit in recent years, have clung faithfully to their steering wheels, opting to stew in their storied gridlock rather than use a much-improved rail system. The Red Line, which helped fuel a downtown renaissance, served 106,426 average daily riders in August, up only marginally from a month and year earlier. But this year through August, the Red Line carried 5.8 million passengers, down from 6 million in the year-ago period. The Blue, Green and Gold lines logged similar declines. In the San Francisco Bay Area, which endures some of the nation’s highest gas prices, BART rail-system ridership rose to 91 million in the 12 months ended June 30, from 87.4 million the prior year. But of much of that growth owes to an improving job market — BART carried 97.3 million passengers in the year ended June 30, 2001. Daily ridership on Chicago’s bus routes averaged 936,848 in June, slightly lower than last year and down 3 percent from 2002, according to the Chicago Transit Authority. The CTA determined that gas prices are still “not nearly high enough to have a quantifiable effect on ridership.” Evidence from the city’s rail system also supports that conclusion. Through June, 72.8 million Chicagoans paid to ride a train compared to 73.1 million in the same period of 2003 — the first year in more than five that ridership declined. New York State similarly saw the number of mass-transit riders fall to 2.52 billion in 2003 from 2.58 billion a year earlier, according to the New York State Department of Transportation. Ridership through the first half of this year is little changed at 1.27 billion passengers, the vast majority in the New York City area. Initiatives rise sharply The lack of increased demand for mass transit hasn’t stopped advocates from advancing a surge in ballot initiatives. An estimated 55 transit referendums will be voted on in the U.S. this year, up from 16 in 2003 and 14 in 2002, according to the Center for Transportation Excellence. They include a proposal seeking $10 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail system linking L.A. and San Francisco. Voters could decide the fate of a proposed $12-billion regional transportation plan in Washington State, including a light rail system for the Seattle metro area. Denver, Phoenix and San Diego are all asking for more than $5 billion to fund increased transportation choices. Analysts point to other factors than the price of gas for sparking the jump in ballot initiatives, including burgeoning interest in light rail. Regardless of mass transit improvements and rising gas prices, committed drivers won’t be quick to vacate their car seat, Satin-Jacobs said. “The addiction to individual transport is so strong that people will not… transfer to mass transit as long as the freeways continue to move AT ALL.”

Transit ridership at record high

Toronto Globe and Mail Oct 5, 2004 Be it by bus, subway, streetcar commuter train or ferry, Canadians are relying heavily on public transit. According to a new report by the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), public transit was at its busiest in 2003, with commuters racking up a historic high of 1.553 billion trips nationally. “This total is 22 million trips more than the amount taken in 2002,” said Michael Roschlau, president & CEO of the CUTA. “That’s an increase of 1.5 percent over the previous year, despite the effects of SARS and the blackout in Eastern Canada last year.” “This increase in ridership is about equal to the total ridership of a city the size of Halifax, Hamilton or Victoria.” The association calculates transit statistics based on detailed results provided by its operating membership of more than 100 of the largest transit systems across Canada. At a press conference in Ottawa just hours before the federal government’s Throne Speech, CUTA chairman Robert Olivier said the numbers show that transit systems across the country need more funds. “Despite a funding shortfall, transit ridership continues to grow,” he said. “But transit systems are running at or near capacity and could carry more riders if government invested more in expansion and growth.” During the election campaign, Prime Minister Paul Martin pledged to transfer between $4-billion and $5-billion from federal gas taxes to cities over the next five years to help fund needs such as public transit. Mr. Olivier said Tuesday that transit systems will need $21-billion from all levels of government over that period. “Twenty-one billion for the next five years amounts to just over $4-billion per year,” Mr. Olivier said. “If that were to be shared equally (among) the three orders of government, it would imply a federal share of close to $1.5-billion per year. In gasoline terms, it equates to about three cents per litre of gas sold in Canada.” The CUTA says public transit currently carries over 1.5 billion passengers per year across Canada, up 15 percent since 1996. The association says government funding has dropped over the same period, with the proportion of transit operating costs borne by the customer through fares rising by about 15 percent.

Amtrak argues New York deal is dead in response to state DOT’s lawsuit; Legal Lines

U.S. Rail News October 6, 2004 A $ 185 million high-speed rail contract between Amtrak and the state of New York should be declared legally dead, the railroad argues in a new response to a lawsuit filed by the state Department of Transportation. Amtrak officials say reviving the plan for high-speed rail that would have cut the trip from Rensselaer to New York City by 20 minutes, to 2 hours, is unlikely. An Amtrak statement has said the railroad was “unable to participate in the high-speed rail agreement as originally conceived.” Three Turboliner trains the state paid to refurbish have been towed to a rail yard in Delaware, where Amtrak says they will be more secure. The railroad sent the New York Department of Transportation a letter saying that “since these train sets are not in operation and pending the resolution of our disputes regarding operation of the Turboliner train sets, Amtrak will continue to maintain the safe keeping of the Turboliner train sets in its possession.” An Issue of Contract Interpretation The trains were among seven that were rebuilt by Super Steel Schenectady and stamped with the state seal. Amtrak was supposed to operate them under a contract with the New York DOT. However, the contract said the state would take ownership of the trains only when Amtrak certified them as satisfactory for regular service. The trains were pulled out of service in June when their air conditioning systems malfunctioned. Amtrak never conducted the track upgrades necessary to handle the trains’ top speed of 125 miles an hour. State Transportation Commissioner Joseph Boardman accused Amtrak of hijacking the trains, which he says belong to the state and not to the railroad. He also said the state should consider options other than Amtrak so high-speed rail service could continue. Since Gov. George Pataki announced the high-speed plan in 1998, the DOT and Amtrak have been at odds over how to deliver faster service to New York City. The cash-strapped railroad has said the 1970s era trains have high fuel costs and limited seating capacity. In August, the New York DOT filed a federal lawsuit asking that Amtrak be forced to carry out its contract commitments or pay the state $ 477 million in damages, which the state estimates would be Amtrak’s contribution to the program under the contract, including $ 300 million to operate the seven refurbished Turboliners for 15 years. The lawsuit dispute has spun off into internal disputes in the General Assembly, where some state officials say the Assembly Transportation Committee failed to adequately safeguard New York’s investment in the high-speed rail program. Others, such as Boardman, say the plan would have been workable if Amtrak had carried through on its commitments. He also said he wants the state Attorney General to consider further legal action against Amtrak. The case is State of New York v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 04-CV962, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D.N.Y. (2004).

Proposed extension of transportation tax enjoys wide support, poll finds; Light rail component blunts otherwise overwhelming endorsement

The Arizona Republic October 6, 2004 New polling suggests a 3-to-1 margin of public support for Proposition 400, though the light rail component being hammered by the measure’s opponents is far less popular. The Arizona Republic’s Arizona Poll found that 65 percent of those polled in Maricopa County favored the Nov. 2 ballot measure, while 22 percent opposed it and 13 percent were undecided. The poll, conducted Oct. 2-4, interviewed 351 adults and has a margin of error of 5.2 percentage points. While support was strong for the proposition — the plan would extend the county’s transportation sales tax for 20 years — only 53 percent of respondents approved of using it to fund light rail projects. Another 35 percent disapproved. advertisement “I’ll probably vote against it because of the light rail,” said Don Blumfield, 69, a Cave Creek Republican who took part in the poll. The tax extension would help fund a regional transportation plan that includes expansion of a light rail system already planned in Phoenix and Tempe. The expansion would add 27 miles of routes, as well as provide minimal funding for another 10 miles of routes, at a cost of $2.3 billion, or 15 percent of the plan’s total cost. Roughly 57 percent of the plan, or $9 billion, would go toward building 78 miles of new freeways and improving 266 miles of existing freeways and highways. The rest of the plan’s $15.8 billion, including state and federal funds, would pay for 2,100 new regional transit buses, 40 new regional bus routes and nearly 100 arterial-street or intersection improvement projects. “They definitely need to do something about public transit,” said Jeana Lopez, 42, a west Phoenix teacher who wrestles with traffic on Interstate 10 every day and whose teenage son rides three different city buses to get to school. Lopez, a Democrat, supports transit funding and intends to vote for Proposition 400 because “I think a half-cent tax really isn’t that much.” Jay Thorne, spokesman for the Yes on 400 campaign, said internal campaign polling and the Arizona Poll both suggest that a majority of county residents share Lopez’s view. But dueling campaign ads have created some voter indecision. “What we’ve seen is, as the debate started, people from both camps have moved to undecided,” Thorne said. Still, he believes “we’re running strongly ahead.” But businessman Dave Thompson, who heads No on 400, said the poll “confirms what we’ve been saying all along: people are pretty much in support, but when they find out money is being wasted on light rail, they revolt.” “This is why it’s so important that everybody be informed,” Thompson said. “Once voters are fully informed, they’ll reject this thing.” Like many opponents, Blumfield said he dislikes the measure because he considers light rail too costly, he doesn’t believe it will attract riders and he thinks it shorts funding for new freeways. “They’re only talking about 78 miles of new freeway, and we need a lot more than that,” Blumfield said. “And nobody rides the buses now, so why would they ride the trains?” The poll found Democrats more likely to favor the measure. Nearly three- fourths indicated support, compared to 57 percent of Republicans. There was decreased support for light rail across party lines, with only 50 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Democrats approving of its funding.

The MTA considers the Smart Card, touted as a more durable, faster alternative to the MetroCard

Newsday (New York) October 6, 2004 Wipe out the swipe? Cards that are waved, not swiped, are being considered by the MTA for use at subway turnstiles and bus fare boxes. Touted as a faster alternative to the MetroCard, the new technology, a card or key ring embedded with a microchip, is similar to E-ZPass or Mobil Speedpass. PATH passengers will start using a comparable system beginning in June. “It’s more Buck Rogers than a MetroCard,” said William Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA at a news conference yesterday to ask the MTA to start the program. The new system, Smart Card, also called “contactless technology,” takes only a sixth of the time at turnstiles than MetroCards. That could reduce crowding — especially on buses, where there is only one fare box. The new cards also could save money for the MTA. Although each Smart Card costs about 50 cents — compared with a nickel for each MetroCard — they last up to five years. Smart Card readers also require less maintenance because riders don’t have to touch the card to the sensor, as is the case with MetroCards, which have been in use for 10 years. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority last month put aside $43.9 million in capital funds to implement the system. But Henderson and other advocates fear that the MTA might never tap into that money because officials have expressed only tepid support. The MTA has known about the cards for at least seven years, officials said. Installing the system would cost $10 million, said Beverly Dolinsky, executive director of the advisory council. That does not include turnstile upgrades of $90 million, she said. MTA spokesman Tom Kelly would say only that the agency is “exploring the technology.” The chip in the cards contains an antenna that is powerful enough to be read through clothing and up to a foot away — powerful enough to be read through a purse, said Jae Lande, a spokeswoman for Cubic Corp., a San Diego-based company that makes Smart Cards and MetroCards. Advocates also believe that riders will be able to use Smart Cards on subways and commuter rails. It was unclear, though, how fares would be collected on the rails, where fares vary and there are no turnstiles. In addition to the PATH, transit systems in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco use Smart Card technology. Dolinsky hopes New York is next. “We think that transit users should have the same benefits as everyone else,” she said. What’s in the cards The MTA is considering replacing MetroCards with “Smart Card” technology. The differences: - METROCARD; HOW IT WORKS: Swipe card through fare box reader, which subtracts value from an encoded magnetic strip - SMART CARD; HOW IT WORKS: Wave before a fare box, which subtracts value from an embedded microchip with attached antenna - METROCARD; TIME TO WORK: A second.But riders often must swipe repeatedly when a reader becomes dirty. - SMART CARD ; TIME TO WORK: 85 to 150 milliseconds. Lower maintenance because there is no contact between sensors and the card - METROCARD; HOLD AT HIS DISTANCE: Smack up against the reader - SMART CARD; HOLD AT THIS DISTANCE: About 2 inches from the fare box - METROCARD; SHRINKING TECHNOLOGY: Magnetic strip size: 1/2” x 3 3/8” - SMART CARD ; SHRINKING TECHNOLOGY: Microchip size: 1/4” x 3/16” (a child’s fingernail)

Trans-Hudson rail plan’s $ 10m boost

Real Estate Weekly October 6, 2004 The Port Authority Board of Commissioners has made a significant financial commitment toward a major regional transportation project that will provide for future growth in trans-Hudson rail travel. The Board approved $ 10 million to advance plans that will reduce rush-hour crowding on NJ Transit platforms at New York’s Pennsylvania Station and lay the groundwork for expanded commuter rail service. This funding supports a broader initiative known as Access to the Region’s Core, a transportation planning effort led by NJ Transit exploring ways to meet the region’s growing demand for commuter, intercity and airport access services through this decade. NJ Transit’s goal is to develop a staged plan to double trans-Hudson rush-hour rail service through a new tunnel connected to the existing station and new platforms in the immediate area. Port Authority Chairman Anthony R. Coscia said, “For more than 80 years, the Port Authority has been charged with being a leader in maintaining critical transportation facilities throughout the region and in planning for future growth in bi-state travel. With a limited ability to handle more traffic at some of our trans-Hudson tunnels, it is imperative that we begin to work now on plans to accommodate increased mass transit use. Today’s commitment by the Board underscores the importance of the Access to the Region’s Core initiative as a means to keep our economy strong and our region moving forward.” Port Authority Vice Chairman Charles A. Gargano said, “Penn Station was built to accommodate approximately 200,000 passengers, yet today more than 500,000 passengers pass through the complex daily. This action by the Port Authority is a logical compliment to Governor Pataki’s commitment to redevelop the Farley Post Office Building as a 21st century gateway to New York.” Port Authority Executive Director Joseph J. Seymour said, “There are limited options today for commuters traveling between New York and New Jersey for work, shopping or recreation. The Port Authority is dedicated to promoting efficient regional mobility. Creating a shared regional agenda for Penn Station improvements best ensures that we can accommodate long-term ridership growth while easing congestion at the Lincoln Tunnel and on midtown streets.” The funds approved today by the Board will allow NJ Transit to undertake engineering for a project to connect NJ Transit platforms with an expanded central corridor in the existing New York Penn Station and a new concourse extending into the planned Moynihan Station across Eighth Avenue. This concourse work, scheduled to be completed by 2010, would allow NJ Transit passengers to exit and enter the platforms more quickly during peak travel hours, when stairways are most congested.

Reroute monorail tax to fund other transit plans, system’s critics say

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER October 7, 2004 The vehicle tax that pays for the expanded Seattle monorail should be shifted to help finance regional Sound Transit projects if an anti-monorail initiative is approved next month, initiative backers said yesterday. In a new tack, backers of Initiative 83 said the regional light rail system should be completed instead of a monorail, saying the latter won’t help traffic congestion. Initiative 83 effectively would kill the monorail by barring it from city streets. However, the initiative, which Seattle residents will vote on next month, would not eliminate the monorail tax. Building an elevated 14-mile monorail between Crown Hill and West Seattle through downtown “would be like tearing the fabric of our city apart,” said Virginia Gunby, a light rail backer and former state transportation commission member who supports the initiative. Monorail backers, who have insisted the new system will help relieve congestion, accused initiative backers of creating “a false choice” between the monorail and Sound Transit and said the two rail systems serve different needs. They also said it’s questionable whether the tax revenue could be shifted to other projects. “Their main message hasn’t been working, so they’re trying out something else,” said Steve Williamson, secretary-treasurer of the King County Labor Council and a monorail project board member. Yesterday, at a news conference staged at a downtown Metro bus tunnel station, initiative backers for the first time discussed possible uses for the 1.4 percent motor vehicle excise tax, which supports the Seattle Monorail Project and will help finance construction and operation of the line in its early years if it is built. It was also the group’s first use of the Sound Transit system in its campaign. Organizers said their support for that system helped draw more people to the anti-monorail campaign. Sound Transit “was the most common ground we could find,” said campaign manager Tim Killian. Sound Transit is building a light rail line from downtown to the SeaTac area. In an interview and on a KUOW radio broadcast yesterday, Killian said that if the initiative succeeds in stopping the monorail, his group will ask the Legislature to refunnel the money into other projects, such as Sound Transit’s. He said voters would also have to decide whether to shift the tax revenue. He said a larger, integrated system without a monorail would have a better chance at getting federal funding than a separate city monorail. Asked about the tax-shifting proposal, pro-monorail campaigner Peter Sherwin said it was “misleading the public … without another vote. You can’t have the people vote for one thing and then say, ‘oh by the way, that’s not what we’re going to do,’ “ he said. But Sherwin also said the idea shows the initiative backers know their measure doesn’t immediately remove the car-tab tax or disband the monorail project agency, which has said it would have to continue to impose the tax to pay at least the $73 million in debt its has incurred so far. Also questioning the monorail project yesterday was former Mayor Charles Royer. He said he concluded “somewhat reluctantly” that the monorail wasn’t a good idea, citing an initial 30 percent shortfall in car-tab tax revenue that was a factor in reducing the size of the system after voters approved it. The tax has raised an average of $2.5 million a month since the agency began receiving it in 2003. The amount has lagged behind expectations, though it has increased since the tax rate was raised in June. Royer said the monorail agency should release details of a proposal to complete design, build and run the new system, “so we know what we’re voting on” in November. The proposal was submitted in mid-August by Cascadia Monorail Co., a 27-member team of construction companies and consultants. The monorail project is negotiating details of the proposal with Cascadia, the lone bidder. A second team dropped out last summer. The monorail agency has promised to release the proposal’s details for public scrutiny as soon as they’re settled with Cascadia. Williamson could not say whether that will happen before city voters decide the fate of the initiative. He said immediate release of details might be premature because some could change, and some are proprietary to the companies and can’t be made public. He said initiative backers were creating “a false choice” between themonorail and Sound Transit. He said the monorail will serve neighborhoods while light rail will connect cities. “They’re two different lines that do two different things,” he said. In another development, monorail backer Scott Durham yesterday filed a complaint demanding that a city agency fine On Track, a monorail watchdog group, and determine that it is a political committee, forcing it to make public the donations it receives and the expenses it incurs. Durham’s complaint alleges that several On Track members have opposed pro-monorail initiatives in the past and that several are contributing to the I-83 campaign. The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission is investigating the complaint, director Wayne Barnett said. On Track issued a statement saying it is a separate “stand-alone organization with an independent agenda that is in no way connected to, directed by or otherwise related to the I-83 campaign.”

The Times endorses; No on Monorail recall

Seattle Times October 7, 2004 For all the foibles of the Seattle Monorail, it will be tempting to vote yes on Initiative 83, the measure to ban city permits for the monorail. But the correct answer is no. I-83 makes the end justify the means. Specifically, I-83 would prohibit the City Council from allowing the monorail to be built on public streets, sidewalks and the space above them. By some accounts, I-83 effectively would block the monorail from being built. But I-83 is not a clean monorail recall as specified by monorail legislation. The 2002 Legislature described a method for dissolving the monorail agency. A real recall would have required roughly 54,000 petition signatures in 90 days along with a finding by the city attorney that the project has significant financial problems. Citizens promoting this monorail recall took the easy route, a simple citizen initiative that required only 17,229 signatures. This is an attempt to alter public policy with a lower threshold of citizen participation. Like many in Seattle, this editorial page is discouraged by the changes that have taken place since the public voted for the monorail. The project is collecting roughly one-fourth less revenue than anticipated. The width of columns will be much larger than expected. The trains may run on one track in some places, not what voters originally were told. And there is just one bidder for the project, which does not bode well. Yet, in the end, the monorail-recall campaign took an insincere route. If this is what voters want, call a recall a recall and follow the rules. It is easy to say the monorail project is not what we bargained for, but in fairness, neither is the recall attempt. It is a shortcut and the wrong way to express anger at the monorail. Vote no on I-83.

Latest Word On Troubled Monorail

KLAS-TV Las Vegas October 7, 2004 The Las Vegas Monorail opened late and has been troubled ever since. Eyewitness News has learned there was a fourth incident of debris falling from the newly constructed monorail. Eyewitness News obtained a memo sent from one monorail official to another, which documents an incident where debris fell onto a car. On Wednesday a spokesperson with the group confirmed the memo and told us how they fixed the problem. Even before the monorail opened to the public, a drive shaft fell from one of the cars. And then in September, two incidents of falling debris from monorail cars forced administrators to shut the system down and open an investigation into its safety. But there was yet another incident back in April. A memo from Las Vegas Monorail’s vice president to the project manager describes it as an “incident” where a cable tray clip from the track fell on to a vehicle underneath. A spokesperson for the group confirmed that the incident did happen. “There were some fasteners that hold the cable tray to the guideway that during windstorms back in the spring came dislodged,” said Todd Walker. The clips hold the sheet metal, which protects the system’s cable system. Monorail officials say the clips are several inches long and weigh a couple of ounces, enough to damage to a vehicle parked underneath the monorail. But officials say this incident is relatively minor compared to the two incidents that shut the system down. Measures were taken to make sure these clips wouldn’t fall on people walking underneath. Walker says, “They’re very small and the contractor went back and replaced each one of those, but in such a large construction project you would expect minor instances like this to take place.” Monorail officials say there have not been any other incidents besides the ones now reported, which Clark County’s building department confirms. “We don’t believe there are design problems with the system. But we are being precautionary with this investigation that this system is safe,” Todd Walker added. There has been some mention of installing some type of barrier to protect people from falling debris. This incident is not related to the two incidents that shut down the monorail since this incident involved falling debris from the track while the others involved debris from the monorail cars. The monorail has been closed since Sept. 8. There is still no timetable for when it will reopen. But it is at least several weeks away.

Third month of rail ridership exceeds expectation

Metropolitan Council News Release October 7, 2004 Customers rode Hiawatha light-rail trains 424,000 times in September, 87 percent higher than expected ridership of 227,200. For the first three full months of light-rail service ridership totaled nearly 1.4 million, 96 percent higher than the goal. “Rail ridership remains strong,” said Brian Lamb, general manager. “Even though September is a month with just 30 days, we were able to generate ridership of more than 400,000, compared with 476,800 in August and 462,400 in July.” Lamb said Metro Transit is focused now both on delivering daily service and on preparing to open the remainder of the Hiawatha line on Dec. 4. Early testing of the five-mile southern section already is underway, and a new class of 11 operators has begun training. During September, weekday ridership averaged more than 14,200 rides, 49 percent higher than the goal of 9,500 each weekday. Weekend ridership continued to be strong with Saturdays averaging 14,100 against a projection of 4,300 and Sundays/holiday averaged 14,000 versus a projection of 2,100. September ridership was bolstered by fans riding light rail to 11 Twins home games, three Minnesota Gopher football games and two Minnesota Vikings games. The monthly ridership figure is based on a sampling of at least 25 percent of trips operated on weekdays during the month. Staff members counted the number of customers boarding these trips at each station regardless of how the customer reached the rail platform. This included customers using the Fort Snelling park-ride, customers transferring to the Hiawatha light-rail line from buses and those who walked up or were dropped off at rail stations. The first phase of the Hiawatha line opened in late June with service between downtown Minneapolis and Fort Snelling spanning eight miles and 12 stations. On Dec. 4 the full alignment will open, expanding service to the airport, Bloomington and Mall of America for a total of 12 miles and 17 stations. The Hiawatha light-rail line — a $715.3 million project — is owned by the Metropolitan Council, operated by Metro Transit and built by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Bus ridership of 5.7 million in September was down 9 percent from the same month last year. In addition to the lingering impact of the 46-day strike, bus ridership also is down as a result of a fare increase and service cuts last year. Service and fares were adjusted when Metro Transit received less state funding as Minnesota coped with a state revenue shortfall. Metro Transit, a service of the Metropolitan Council, is the nation’s 11th largest transit system. Customers board its 135 local, express and contract routes more than 67 million times last year.

EDMONTON/COWTOWN RAIL LINK TOUTED; DESPITE HIGH INITIAL COST, HIGH-SPEED ROUTE WOULD PAY FOR ITSELF: STUDY

The Daily Herald-Tribune (Grande Prairie, Alberta) October 7, 2004 A high-speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary with one-way tickets costing less than $50 is feasible because of rapid population and economic growth in Alberta, says a new study by a transportation group. The Alberta government cost-shared the $600,000 study by the Van Horne Institute, which reviewed new rail technology and included a poll to find out if Albertans would use the new rail service and how much they would be willing to pay. ‘’We saw the highest percentage of uptake at $48.50,’’ Teresa Watts, project manager for the Calgary-based institute, said Wednesday. But she predicted people would be willing to pay more once they saw the high-speed train taking less than two hours between the downtowns of both cities. The study lays out two options: - Build two new sets of track on an existing CP Rail freight corridor at an estimate cost of $1.7 billion, or - Lay track on a new corridor at roughly double the cost. Using the CP corridor would have a significant impact on Alberta’s rural road system because of the construction of at least 30 rail overpasses and the closure of 70 rural roads where they intersected with the line. ‘’Any minor roads would be closed and the right-of-way would be fenced. That’s the model that’s used in Europe,’’ said Doug Welsh, CP Rail’s executive director of strategic development. The two-year study concluded that rapid population and economic growth has made a high-speed rail link cost-effective. The stretch between Edmonton and Calgary, which includes Red Deer, is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. ‘’This marketplace now has a critical mass to support a private-sector operated high-speed rail line,’’ said Lecia Stewart, Bombardier’s vice-president of high-speed rail. ‘’We do think it’s the next wave.’’ Bombardier is vying to supply its new JetTrain in Alberta. The preliminary study was immediately embraced by Economic Development Minister Mark Norris, who said he plans to ask for a review by business leaders with the Alberta Economic Development Authority. ‘’We’ve talked about the Calgary-Edmonton corridor as an economic tiger of Western Canada,’’ said Norris. ‘’Anything that joins those nodes, whether it’s planes, trains or automobiles … that’s why we’re involved.’’ Norris and Watts were both hesitant, however, to talk about how much taxpayer money would be required if the project were to go ahead on a proposed schedule that would have trains running within six years. The minister also rejected any suggestion that the rail announcement was linked to a forthcoming Alberta election.

Wairarapa gets rail revamp boost

The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand) October 7, 2004 THE Government has approved a special one-off $ 10.6 million payment toward new Wairarapa commuter trains. Finance Minister Michael Cullen is expected to announce the deal today. The money — part of an Auckland-style transport funding deal being stitched together for the Wellington region — will go toward the refurbishment of about 18 former British Rail carriages, estimated to cost $ 20 million. The rest of the money will come from Government transport funder Transfund. Toll national passenger manager Ross Hayward said the carriages, stored at Woburn workshops, were in “extremely poor condition” and of the wrong size and gauge. It would cost about $ 1 million to rebuild and refurbish each carriage shells into what was essentially a new car, he said. Several similar carriages were sold to Auckland last year and transformed into modern urban commuter trains. Wairarapa’s existing 15 carriages were built between 1937 and 1943 and were well overdue for replacement. Mr Hayward said the rebuilding proposal was put to the Government by the regional council as a temporary measure to allow the service to keep running while new carriages were built. Carriages took three to five years to build and would cost $ 2 million to $ 3 million each, he said. Sources said the refurbishment contract would be put out to tender and it was hoped the work could be done in the Wellington region. The new units would be configured for long-distance travel, with toilets and vestibules, and would be similar to the Capital Connection train between Wellington and Palmerston North. They would be owned by Greater Wellington regional council. As the replacement carriages became available, the old cars would be shifted to Wellington to cover while the capital’s English Electric multiple units were pulled out of service for refurbishment. The upgrade was intended to stop passengers shifting from rail to road because of problems caused by aging rolling stock. The funding boost was part of a “Wellington transport project” negotiated with the Government by local MPs, including United Future leader Peter Dunne, the regional council and local councils. About $ 800 million had been set aside for Wellington transport projects in the next 10 years. However, the regional council believed at least $ 2 billion more was needed to finish the network. Rail was to be a key focus of the project. The regional council, Toll New Zealand and Transfund announced in August that they would spend $ 5.4 million among them on upgrading 36 English Electric carriages used on the Hutt and Melling lines. The next stage of the project was a $ 10 million “Kapiti package”. If funded, this would include some double-tracking, electrification to Waikanae and new stations at Raumati and Lindale.

SILVER BULLET SILLY; THE BOOM MUST BE BACK IF HIGH-SPEED TRAIN AGAIN ON THE AGENDA

Edmonton Sun (Alberta, Canada) October 7, 2004 You know the Alberta boom is back and things are getting crazy when they start talking about high speed trains. War-weary Albertans who have been through the ups and downs of the oilpatch have been through this before. As the Van Horne Institute pointed out in the “pre-feasibility” study it presented to Economic Development Minister Mark Norris during a full-court-press media conference at Government House yesterday, the Edmonton-to-Calgary sizzler has been studied to death once-a-decade since the ‘70s And each time it came back that the railroad was a extremely expensive pipe dream “due to its high cost and ridership risk.” Yesterday the Royal Bank of Canada (it likes to be called RBC Financial Group these days) released it’s latest provincial outlook. “Economic growth tilts westward,” it roared. “Alberta energized and back on top,” it boomed. “No other province is benefiting as much from the recent surge in energy prices as oil-rich Alberta,” the analysis continued. “That situation should help to put the province back on top of the growth rankings this year,” it added. “And near the top next year.” It talked about “robust” oilsands investments, “windfall” revenues for the provincial government, the country’s “sturdiest” labour market, and “leading all provinces” in retail spending. When you’re hot, you’re hot. And the Tories are talking railroads again. So what’s changed? I’m not sure. But suddenly the “demand exists to support a high-speed rail service,” the study (if that’s what you call it) concluded. This was apparently largely based on a poll of 600 Albertans who said they might take the train if the one-way ticket was $48.50. That’s where the promoters got out their calculator and determined out of the six million Edmonton/Calgary trips a year 22% to 28% would likely hop a train than head down the highway. The line would cost anything from $71 to $95 million a year to operate. But the real eye popper comes when the capital costs are rolled in. Anywhere from $1.7 billion if the existing Canadian Pacific right-of-way is used. Up to $3.4 billion if a new electrified route is developed. Running 200-km-an-hour trains through a dozen towns in central Alberta cut in half with an elk fence to protect the townsfolk from the tracks just isn’t going to happen. It’s a new “greenfields” route or nothing. And you’ve already guessed who picks up the tab. “The funds advanced by one or more governments would be provided on a grant basis,” the document beamed. And neither the costs nor the fares needed to support them appear firm. In the back of the “study” the institute — which was being fronted yesterday by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s longtime adviser Art Smith — fingered engineering and technical work as “areas of greatest uncertainty.” And added that “ridership is always the largest project uncertainty.” While the idea of running the line with an “independent authority” is something that “should be explored.” Hopefully not like the similar authority that burnt Mark Norris recently when its “study” proposed a ground transportation monopoly — including toll charges on Highway 63 — to make a freight railroad to Fort McMurray feasible. This project was promoted by another Klein insider — former premier’s office director Rod Love. Norris insisted that high-speed line will not involve tolls, downgrades or any other cynical attempts to get rubber-tire traffic off Highway 2 and onto Art Smith’s train. But he did say “this model has merit and the next step would be to go to a feasibility study.” But only if the private sector steps up to the plate. “If the government is bearing all the load we won’t do it,” Norris stressed. Sadly, that appears to have already been ruled out. “High-speed rail requires up-front capital investment of public funds,” the Van Horners point out. And the sales job about the “social, economic and environmental benefits” has already begun. Booms can be dangerous things.

Tracking the trolley; Underground SDSU station nearly finished

The San Diego Union-Tribune October 8, 2004 The San Diego Trolley’s only underground stop isn’t yet ready for passengers, or even trolleys. Even so, transit officials assembled the news media 60 feet beneath San Diego State University for a sneak preview yesterday, showing off the station they all expect will become the pride of the line about eight months from now. “Oh my gosh, isn’t this something?” exclaimed Shirley Kaltenborn, an ex officio member of the Metropolitan Transit System board of directors, as she walked into the campus station for the tour and looked at its 4,000-foot tunnel. “I like everything about it,” said Leon Williams, chairman of the transit board. The close-up look was one of the early steps in a marketing campaign for the trolley’s $496 million Mission Valley East extension, which connects the Mission San Diego trolley station to La Mesa. SDSU is one of four new stops on the extension, expected to open to paying passengers in May or June. The transit agency allowed reporters into the station about a year ago when the tunnel was complete, but other work seemed barely started. Yesterday, it looked almost complete. “I think it is phenomenal,” said Paul Jablonski, chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Transit System. “This is something the whole community can be really proud of.” Once inside, passengers will take an elevator or 34 steps to reach the subterranean platform. The station was designed to accommodate four-car trains — one more than the usual configuration today — and new low-floor trolley cars, which will allow level boarding from the station platform to the car. The underground site required trolley engineers to confront issues they’d never had to deal with before: ventilation, higher security and fire suppression. Mammoth fans can blow smoke out of the tunnel in either direction, if needed. Transit officers in a security office right outside the station entrance will keep an eye on the platform and tunnel with 16 security cameras, not yet in place. The underground station also called for more attention to public art than passengers see at conventional stops. Artist Anne Mudge of Carlsbad worked with station architects on those touches. “One of the things that was important to us was to make this as friendly and inviting a place as possible,” Mudge said. Suspended from the ceiling are stainless-steel “taproots” made from industrial cable, as if an extension of trees at the street level. The sculptures will sway gently with the breeze from oncoming trains and cast shadows on the station walls. There’s also a sinuous blue “cold cathode” light, similar to neon, overhead. On the platform, Mudge’s pavement design uses bricks arranged into a curving flow instead of straight rows, broken up by 60 granite steppingstones illustrating a particular academic discipline. The stones, which don’t use words, could become something of a game for waiting trolley passengers: chemistry, for example, is symbolized with a formula for glucose. Mudge said she wanted her art to convey “the idea that there is just a dynamic mix of people, ideas and cultural influences in a university environment.” Jablonski said the agency hopes the station will play a role in resolving parking and congestion problems that have bedeviled the urban campus for decades. In relieving traffic congestion around campus, he said, the station also may benefit Interstate 8 motorists. Williams said he hopes students who’ve never before used the trolley can be lured out of their automobiles. One advantage he noted: The station is smack in the middle of campus, saving students the trek required from some of the more remote parking lots. Trolley officials said the station is about 95 percent complete, with some support structures and other work still to come. The station was built between the university’s Adams Humanities Building and Aztec Center, adjacent to an 11-acre, mixed-use redevelopment project. To promote bus and trolley travel, the station also ties into a reconfigured transitway for buses, directly across from the station elevator and a short walk from the stairs. The new bus station is expected to be ready by the end of the year, replacing the transit station on Campanile Drive.

CARLESS AND CARELESS IN L.A

LA Weekly (California) October 8, 2004 Last Friday, for no particular reason, I decided to play hooky by traversing the county on the MTAFs light-rail and subway system. I wanted to go, as the song says, from the mountains to the ocean, from the smog and the heat to cool sea breezes. The jaunt would require traveling on all of MTAFs rail lines (Gold, Red, Blue and Green), which would lend a certain sense of accomplishment to this generally aimless exercise. A $3 day pass would allow me to get on or off any bus or train whenever the whim struck. My wife, being from Moscow, has almost a physical allergy to buses, subways and trams. Inexplicably, she said she wanted to come along. Midmorning, we got our passes on a 181 eastbound Hollywood Boulevard bus at Bronson Avenue. Onboard air conditioning tempered the dayFs rising heat. The half-filled bus rattled and belched across Hollywood to Glendale. Passing the Galleria, up and over Eagle Rock, through smog banks nestled against the San Gabriels, it crossed the Arroyo Seco before lurching down Colorado Boulevard into Pasadena. That all took about an hour and 15 minutes. We got off at Pasadena City College in the now claustrophobic heat, grabbed a soft drink at Burger King and marched up Allen Avenue a few hundred yards to the Gold Line station, where our coastal trek officially began. My wife had a cigarette under the 134 freeway, where we then boarded a sleek glass elevator that hoisted us up to the freeway-level platform. A westbound train awaited us with its doors open. We bolted into the back car — our first connection. If you’re not familiar with the Gold Line, seats are almost always available, cushioned with aquamarine padding that’s splashed with gold and maroon speckles. In this little Caucasian ghetto of the MTA universe, the passengers are few, and the tall windows offer easy vistas of the passing sights. A loud recording announces each station stop. Suddenly, I had a memory of the monorail in Disneyland when I was 10, of floating behind Fantasyland, and the Voice of God saying something like “Someday, a train just like this will be carrying people around the cities of the future.” I arrived in L.A. from England in 1963, just as the Firestone Tire Company interests were paving over the Red Car trolley tracks along Santa Monica Boulevard. And though urban trains had been an integral part of Southern California from the ‘20s to the ‘40, I grew up like a Brit out of water in this trainless desert, listening to decades of reasons why trains shouldn’t return. This is why Friday’s excursion was, for me, a kind of victory parade. After floating down the middle of the 134 past Old Town Pasadena, the train descends and twists around concrete girders before settling into the half-buried Memorial Park Station. Beyond the Fillmore Station, after you travel through a railway alley between Raymond Avenue and Arroyo Parkway bordered by fencing and the backs of stores, the view changes into what is probably the most beautiful stretch of any passenger railway in Los Angeles: the meadows and cascading sagebrushed hills of Highland Park, punctuated with palms and apartments, ‘30s-era bungalows and an occasional Victorian manse alongside the narrow, winding streets. “This is just like Yalta,” my wife remarked. Curiously, I had been imagining it as a drier equivalent of Sussex. We all see home where we can. Suddenly, Chinatown’s sun-cracked pagodas rose to our right. Here we got off and trudged up Hill Street to the packed Empress Pavilion, where we gorged on dim sum and beer. Over the region towers Chinatown Station, from which the train slithers past garment workers stitching behind a second-floor window. Sloping down behind the central post office, the train finally rests among Union Station’s rows of outdoor covered platforms. Walking through a tunnel, we found ourselves stepping on shiny Aztec tiles in the station’s sleekly restored, cavernous main gallery. Beneath architecture melding Spanish colonial curves with jagged art nouveaux edges, fat-padded people sat on fat, padded chairs, waiting for trains to San Bernardino or Santa Barbara, or a bus to Bakersfield. Dozens of bloodstained hospital patients used the restroom: They were filming ER. The underground Red Line whisked us to Seventh and Metro, where we transferred to the Blue Line, comparatively crowded with book-bagged students en route to L.A. Trade Tech, and workers of color. A couple of ex-cons with neck tattoos spoke in Spanish as the train came up for air by the Staples Center and crossed under the 10 Freeway. A vendor hawked candy bars for a buck apiece. A guitarist crooned an old Joan Baez song, passed the hat and was mostly ignored. After following Washington Street east, past the Courthouse and shops selling live poultry, the train turned south. Protected from the street by a steel fence, it barreled toward Long Beach, past warehouses and suburbs built in the post-WWII boom. Looking behind, you can see the San Gabriel Mountains and downtown skyscrapers slip away. Once on this line, a drunken fellow who’d slammed his head into a concrete post started careening in his seat, a bump on his head swelling visibly. The driver stopped the train and waited for 15 minutes with the convulsing man on the Firestone Station platform. Other passengers rubbed his neck and face and talked to him, trying to keep him conscious until the ambulance arrived. Mercifully, the MLK trauma center was open to receive him. (They were not filming ER.) Somebody on the train complained he was now late for work. Past Watts Towers to Rosa Parks Station, transfer point for the Green Line, located under the 105. In the din of sirens and freeway, a guy was selling jewelry from a triple-tiered box. At another freeway-level platform, a Green Line train, identical to the Gold Line train, arrived in seven minutes and zipped us down the middle of the 105 toward LAX. My wife contentedly read a Russian novel as I gazed out on multilevel parking lots and expansive buildings of cement and glass, homes to Northrup and Boeing. We disembarked from an almost empty train at Douglas and Nash, in the city of Manhattan Beach, high above ground level. There was salt in the cool breeze. On foot, we ambled down a deserted street with no sidewalks, and corporate parks on either side. The street ends at Rosecrans Avenue, grinding with traffic. There’s a shopping plaza with an Italian restaurant called Lido on one side; a Daily Grill, Noah’s Bagels and P.F. Chang’s on the other. We stuffed ourselves with more Chinese, more beer, and waddled toward the sunset. As we left the eatery, an empty 125 bus swung by and took us up the hill. It was rush hour in Manhattan Beach, and the buses were empty. Behind Fry’s Electronics, a trailhead leads to a bark path called Veterans Parkway — a gentle 20-minute descent through Mediterranean hills and beautiful, tightly packed homes to the cliff edge of the nation. Beyond stucco townhouses and bungalows draped in bougainvillea, beyond the boutiques and palm trees, we watched the sun slip into the green-gray ribbon of the Pacific. There were mostly white people on the pier, fishing, strolling, teens skateboarding in boxers and bikinis. The bars were jammed with white people. We had coffee and cobbler on the ocean-view patio of a diner called the Kettle. It was dark outside on the ride home. Even through the train’s fluorescent interior neon lights, as it hurtled over the freeways, we saw the expanse of city lights, a kind of electric galaxy. Those flickers, some of them bouncing illusions in the glass, provide an image of unity to this sprawling land of disparate, desperate ghettos. Wealthy cities like Manhattan Beach and Beverly Hills lobbied to block the trains from their environs — to keep riders from Watts away from their bedrocks and beaches. And they succeeded: The Red Line stops at Western Avenue, two miles shy of Beverly Hills; the Green Line approaches the beach towns only to curve and skirt away to a final destination of vacant inland parking lots. From the train, as from the air, you can see how Los Angeles is, at its core, a sprinkling of glitter in an envelope of darkness.

New bid to revive rail line upgrade

Rye and Battle Observer October 8, 2004 A LAST-DITCH bid to get dual tracks on Rye’s railway line is underway. Dualling has been ruled out by the Government and Strategic Rail Authority who say the cost is prohibitive. But campaigners, including three local authorities, claim an improved rail network is vital for the regeneration of the area and are bidding for a new study. The Hastings to Ashford line, which runs through Rye and Winchelsea is one of the only parts of the South East rail network to be single track. The situation has caused problems and delays. If a train break down a maintenance team has to come from Ashford in order to clear the line. Dualling the line is a main priority for the Rye area, according to MP Michael Foster and local rail action group Marshlink. Marshlink chairman Richard Holmes said: “We will keep pressing for the re-instatement of the 17 miles of second track removed in 1979 and, eventually, electrification to enable the link to integrate with the rest of the national rail network. What is clear is that there is a fundamental need for a sound commercial case for the significant engineering improvements and this will depend on greater usage by the public.” Now Rother District Council looks certain to pledge £5,000 toward the cost of employing consultants to conduct a new feasibility study into dualling. A partnership has been formed to back the study consisting of Rother, Kent and East Sussex County Councils, Ashford Borough Council and Hastings Borough Council. They have been joined by the South East England Regional Assembly and the Government Office for the South East. Rother District Council services director Anthony Leonard said: “The partnership has gone out to tender for consultants to carry out this work. It has always been recognised that the transport infrastructure in this area has to undergo major improvements if the area is to be successfully regenerated. This is an important piece of work so far as seeking an improvement to the rail links.” Passengers on the Rye line received a boost earlier this year with the introduction of new slide door turbo diesels which replaced the ageing rolling stock on the line. Joanna Arkley, manager of Rye Heritage Centre, said: “Good rail links are vital for attracting visitors to the area. People arriving on high-speed continental trains at Ashford have been faced with a slow journey to Rye on old trains and a single track. With everyone trying to encourage more use of public transport, improvements are vital. The move has also been welcomed by the Rye Partnership. Spokesman Neale East said: “A good rail network is vital to the regeneration of the Rye and Hastings area and dual track is bound to help the area by bringing people in and improving the travel to work area.”

FOR TRAM PROJECT; M-TRAM PULL OUT AND LEAVE PLANS IN CHAOS

Liverpool Daily Echo October 8, 2004 ONE of the companies bidding to build the planned Merseytram pulled out today leaving the whole scheme in doubt once again. M-Tram said the project was too much of a risk to embark on because of Liverpool council’s last minute calls for a re-route. The news means only one company is now bidding to build the light rail system. Merseytravel chiefs now fear that the remaining firm — Met — can now name their price for the contract, with only limited government funding available. Merseytravel chairman Mark Dowd said: “From a position of euphoria not so long ago, this is now a disaster.” M-Tram’s blow came as the region’s Labour MPs united to accuse Liverpool council of a catalogue of incompetence. They said the council’s “dithering” could turn the 2008 capital of culture celebrations into a “humiliating farce”. They launched their blistering attack at a high-prof