Metro construction set to boomRailway Gazette International November 2004: Analysis PLANS are being drawn up in China to build between 1200km and 1500km of new urban rail lines within the next 10 years, targeting 43 cities that have a population of more than one million. According to Jiao Tongshan, President of China’s Expert Committee for Urban Rail Transit and the National Development & Reform Commission, a large number of new metro schemes are at the planning stage, with 13 projects under construction in eight cities. More will follow ‘very soon’. Speaking at InnoTrans in Berlin, Jiao explained that ‘our government has prioritised a calendar of who will do what and when. We know that good metro and urban rail systems are the best framework for city growth, and we have policies in place now to accelerate this development process.’ He said that China would focus on its largest cities and that each new scheme would be evaluated against a set of ‘proper parameters’ such as the city’s current population, its expected population growth, its GDP, its average income per capita and traffic volumes. ‘Each city must have a clear development strategy and its metro proposals will have to be consistent with an overall design and outlook’, he said. ‘They will have to meet all of our criteria before they can go ahead.’ At the moment China has seven cities with urban rail lines that total 463.5 route-km. It is determined to make rapid progress, and Jiao is confidently predicting that ‘we will build more than 5000km of new metro line in the longer term’. Four different types of city have been identified for evaluation purposes. The first covers cities that already have large-scale metro networks in place but which will need to expand further; they include Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. The second group comprises cities seeking to build a second line, and the third cities that want to build their first urban rail line, such as Harbin. The final group will be those that are growing fast but which are not yet ready to launch construction. To date, 14 major metro development plans have been put forward for approval. Average construction costs in China have fallen by one-third in the past 10 years, and the country is currently seeking international investment partners to help fund its metro plans. Zhou Yimin, Vice-President to Jiao Tongshan, told delegates at InnoTrans that ‘on average, 70% of the investment needed will come from the Chinese government and 30% from foreign investors. We welcome overseas investment in our rail sector, and we have invited a lot of foreign investors to seminars to discuss our spending needs. We are already in talks with potential investors from Japan, America and France.’ Beijing is effectively growing by 10 km2 a year, and has more than doubled in size since 1982. Jiao said ‘we cannot keep pace with 15% year-on-year car ownership growth rates. We now have more than 2.3 million road vehicles in Beijing and more and more commuters travelling in from the outskirts of the city.’ As in many other Chinese cities, increasing personal wealth means that there are fewer city centre apartment dwellers, leading to unchecked traffic jams, longer commutes to work and unbalanced road traffic patterns. ‘The average travel distance in Beijing is now 6km to 8km, and this is the ideal distance for a metro’, he considered. ‘Mass transit is definitely the way forward.’ Activity and investment in the Chinese metro market will be further boosted in the next few years by major events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, and the accelerated growth of huge industrial and economic development zones in the Yangtze River delta and the Pearl River delta. |
Ahern opens Luas Red LineRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News DUBLIN light rail Line A, now known as the Red Line, was officially opened by Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern and Transport Minister Seamus Brennan on September 28. After unveiling a plaque at the Tallaght terminus, the dignitaries boarded 30m long Citadis car 3004 (below) for the first official passenger service to Connolly station, followed by a convoy of other trams conveying the rest of the 800 invited guests. Public services began at 10.30, and continued as a free service until October 3, by which time the trams had carried over 200000 riders. The 15km route serves 23 intermediate stops, and connects the Iarnród Éireann stations at Heuston and Connolly. It also serves the Busarus provincial bus station, Tallaght Square shopping centre, and two hospitals at Tallaght and St James’s. End-to-end journey time is 43min, with a basic 10min interval service from 05.30 to 00.30. The 9km Green Line (formerly Line B) between Sandyford and St Stephen’s Green, which opened at the end of June, is currently carrying around 22000 passengers/day, and the Railway Procurement Agency expects Luas to handle 7 million trips in the first year of operation. RPA is currently working on plans to extend the Green Line from Sandyford to Cherrywood by 2007 and to build a 1.6km extension of the Red Line from Connolly to Point Depot in the Docklands development zone, serving a new suburban station at Spencer Dock. There is also increasing pressure for a cross-city link between St Stephen’s Green and O’Connell Bridge to connect the two isolated routes. |
Wuhan metro inauguratedRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News CHINA’s latest metro network was officially opened on September 28, with the inauguration of the first phase of Wuhan’s elevated light metro line. Passengers have been carried on the limited test service on the 10km route since June, but the inauguration marks the start of full revenue service in the Hubai provincial capital. Running from Zong Guang to Huang Pu Road with 10 stations, the elevated line is operated by a fleet of 12 four-car trains, which can run at up to 80km/h. The line is equipped with Alcatel’s Seltrac S40 moving-block CBTC, which permits automated operation at 90sec headways. Design capacity is 30000 passengers/h in each direction. Work on the line began in 2002, and it was completed in 26 months. Wuhan Rail Transit Co General Manger Zhang Songxin says the second phase of the project will see the line extended at both ends to give a total length of 30km, adding 16 stations. |
Northern Suburbs line extendedRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News WESTERN Australia Premier Geoff Gallop and Planning & Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan participated in the ceremonies on October 4 to mark handover of the first stage of Perth’s A$1.5bn New MetroRail project. The event marked the opening of the Northern Suburbs Railway extension from Currambine to Clarkson and the entry into service of the first five of 31 three-car EMUs being built by EDI Rail and Bombardier at a total cost of A$300m. The Stage 1 package also included lengthening of existing platforms to take six-car trains and a new A$36m EMU maintenance depot at Nowergup, 2km beyond Clarkson, which was inaugurated in June. The A$8m terminus includes a bus-rail interchange and an 800-space park-and-ride facility. Journey time from Clarkson to Perth is 32min. MacTiernan said that when the Southern Suburbs Railway opens at the end of 2006, the 130km/h EMUs will be able to cover the 104km between Clarkson and Mandurah in 80min, ‘connecting the northern and southern extremities of Perth by rail for the first time’. |
Circle completedRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News OCTOBER 6 saw the opening of a 5.6km extension to Nagoya metro’s Meijo Line, completing a circular route around the city centre in the run-up to next year’s Aichi World Expo. The extension connects the former Line 4 terminus at Aratama-bashi with the end of Line 2 at Nagoya Daigaku, including an interchange to the Tsurumai Line at Yagoto. The link has created a 26.4km circular route with 28 stations, parallelling the city’s heavily-used elevated ring motorway. The opening completes the circle line project, which began in 1965 and has cost a total of ¥11800bn. It follows the opening of the 6.2km Sunada-bashi — Nagoya Daigaku extension which was inaugurated on December 13 last year. The standard-gauge Meijo (Castle) line is operated by six-car trains taking 600V DC traction power from a third rail. Line 2 services which formerly ran between Nagoya Port and Sunada-bashi have been diverted to work over the circular route, which incorporates the former Line 4 between Kanayama and Aratama-bashi. The southern section of the old route between Kanayama and Nagoya Port is now run as a separate shuttle, known as the Meiko Line. |
Wellington boostRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News COMMUTERS between Wairarapa and Wellington will see their ageing trains replaced next year, following the approval of a government grant towards the cost. On October 7 Finance Minister Michael Cullen announced a grant of NZ$10.6m which will be added to an earlier grant of NZ$15.8m from Transfund New Zealand. The money will fund the rebuilding and regauging of 18 former British Rail MkIId coaches. Cullen said tendering had started, and he hoped to announce a timescale for introducing the new stock as soon as a contractor had been appointed. Cullen also announced a NZ$5.4m programme to upgrade 36 English Electric EMU cars used on Wellington local services and to refurbish the capital’s main station, which is being jointly funded by the government and Toll Holdings. Transport Minister Pete Hodgson said that ‘Wellington’s rail network has been neglected for far too long. Now that it is back in public ownership, government is acting quickly to repair the situation.’ He said the Wellington Transport Project due to report in December would offer a full range of options for improving all modes across the region. On October 7 Auckland Regional Council put into service its first SD series push-pull driving trailer, with wheelchair and bicycle accommodation. Another MkII conversion, it is intended to work with the converted SA suburban stock (RG 9.04 p524). |
Chinese orders confirmedRailway Gazette International November 2004: News ON OCTOBER 9 China’s Ministry of Railways confirmed two orders for fast inter-city trainsets and another for 180 heavy-haul electric freight locos. Announced during a state visit to China by French President Jacques Chirac, the orders form part of a package of contracts for French companies totalling over €4bn. A joint venture of Alstom Transport and Changchun Railway Co is to supply 60 eight-car trainsets for 200km/h operation on existing lines. Like the AVES104 sets in Spain, they will be non-tilting Pendolino derivatives, and the first are due to enter commercial service in 2007. Under the technology transfer agreement, Alstom will supply three complete trainsets and six in kit form from its plants at Savigliano and La Rochelle. The remainder will be be assembled at Changchun using equipment supplied from Europe. Alstom values its share of this order at €680m. Another 20 eight-car trainsets will be supplied by the Bombardier Sifang Power joint venture in Qingdao between July 2006 and July 2007. These units will be designed at Västerås in Sweden, where some propulsion equipment will be manufactured. Bogies will come from Bombardier’s Siegen plant, and the trains will be assembled at Qingdao. Total value of this order is put at US$424m, of which Bombardier’s share is US$263m. In addition, the Ministry of Railways has ordered 180 twin-unit electric locos from a partnership of Alstom and Datong Electric Loco Works. Destined to operate on the Datong — Qinhuangdao heavy-haul coal line, these will be derived from Alstom’s modular Prima family. The first 12 will be built at Belfort, and the remainder at Datong, under a deal worth €380m to the French company. Releasing further details of its next five-year development plan, the Ministry of Railways announced on October 9 that 100bn yuan will be invested in projects in Zhejiang province by 2010, including electrification of the Shanghai — Hangzhou and Zhejiang — Jiangxi lines. Another 139bn yuan will be invested in Guangdong province, where the Guangzhou — Shenzhen line will be quadrupled by 2008. In addition, fast electric trains will be launched between Shanghai and Guangzhou. |
Den Haag inaugurates tram tunnelRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News FREE TRAVEL all day was offered by Den Haag transport operator HTM on October 16 as the capital of the Netherlands celebrated two transport milestones. Transport Minister Karla Peijs officially opened the long-awaited ‘Souterein’ tram tunnel under the city centre to coincide with the centenary of electric tram operations. Routes 2, 3 and 6 have been diverted to run through the 1.3km tunnel under Grote Marktstraat, which has two stations at Grote Markt and Spui. From 2006 the tunnel will form part of the Randstad Rail tram-train network, as routes 3 and 6 are to be linked up to the converted Zoetermeer line and operated by the new fleet of RegioCitadis cars on order from Alstom. |
Washington wins metro fundingRailway Gazette International November 2004: City News THE METRO MATTERS funding package providing $3.3bn for expansion and remedial work on the Washington DC metro network over the next six years was approved by the Wmata board on October 21. The authority’s budget committee approved the package on October 15, welcoming a ‘strong six-year commitment from the state and local governments’ in the region and the prospect of ‘increased federal funding to help pay for Metro’s short-term capital needs’. Metro Matters includes $1.8bn of previously-pledged funding and $1.5bn in new commitments. Urgent measures include repairs to leaking metro tunnels, improved security and communications systems, plus a $236m power supply upgrade to permit the operation of eight-car trains to relieve overcrowding. Improvements to 44 of the 93 substations, together with the purchase of 120 new cars for $187m, will allow one-third of rush-hour services to run with eight cars from 2008. Wmata plans to order the vehicles by exercising an option in its contract for 62 Series 6000 cars being built by Alstom at Hornell for delivery next year. On September 15 Wmata announced that the $546m Blue Line extension from Addison Road to Largo Town Center would open on December 18. Under construction since 2001, the 5km extension includes an intermediate station at Morgan Boulevard. The new intermediate station on the Red Line at New York Avenue will open on November 20, a month ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, Wmata is pushing ahead with planning for a 33km light rail network, starting with a 4.3km demonstration project in Anacostia, linking Pennsylvania Avenue with Anacostia Naval Station and Bolling Air Force Base using a former CSX freight alignment. Three TRIO low-floor LRVs similar to the Portland and Tacoma cars have been ordered from Inekon of the Czech Republic for $8.6m, with delivery expected in the first quarter of 2006. |
Hitachi preferred for CTRL domestic trainsRailway Gazette International October 27 2004: News ON OCTOBER 27 UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling named Hitachi as the preferred supplier of around 30 trainsets to operate 225 km/h domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd is preferred financier. The first four of the six-car trainsets will enter service in Spring 2009, with the remainder being delivered later in the year. Based on Hitachi’s A-Train concept, the high speed commuter trains will be derived from Japan’s Series 400 ‘Mini-Shinkansen’ sets and built with modular aluminium bodyshells. Each set will seat between 300 and 350 passengers, and will feature air-conditioning, CCTV, on-board information systems and full compliance with disability regulations. The trainsets will be able to operate in pairs, and use both the 25 kV CTRL and the connecting conventional lines electrified with 750 V DC third rail. The journey from Ramsgate to London will be cut to 1 h 15 min from the current 2 h, and Ashford to London journey times halved to 34 min. Hitachi will be responsible for maintaining the trains, initially for the duration of the new Integrated Kent Franchise, and the company is expected to create around 70 jobs at a depot to be built in Kent. Invitations to tender for the Integrated Kent Franchise will be issued later this year, once the required service pattern has been agreed by the Strategic Rail Authority. |
Survival of Fittest and Leanest Becomes Strategy for the AirlinesNew York Times October 30, 2004 CHICAGO — After half a decade of turmoil, a picture of air travel in the United States is starting to emerge, and it is far different from the caring image the airlines like to present. In an artsy television commercial for United Airlines, for example, a cosseting flight attendant gives an excited traveler water for a rose he is taking home to mom, while in American Airlines’ advertising landscape, travelers are flying for happy reunions. After all, the airline declares, “We know why you fly.” In truth, Americans fly because it is cheap and often the fastest way to travel as planes have become not luxury liners but subways of the sky. “This is the way the world is going,” said Robert F. Tumminaro, a manager at an auto parts company in suburban Chicago, who checked himself in at a Southwest Airlines kiosk at Midway Airport recently, bypassing a skycap and carrying his own rolling suitcase and computer bag. Just four years ago, he said, he would have taken United, where he had accumulated thousands of frequent-flier miles. Fed up with United’s high fares and numerous delays out of the nearby O’Hare International Airport, Mr. Tumminaro said, “I flipped my United card back at them” and switched to Southwest. Planes, many of them fully packed, are set to carry more than 600 million passengers this year, masking the fact that the big airlines are in a financial free fall, having lost $30 billion since 2000, with expectations of losing another $5 billion this year and next. The airline carrying the most passengers within the United States is now Southwest, according to the Transportation Department, far outstripping its roots as a regional carrier from Texas. The growth of Southwest illustrates why fares keep dropping, pushing 3 of the industry’s top 10 airlines into bankruptcy. The average transcontinental trip, which set travelers back more than $400 each way four years ago, now costs closer to $200, according to Back Aviation Solutions, an industry consulting firm. All this has sent the big airlines scrambling to devise strategies that will keep them in business, a process of creative destruction that is akin to the chaos that afflicted the telecommunications industry in the 1990’s. While no one expects airline seats to be sold like minutes in a telephone plan — at least not yet — it is clear that the full-service approach that United and American would still like their customers to think is the norm is fast vanishing from the American scene. “The traditional structure of being a one-stop shop for all the travel needs of your customers is not going to be the future at all,” said Jagdish Sheth, professor of marketing and corporate strategy at Emory University in Atlanta. The upheaval is the climax of a process that began with deregulation in 1978, and that has accelerated this decade because of a business slump, the September 2001 attacks, the onslaught of low-fare competition and high fuel prices. And like the transformation of Ma Bell, the status quo has been flipped on its head in the airline industry with upstarts like Southwest and JetBlue leading the way. At Midway Airport and at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Southwest has installed its self-service kiosks, which print baggage claim tags, along with the usual boarding passes and credit card receipts. As a result, one customer service agent can oversee two check-in stations, said Virginia Bona, Southwest’s assistant station manager at Midway. What is good for the passengers may not be good for workers. Elnora P. Hamb, 64, who sat watching customers using the kiosks at Midway recently, said, “I think it’s putting people out of jobs.” Mrs. Hamb, national president of the Women’s Missionary Council of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, like millions of other American consumers, is avidly participating in that process anyway. Instead of calling airline reservation lines, she said she regularly goes on the Internet to shop for cheap tickets, bent on saving travel costs for her church. Most often, she said, she flies on a low-fare airline like Southwest, which lets her amend her itineraries at little or no cost, thus avoiding the fees charged by the big carriers for last-minute changes. The transformation in the industry is rewarding companies like Southwest and JetBlue that are thinking up new ways to meet their customers’ needs with few frills and low fares on popular routes. But that model is hardly the global industry’s leanest. An even more extreme model is Ryanair, serving Europe from its base in Ireland. Ryanair charges minuscule ticket prices and makes passengers pay for everything else, from checking bags to drinks and food. It has ordered new planes without window shades, magazine pockets and reclining seats. Nothing quite that drastic is planned by airlines serving the United States, but the trend for basic travel is already clear. Though the big airlines still pay lip service to the idea of competing with the low-fare companies, in truth they are casting a desperate eye on the last corners of the market where they can still charge top prices for tickets, namely flights where passengers still want first class seats. That approach is being followed by American, Delta, Northwest and United, which said recently that they would cut domestic service and expand international flights, including the first service to Vietnam by an American carrier in three decades. “We want to focus our efforts on those markets,” said John P. Tague, an executive vice president at United. “There is a very strong residual demand for that kind of product. We are confident it’s going to work.” At the same time, United has introduced what it calls p.s., for premium service, on flights between New York and California, which features seats that turn into beds, gourmet food and the kind of style that brings back visions of the glory days. A new survey by the Brookings Institution suggests that many customers may simply not care about the opportunity for luxury flights. The survey measured each of the major airlines according to the value that it provided passengers, in terms of low fares and the number of cities served. Far and away, the study found, the most value was provided by Southwest, distantly followed by United and Delta. American, Continental and US Airways actually provided negative value. That indicated customers felt “getting rid of them would be good” because their absence would allow better airlines to take up the slack, said Clifford Winston, a Brookings economist. The survey leads him to believe that in the industry’s next phase airlines will have to be efficient. Otherwise, “they will pay for it in not being able to survive,” Mr. Winston said. Getting there, however, is proving existentially painful. Shrinking has become a way of life for the big airlines, which cut 110,000 jobs after the September 2001 attacks and have even more cuts on the way. American, Delta, United and US Airways all have announced plans to eliminate jobs of pilots, mechanics, flight attendants and customer service agents. Most are taking planes out of their fleets and at the same time, sharply cutting benefits like vacation time, post-retirement health care and pensions that have added billions to their costs. “The harsh reality is that our world has permanently changed, and we must change with it,” Delta’s chief executive, Gerald A. Grinstein, told employees in September. Southwest is not immune either. About 1,100 workers took an early retirement plan this summer. And the airline filled its last two flight attendant classes from its own ranks including some of the gate agents who once worked at Midway, Ms. Bona said. But the cuts are coming from a position of strength. Even as the major airlines cut back, the healthiest low-fare carriers are expanding their route systems and ordering hundreds of new aircraft. Granted, they are not completely immune from the problems buffeting the industry. ATA Airlines, a low-fare airline based in Indianapolis, filed for bankruptcy protection this week, after its aggressive expansion plans were stymied by high fuel costs. And JetBlue disappointed analysts in the third quarter, when its earnings fell, prompting Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services to assign a negative outlook, meaning its debt rating could be cut if it cannot make improvements. But JetBlue still made money and like Southwest, it is striving to be efficient. Southwest now employs just 75 employees per aircraft, compared with more than 100 at each of the major companies, and only slightly more than the 70 employees per aircraft at JetBlue, whose workers are not represented by unions. “The companies are doing their downsizing and the workers and unions are being left behind,” said Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Whether entire airlines will be left behind is a matter of intense debate in airline circles. Given the intense pressure from high jet fuel prices and stiff competition from low-fare companies, some say it is inevitable that old names will disappear — a prospect that US Airways raised repeatedly this fall, as it successfully pleaded with a federal bankruptcy court judge to grant emergency pay cuts. Others point out just how hard it is to kill an airline. Vanished names like Eastern, Pan Am and T.W.A. floundered for years in the 1980’s and 1990’s before finally going under. And even as US Airways, Delta and United are mired in bankruptcy or close to it, new carriers like Virgin America are poised to move into the American market, assuming they can find financial backing and win regulatory approval. Moreover, JetBlue and Southwest are each buying additional planes. JetBlue, which started in 2000 with a single New York to Florida route, now serves more than 30 cities, and expects to add dozens more over the next few years as it adds hundreds of Airbuses and regional jets to its fleet. What is evolving may end up being better for the country and certainly will be for passengers, said Herbert D. Kelleher, the chairman at Southwest. “I don’t see it as dark and foreboding and bleak,” Mr. Kelleher said in a recent interview. “Every time we go through one of these harrowing experiences, the industry has endured, it has survived and it has successfully provided what I consider to be an essential service for the American public and American business.” |
Denver: FasTracks Plan Aims for Massive Transit ExpansionLight Rail Now! Website Updated 2004/10/30 Denver’s phenomenal success with light rail transit (LRT) has made the system a national model and object of emulation. As previous Light Rail Now! articles have reported, LRT has not only exceeded its ridership projections, but has had a significant impact on mobility congestion in the major Southwest line corridor parallelling Santa Fe Drive. Steady growth, rising ridership Since the initial 5.3-mile (8.5-km) line, with 15 stations, was installed in 1994, the system has grown steadily. This starter segment features in- street running through downtown Denver from the 30th and Downing Station to Colfax at Auraria Station. The Southwest Corridor extension, 8.7 miles (14.0 km), with 5 stations, opened in the summer of 2000, running from the southern terminus (I-25/Broadway Station southwest) along Santa Fe Drive to Littleton at Mineral Road. Then the Central Platte Valley Corridor Extension, 1.8 miles (2.9 km) long, with 4 stations, was opened in 2002, extending from the Central Corridor northward to Denver Union Station. (See system map, below.) [Transit Denver website, 2004/10/29] And the Denver-area public have flocked aboard the trains by the thousands. According to the American Public Transportation Association, the most recently reported average weekday ridership for Denver’s LRT services is 34,300 rider-trips per day — about 34% higher than originally forecast. [Transit Denver website, 2004/10/29; APTA Transit Ridership Report, Fourth Quarter 2003] T-REX expansion project Positive results like those described above have encouraged planners with the transit agency — the Regional Transportation District (RTD) — to embark on a vigorous expansion with the T-REX (Transportation Expansion) Project, a $1.67 billion combined freeway and LRT project along the metro area’s southeast corridor, served by Interstates 25 and 225. T-REX is a five-year project to add 19 miles of LRT and improve 17 miles of highway through southeast Denver and its suburban communities of Aurora, Greenwood Village, Centennial, and Lone Tree. (See map, below.) T-REX is adding 19 miles of double-tracked LRT line connecting to the existing system at Broadway in Denver and extending along the west side of I-25 to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and in the median of I-225 from I-25 to Parker Road in Aurora. The project will construct 13 stations with park-and-ride facilities at 12 of the stations. It will also add 34 more light rail vehicles to RTD’s fleet. In addition, a new light rail maintenance facility will be constructed in the suburb of Englewood. LRT service along the Southeast Corridor is expected to begin in late 2006. FasTracks — Mega-expansion plan Similarly, LRT’s successes have helped drive yet another major rail transit expansion effort — a critical ballot initiative coming before voters on November 2nd. The FasTracks plan (see map, below) is the Regional Transportation District’s $4.7 billion initiative to build at least six new rail lines (both LRT and regional rail) in the Denver area over the next 12 years. Described by the Denver Post as “one of the most ambitious public transportation expansion programs ever undertaken in the country” (16 October 2004), FasTracks would provide: • 119 miles of new light rail and commuter rail • 18 miles of “bus rapid transit” (Quality Bus) service • 21,000 new parking spaces at rail and bus stations • Expanded bus service in all areas. To pay for the transit plan, FasTracks voters are being asked to approve an increase in RTD’s sales tax to a full 1 percent from the current 0.6 percent. The tax hike would amount to an extra 4 cents on each $10 purchase. [Denver Post, 16 October 2004] Clustering development, reducing travel needs Apparently FasTracks, with its massive expansion of transit, would produce a larger-than-expected reduction in motor vehicle miles traveled, because it would promote the clustering of metro Denver residential development into dozens of “village centers” throughout the area, according to official planning projections. [Denver Post, 16 October 2004] FasTracks backers are citing statistics from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) which project the growth of at least 31 small urban centers, each within one-half mile of a FasTracks rail station. The refocusing of regional growth into these centers, promoted by the FasTracks plan, is expected to lead to 2.5 million fewer vehicle-miles traveled in the Denver area by 2025. That’s five times the motor vehicle travel savings previously predicted in a separate DRCOG review of the FasTracks plan earlier this year. The DRCOG review looked more narrowly at the reduction in motor vehicle trips that would accompany construction of new FasTracks rail lines. [Denver Post, 16 October 2004] Pro-FasTracks organizations analyzed the DRCOG data by looking more broadly at the impact of clustered urban centers around rail stops in reducing vehicle-miles travelled. As many as 51 of the 57 rail stations that would be constructed as part of FasTracks have the potential for mixed- use transit-oriented development, according to the analysis. “These stations become urban centers where people do not have to drive” said Rich McClintock, program director of Livable Communities, one of the pro-FasTracks groups. [Denver Post, 16 October 2004] Relief for corridor mobility congestion Rail opponents routinely compare the ridership on rail lines to some mammoth total travel measure — countywide trips, multi-county trips, regional trips — in order to “demonstrate” a minuscule percentage for the rail service. (Similarly, the entire transit system ridership is often subjected to this pointless comparison.) By this same methodology, any major new freeway, bridge, tunnel, or other highway facility could be branded as a waste of its investment because the number of motor vehicle trips carried is actually a tiny percentage of the areawide total. What really matters, of course, is the rail line’s impact on traffic in the corridor — the “market” or catchment area where it actually runs. And, on this basis, Denver’s LRT system has exhibited spectacular performance, attracting significant proportions of trips within the corridors served, and significantly alleviating mobility congestion. Currently, within the southwest light rail line corridor, 19% of all peakhour trips use transit. A study by Light Rail Progress, reported in an article on LRN, indicated that, in this same corridor, LRT was attracting on average approximately 30% of passenger travel in the highest peak hour and in the peak direction. [FasTracks Yes! website, 2004/10/19; Light Rail Now!] When construction of the T-REX southeast rail line is finished in 2006, 38,000 rider-trips per day are projected to be made on transit in that corridor. By 2025, with FasTracks, 22% of peakhour trips in the nine FasTracks corridors are expected to be made on transit — amounting to a significant number of vehicles taken off the crowded street and highway system … vehicles which won’t be competing for increasingly scarce parking. Moreover, RTD uses very conservative ridership projections. The three existing light rail lines are carrying 40% more passenger-trips than were originally estimated. [FasTracks Yes! website, 2004/10/19] |
Austin: Light “Commuter” Railway Proposal Offers Mobility Relief for Congested Northwest CorridorLight Rail Now! Website 2004/10/30 Austin, Texas is yet another city where a critical ballot initiative for rail transit is coming before voters on November 2nd in this case, the one new-start project among the major rail ballot initiatives this electoral season. Capital Metro, the regional transit authority, has placed on the ballot a referendum for a regional “commuter” rail plan, part of a more comprehensive plan (called “All Systems Go”) which also includes expanded bus service. Although Capital Metro, with a 1% dedicated sales tax, has long had sufficient financial resources to finance rail transit, a specially passed Texas law mandates that the agency must bring any rail plan before voters (and any such election can be held only in a presidential election year). “Foot in the door” approach An earlier initiative for a citywide light rail transit line was defeated by a very narrow margin four years ago. So Capital Metro planners decided to “slim down” the initial rail line proposal taking a sort of “foot in the door” approach. At stake today is a plan for a 32-mile (51.5-km) “commuter rail” line using Capital Metro’s existing freight railway (the use of which is also contracted to a shortline freight operator) from the suburb of Leander on the northwest, along a somewhat hook-shaped route through East Austin, then westward to terminate at the Austin Convention Center downtown. There would be nine station stops, eight of them within the Austin city limits and five of them in what is generally considered central Austin. (See map, below.) The full end-to-end run, according to Capital Metro planners, would take just under an hour. Capital Metro projects that initial ridership on the line (tentatively targeted for opening in 2007) would be about 1,700 boardings per weekday. The longer-range forecast predicts about 16,700 weekday boardings in 2025. [Austin American-Statesman, 17 October 2004] Diesel railcars eyed The trains, rather than being powered by electricity from overhead lines, most likely would be self-propelled diesel-electric “hybrid” rolling stock — often termed DMUs (diesel multiple units) or DEMUs (diesel-electric multiple units). Relatively light (non-FRA-compliant) railcars, such as those currently used on the southern New Jersey RiverLine and Ottawa’s O-Train, are of particular interest to Capital Metro planners. When the line would open, possibly as early as 2007, trains would run north and south during both rush hours at perhaps 30-minute intervals, with one midday run in each direction. To provide connective service, the transit agency plans to have high-frequency “circulator” buses serving the downtown stop and connecting passengers with at least three other areas. [Austin American-Statesman, 31 August 2004] Modelled after the similar rail operations, mentioned above, in southern New Jersey and Ottawa, Canada, the Capital Metro plan seems to be evolving in design as another non-electrified light railway. Capital Metro has pegged the installation cost at approximately $60 million, although reportedly that cost does not include $30 million for rolling stock that would be bought on a lease-purchase basis and would be financed from the line’s annual operating budget. Low-cost investment The rail line would benefit from substantial ancillary or associated investment. For example, Capital Metro has already spent, or committed to spend, more than $40 million on track upgrades and park-and-ride lots by the track in Leander and near Lakeline Mall — investments primarily directed at improving freight railway operations and safety, and providing P&R facilities for existing bus services, but which obviously have spinoff benefits for the rail plan. While this starts to sound like a lot of money, “in transit terms, even a figure in the vicinity of $125 million is pocket change” comments transportation reporter Ben Wear of the Austin American-Statesman (31 August 2004). “Capital Metro’s ownership of the track, and its path from the high-growth northwestern suburbs through several key areas of potential development and then on to downtown, make it an almost irresistible way to give passenger rail a tryout.” Continuing support for light rail, streetcars At least within the central city, rail transit including light rail transit (LRT) continues to command some community support. Thus Capital Metro’s official “commuter rail” plan is not the only ostensibly workable and affordable urban rail transit concept attracting attention. Not part of the current plan (or ballot initiative), but definitely gaining momentum in the thinking of local community leaders, planners, and decisionmakers, a streetcar system has been proposed to provide connectivity within central Austin. A coalition of seven citizen activist groups has recommended installing two downtown streetcar lines to supplement and provide the essential core-area connections for Capital Metro’s regional “commuter” rail line station at the downtown convention center. [Rail Transit Online, August 2004] Under this proposal, Electric trolleys either modern vehicles, such as those in Portland and Tacoma, or heritage types like those in New Orleans, Memphis, or Tampa would initially run along Third Street and from Palmer Auditorium (on the south side of the Colorado River) to the University of Texas (UT) campus. Backers contend that the streetcar service would both function as a downtown circulator and stimulate desired development and redevelopment. While the business, civic, and environmental organizations promoting the streetcar scheme originally wanted it added to the rail plan being brought before voters in the November 2nd ballot measure, they’re backing the official rail plan in hopes that a “commuter” rail service, if approved by voters, would underscore the need for the streetcar interface, and fortify support within Capital Metro for the plan. “People like streetcars” noted Mark Yznaga, a board member of Liveable City, a local activist group, in an interview with the Austin American- Statesman (27 July 2004). “People will ride streetcars. We think it would really enhance the commuter rail project because it would give people a way to get around downtown.” Bolstering the case for a streetcar system is a new report commissioned by the Austin City Council. which concludes that such a rail system connecting the Austin Convention Center to the former Seaholm Power Plant (an historic building targeted for redevelopment) could increase property values by more than $268 million, or 16%, on a roughly 80-block area of the city’s downtown an area whose assessed value, calculated at $840 million, constitutes about 1.4% of the county’s tax rolls. “Increased accessibility provided by proximity to a rail station will increase property values” the study emphasizes. [Austin American-Statesman, 2 September 2004] Meanwhile, rail transit supporters are focusing their energies on trying to pass the regional “commuter” rail plan. Although Capital Metro cannot advocate a position on the ballot initiative, the agency has been carrying out a vigorous public information campaign in various advertising media, including TV, newspapers, and directly mailed brochures. So far, opposition has appeared to be weak and sporadic. Spoofing the name of the “All Systems Go” plan, a small opposition group naming itself All Systems No has coalesced with familiar anti-rail activists in its leadership like former city councilman Max Nofziger and “veteran anti-rail activist” Jim Skaggs, according to UT’s Daily Texan (2004/10/13). The group pulls together highway advocates (“Road Warriors”), NIMBY activists, and monorail zealots in a loosely unified anti-rail coalition. Rail vs. tollway cost comparison Resurrecting their slogan from the 2000 anti-rail campaign, “Costs Too Much, Does Too Little”, opponents have attempted to cast the rail plan as a huge waste of money by focusing on the millions of dollars of cost and the initially small ridership. But scrutiny of the unit costs tell a different story. A comparative cost analysis of the rail line vs. the Sh130 tollway project a north-south toll road now under construction just east of the city shows that, per passenger-mile, the rail service would apparently be a bargain. In 2008 assumed as the first year of full rail operation with only about 1,700 daily passengers, the rail line cost would be $1.15 per passenger- mile (p-m) compared with the total cost (tollway plus vehicle operation, parking, etc.) of $1.36/p-m for travel on the Sh130 tollway. But by 2027, with rail ridership reaching nearly 17,000 per day, even with a projected increase in traffic on the tollway, the rail system is an even bigger bargain: $0.38/p-m for rail vs. $0.86/p-m for tollway travel. Thus, rail would appear to be 126% more cost-effective than a similar roadway facility (although the two projects are in different corridors and therefore not actually competitive). [Calculations by LRN based on data provided by Capital Metro] Rail’s impact: 26% of commuter travel? Following another very familiar path of attack, opponents have attempted to demean projected rail ridership figures by comparing the corridor ridership forecasts with a much larger (and irrelevant) pool of travel. For example, in the Austin American-Statesman of 5 October 2004, conservative commentator Ashley Sanchez presented a diatribe against Capital Metro’s rail transit plan. (Ironically, Sanchez is a resident of Cedar Park, a suburb located on Capital Metro’s railway but which opted out of the service area several years ago thus she cannot vote on the issue.) An analysis of Sanchez’s argument may be useful to other transit advocates and agencies encountering similar criticisms. “By Capital Metro estimates, about 1,500 to 2,500 people would ride rail initially” Sanchez writes. “That’s less than 1 percent of Travis County commuters riding a rail line that would cost $60 million in initial capital expenditures and $5 million per year to operate.” Repeatedly, rail opponents resort to this tactic of attempting to evaluate a relatively tiny rail project in a single corridor against the traffic or demographics of an entire region, metro area, or, in this case, county. This is approximately equivalent, for example, to declaring that Austin’s water-supply system is inadequate and a waste of money because it’s a minuscule percentage of the water consumption of the state of Texas. Likewise, any big highway project costing many tens of millions of dollars could probably be shown to carry a volume of commuters amounting only to a tiny fraction of the total in the county or region, and thus be branded a similar waste of money although, curiously, transit critics never attempt to apply their methodology to the private motor vehicle system. Instead, as with any major transportation project, rail transit lines should be evaluated by their impact on the corridor they serve. To assess this for the Capital Metro project, an analysis by Public Transport Progress contrasted the projected rail transit ridership for 2027 (17,000 per day) against an estimate of the total jobs projected in the corridor for that year. The analysis assumed that approximately half the rail transit ridership, or 8,500, was equivalent to the number of actual individual passengers, and that 70% of these would be work commuters, or about 6,000. For the corridor, the analysis assumed a 2-mile-wide corridor for the outer 11 miles, a one-mile-wide corridor for the middle 11 miles, and a half-mile-wide corridor for the final, inner 10 miles amounting to a corridor of about 38 sq. mi., or about 1.8% of the total area of the two counties. The analysis then applied this percentage to total employment in 2027 for Travis and Williamson Counties to obtain a rough estimate of the population in the rail corridor about 23,000 jobs (i.e., commuters). [Public Transport Progress,16 October 2004] The bottom line: The Capital Metro rail line by this analysis would carry work commuters equivalent to about one-fourth (actually, 26%) of the total future workforce in the corridor certainly, a far more significant proportion of travel impacted by the transit service than the minuscule percentage produced by a virtually meaningless comparison with the entire county or region. Anti-rail “safety” hysteria Another major anti-rail tactic is to exploit and manipulate the public’s fears over safety. In a campaign apparently aimed at provoking hysteria and fear of all types of rail services, the All Systems No coalition have apparently searched the world’s Internet files and filled page after page of their website with garish, spine-tingling photos of railway accidents from everywhere freight accidents, passenger accidents, heavy rail, light rail … the more calamitous, the better evidently in an effort to fabricate the impression of a “threat” to safety by rail transit, by far and away one of the safest of all transportation modes. The website publishes tables of statistics on “Vehicle-Train Collisions in Texas” yet fails to note that, in virtually every case, it’s motor vehicle drivers who are at fault, jettisoning all concern for safety by remaining oblivious to possible train operations, circumventing and even crashing through safety gates, ignoring warning lights and alarms, and otherwise flouting safety laws. Interestingly, the All Systems No crew (after all, an amalgam of pro- highway Road Warriors with an assortment of monorail advocates and other “Anything But Rail” activists) say not a word about the real transportation safety problem the staggering number of motor-vehicle accidents, which the rail transit service would help alleviate, even if just to a small extent. In 2003, 52 people died in motor vehicle wrecks in the Austin area … and Austin seems on course to exceed that. As of 20 July, 37 people had already died in Austin car wrecks in this year a 42% increase from the same date the previous year. [Austin American-Statesman, 20 July 2004] A focus on reality is usually an effective antidote to this particularly deceptive effort at manipulating public fears through appeals to hysteria. Our section Reality Check: The REAL Transportation Safety Problem provides continually updated sampling of news items, chronicling highway tragedy after tragedy — should set the record straight as to where the real safety problem in transportation actually lies. Rail plan makes sense to public Fortunately, the criticisms of opponents, and challenging rail planners’ ridership forecasts, so far have not seemed to gain much tread with public sentiments in sharp contrast to the ill-fated 2000 light rail transit plan which was narrowly defeated by voters after opponents waged a ferocious campaign against it. At least two major reasons may account for the ostensible popularity of the current plan. First, it seems to make a lot of sense to many Austinites and regional residents to make effective people-moving use of Capital Metro’s railway line, clearly a valuable asset. Second, a leading champion of the “commuter rail” idea has been local State Representative Mike Krusee, a powerful Republican leader mainly representing the suburban and rural residents in Williamson County, just to the north of central Austin. Krusee’s influence has helped pull more conservative and business-oriented support much of which rallied against the 2000 plan toward support of the current proposal. |
Phoenix: LRT Project Under Way; Expansion SoughtLight Rail Now! Website October 30, 2004 Since 2000, when voters approved a critical transportation funding measure, the Phoenix area has had a major light rail transit (LRT) project under way. The initial 20.3-mile (32.7-km) line is planned to extend from north central Phoenix, down Central Avenue through downtown Phoenix, along Washington St., across the Salt River, through the close-in suburban city of Tempe, and into a southeastern terminus in downtown Mesa, another suburb. (See map, below.) Under the current schedule, it’s expected to open in 2008. [East Valley Tribune, 30 October 2004; Map: Valley Metro] Starter line: 27,000 trips a day expected The line is routed almost entirely in existing major arterial streets and roads (except for a section on viaduct, and a short stretch on an abandoned railroad branch line past the campus of Arizona State University). Estimated to cost approximately US $1.3 billion, or abount $65 million per mile ($40 million/km), the LRT starter system is expected to be completed and opened for operation in December 2008. Valley Metro, the public agency in charge of the project, forecasts that ridership will reach about 27,000 rider-trips per day. Those are trips that will be made out of the congested traffic stream and which won’t compete for scarce parking. With stops at stations and some traffic signals, the line is projected to have an average travel speed of 22 mph (35.5 kph). “We predict that rail travel will be competitive with automobile travel times during peak periods today” emphasizes Valley Metro. While the LRT starter line will have an initial capacity of up to 7,200 passengers per hour, it’s expected to attract up to about 3,500 peak-period passengers per hour during in its early, “sprouting” phase. [Valley Metro website, 2004/10/17] Major expansion facing voters As the project has gained momentum, other Phoenix-area neighborhoods and surrounding communities such as Glendale have expressed interest in getting connected into the LRT system. Responding to this enthusiasm, officials have included LRT expansion in Proposition 400, a transportation-funding ballot initiative coming before voters on Nov. 2nd. Prop. 400 would extend the current half-cent sales tax in order to fund the expansion of LRT and the overall transit system, as well as to expand the area’s roadway system. In fact, of the total $15.8 billion plan up for approval, 57% is dedicated to building new freeways and expanding existing roadways. Less than 15% would go to LRT expansion — yet that has been the major focus of pro-highways transit opponents. All told, Proposition 400 would fund a massive expansion of LRT in the Phoenix area: 27 miles (43.5 km) of light rail, mostly in Phoenix (see map, below). Six extensions are included: • 2 miles (3.2 km) south along Rural Road in Tempe, from the main line on Apache Boulevard • 2.7 miles (4.4 km) on Main Street in Mesa from the former Tri-City Mall to downtown • 12 miles (19.4 km) from central Phoenix to Paradise Valley Mall along state Route 51 • 5 miles (8.1 km) from 19th Avenue in Phoenix to downtown Glendale • 5 miles (8.1 km) from 19th Avenue in Phoenix to Metro Center mall • 11 miles (17.7 km) along I-10 in the West Valley to 79th Avenue Prop. 400 would also fund additional park & ride facilities at new stations on the expanded LRT system. [East Valley Tribune, 30 October 2004] While polls initially suggested strong public support for the project and the ballot measure, critics have seized on a $100-million increase in the earlier cost estimate, and a projected prolongation of the project by two years, to strengthen a concerted anti-transit crusade with its familiar barrage of misinformation. However, the additional costs and the time extension are mainly the result of design changes responding to community concerns with aesthetic modifications. Reducing congested roadways 38-48% Much of the opposition has centered on the now-familiar red herring of rail critics that the LRT system will have no impact on regional congestion. However, Valley Metro, in project documents filed with the federal government, calculates that the LRT system will reduce traffic congestion significantly — in fact, LRT is projected to reduce the number of congested roadways during the morning peak hours by 38 percent, and by 48 percent in the afternoon peak periods. Valley Metro’s computer modeling also predicts significant annual travel time savings of up to 585 hours per year “for many Valley residents living near the planned light rail route — as well as those living as many as 15 miles away.” [Valley Metro website, 2004/10/17] And Valley Metro and Phoenix-area community planners have identified even more new corridors for possible future light rail extensions, including routes in the suburbs of Tempe and Scottsdale. “With our population expected to double to nearly 6 million people in twenty years, Proposition 400 is the balanced and integrated transportation solution we need to keep moving in the right direction” emphasizes the Yes on 400 campaign. |
Measure AA’s BART bonds: no way to run a railroadThe Argus (Fremont, CA) October 30, 2004 IN 2001, despite an already obvious economic downturn, BART approved an outrageous four-year labor agreement which the Tribune, a sister paper to the Argus, characterized accurately as “a quadrennial dance,” with BART once again “caving to labor’s demands.” Now, BART seeks anew to persuade voters that property owners only — whether BART riders or not — in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties [only] should fund seismic retrofits. Oh, there’s talk of collecting $50 million more from BART passengers for the next 35 years; but that’s just a 2.4 percent caboose on a runaway train, which BART wants taxpayers to rescue with $2.1 billion in Measure AA principal and interest costs. Voters should say NO to: Robber barons: For 2005, BART’s 3,015 operational employees will average $102,799 in salary and benefit costs, up from $80,106 in 2002. That’s before new contract negotiations begin again next spring. Meanwhile, seismic retrofit funding has dropped from $26 million to $2 million annually. BART’s spendthrift bureaucrats have engineered a fiscal train wreck, and they want property owners to pay for it. Scenic tour sidetracks: BART has convinced vote-buying politicians, the big-business interests which endow some “taxpayer” groups, and some media outlets that 2004’s Measure AA is superior to its failed 2002 counterpart. But the measures are nearly identical — virtually the same projects and payback cost for taxpayers, same spendthrift behavior by BART, same unreasonable reliance upon folks who may never board a BART train or may not even have BART service available nearby [folks whose sales taxes and property taxes nevertheless continue to fund more than 40 percent of BART’s daily operations]. The biggest difference? BART is now getting $143 Million in seismic retrofit money from Regional Measure 2 [RM2], last spring’s falsely advertised $1 bridge-toll increase that promised “congestion relief,” but allocates only 11 percent of billions of dollars in new tolls to roads, highways and bridges — which carry 84 percent of Bay Area passenger trips. Hurtling round the bend and off the rails, the Measure AA locomotive shrilly blares, “an independent oversight committee will protect taxpayers’ investment.” In fact, the crony committee eventually selected would only validate a scheme we opponents identify here and now as invalid. Railroad of voters: Spending at least $317,000 in public funds, BART began targeting selected households last July with extortionate, false-dilemma promotions: pay new taxes to cover $980 million in [overpriced] seismic projects plus $1.2 billion more in interest, or face economic disaster, gridlock, and death! And just in time for election day, a BART-funded “study reveals the paralyzing horror of traffic if BART fails” [Tribune, Oct. 15]. BART’s own engineers reported in 1995 that during 1989’s Loma Prieta quake, “All BART facilities performed well,” having been constructed “to a higher level of seismic resistance than prevalent practice.” Transbay Tube passengers “didn’t even sense there had been a major earthquake.” In 30 years, earthquakes haven’t caused significant BART interruptions. Strikes by BART’s richly compensated employees have — six days in 1997, three months in 1979. But presuming BART’s most recent seismic studies to be reliable, who should fund seismic upgrades? Should it be property owners, whose taxes and bridge tolls built BART in the first place, and whose sales and property taxes still subsidize at least 41.6 percent of ticket costs, whether or not they ever ride BART? Instead, shouldn’t BART passengers themselves contribute small fare surcharges — 19 cents in 2005, perhaps 35 cents [inflation and ridership adjusted] in 2015? Some BART officials allege that fares can’t be bonded. But they’re happily accepting RM2’s bridge-toll increases as collateral for new bond issues. Get BART back on track: BART’s irresponsible contracts and continuing dependence on sales taxes should not be rewarded with new property taxes. If BART is sincere about its advertised objectives — promoting seismic safety, maintaining economic vitality and avoiding gridlock — then seismic upgrades should be funded through responsible budgeting and small fare surcharges and [as the Tribune suggested in 2002] “federal paybacks of funds Californians have already sent to Washington.” Meanwhile, please join the coalition of self-funded, authentic taxpayer advocates who say NO on AA! |
Training makes a difference After a decade of ups, downs and changes of plan, Eurostar is finally on track with cheaper fares and faster journey timesTHE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON) October 30, 2004 Twenty years ago, I used to travel from London to Paris quite regularly. I took the boat train (flying was much too expensive then) or, if I was feeling rich, I could cut an hour off the travelling time and go by hovercraft. I can still remember the fares: pounds 39 return on the ferry or pounds 44.50 by hovercraft. What I have managed to erase from my memory are most of the details of the grim, seven-hour journey. The opening of the Channel Tunnel and the launch of Eurostar, which marks its 10th birthday on November 14, put an end to all that. Eurostar’s cheapest fares are now pounds 59 — far less in real terms than I was having to pay in 1984, although the journey is nearly three times faster. Over the past decade, the appeal of being able to travel from the centre of London to the centre of Paris or Brussels without the hassle and cost of trekking out to the airport has been enough to give Eurostar more than 60 per cent of all passengers travelling by rail or air to the French and Belgian capitals. It has effectively killed off much of the competition from the London airports. In recent years, Ryanair has scrapped flights from Stansted to Beauvais (for Paris) and, after a court battle over subsidies, cut its service from Stansted to Brussels. British Airways is due to end flights between Gatwick and Paris tomorrow . The big breakthrough for Eurostar came in September last year when the first section of dedicated high-speed track on the British side of the tunnel opened, cutting 25 minutes off the fastest journey times to Paris (now down to two hours 35 minutes). The future is looking even brighter: in 2007 the full-length high-speed link from St Pancras to Folkestone will be completed. Within three minutes of leaving the station trains will reach their full cruising speed of 186 mph and the London-Paris journey will come down to two hours 15 minutes, with Brussels just under three hours away. There will also be new stations at Stratford (east London) and Dartford (Kent). It hasn’t been the smoothest of decades for the rail link, however. Initial plans for direct high-speed links from Manchester and even Glasgow to Paris proved over-optimistic and were dropped. Punctuality on lines that had to be shared with the Kent commuter trains was also a problem. The fall-off in tourism post 9/11 had a big negative impact, as did the rapid growth in routes offered by no-frills airlines as people started to look towards other European cities for their holidays. In 2000 Eurostar had carried a record 7.1 million passengers; by 2003, after two difficult years, numbers were down by nearly a million. This year, however, faster journey times, better punctuality and more confident customers (many of whom now see Paris as a day trip for lunch or shopping as much as a destination for a weekend) have helped turned the tide, and it looks as though Eurostar may break its 7.1 million record by the end of December. But it has also had to cut fares sharply to win back customers. The cheapest fare in 1994 was pounds 99 return. In March 2003 it was pounds 59, a rate that is now available all year round. Eurostar may have seen off much of the direct competition from the airlines, but the good news for passengers is that it has not been able to hold out against the downward pressure they have put on the cost of travel generally. How to find the cheapest fares The chief difficulty in finding a good Eurostar fare is the sheer complexity of the company’s pricing structure. Call up the fares page on eurostar.co.uk and you will find 16 different adult returns from London to Paris or Brussels in second class alone. They range from pounds 59 to pounds 289. Add in the various concessions and first-class options and the total number of fares on offer stretches to 39. What you pay depends normally on how far in advance you book and how flexible you want your ticket to be. The cheapest tickets, for example, can’t be changed or refunded. So how do you make sure you get the best value? The key thing is to book early. Although there are plenty of pounds 59 seats (Eurostar says it offers 1.5 million a year and they are available on 70 per cent of trains every day), the lowest fares are sold until three weeks before departure. On popular services (especially Fridays and Sundays) they sell out quickly — booking opens three months before departure, and serious bargain-hunters book on the day they open, so you may need to be quick off the mark. Even at this time of year, you can’t cut things fine. I made a spot-check last week for a peak-time train, departing at 5.09pm on a Friday (returning around 5pm Sunday), booked only 23 days in advance. I was quoted pounds 134 per person for a return in standard class or pounds 299 in first. Checking successive weekends, I would have had to book for January 7-9 to get even a pounds 69 fare, and even then I would have to depart at 19.43 and return at 19.19. To find the pounds 59 fare at all in November, for example, I had to go for a midweek departure and return. Where now and where next? Apart from trains to Calais, Lille, Brussels and Paris, the only other non-stop services Eurostar offers out of the UK are the daily services to Disneyland Paris (from pounds 59); the weekly summer train to Avignon (six hours, fares from pounds 109), which runs from July to September; and the weekly overnight ski service to Moutiers and Bourg St Maurice (eight hours, fares from pounds 179), which starts on December 19. A direct service might one day be offered between London and Amsterdam. High-speed track will be up and running by 2007 and it would take three and a half hours. But it would be expensive for Eurostar to adapt the trains, and it is more likely that you will continue to have to change trains at Brussels. Overall, the problem is timing. High-speed rail competes well against air travel for journeys of three to four hours. Apart from Cologne (which is not hugely popular with tourists) and possibly Bordeaux, there is nowhere else on the Continent that looks a likely prospect. Those who really enjoy rail travel will always be able to change at Lille or Paris or Brussels. In 2007, however, the St Pancras terminal opens, and Eurostar is making much of how this will increase the appeal of its service to travellers from outside London who want to reach Paris or Brussels. Allowing for the connection at St Pancras (a three-minute walk from King’s Cross), Eurostar predicts that you will be able to reach Paris in three hours 42 minutes from Peterborough, three hours, 44 minutes from Ipswich, four hours three minutes from Leicester and four hours 44 minutes from York. Return fares for these trips will start below pounds 90. No decision has been made on whether services will continue out of Waterloo after St Pancras opens. |
Track worksNewsday (New York) October 31, 2004 SUBWAYS: The Tracks That Built New York City, by Lorraine B. Diehl. Clarkson Potter, 128 pp., $18. 722 MILES: The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York, by Clifton Hood. Johns Hopkins University Press, 335 pp., $18.95 paper. THE SUBWAY PICTURES, by Peter Peter. Random House, 143 pp., $24.95. On Oct. 27, 1904, a brisk autumn day in New York City, Mayor George B. McClellan led an entourage of dignitaries into a subway car at the old City Hall station, turned the motorman’s handle and eased a train along a track stretched deep beneath Gotham’s roar. Now, 100 years after that historic event, New Yorkers are celebrating their beloved, bemoaned and increasingly expensive institution, and a handful of books on the subway have been released to mark the anniversary. Lorraine B. Diehl’s “Subways: The Tracks That Built New York City” is a glossy coffee-table book written by a native New Yorker specializing in city nostalgia. (Her last book was about the Automat.) Laden with rare pictures and illustrations, including amusing sketches of the air-pushed train under Broadway that predated the subways by a quarter century, “Subways” recounts transit system lore with informative, entertaining writing. One of Diehl’s best passages details that first trip 100 years ago. McClellan, cocky at the helm, refused to give up the controls despite engineers’ entreaties and raced the IRT up to Harlem at speeds that made his passengers quiver. There are also sections about the subway’s role in movies, old stations since taken out of service, and what Diehl calls New York’s “love-hate” relationship with the Third Avenue El. Still, for all the old-time fun, “Subways” retreats into a torpor of sentimentality all too common in books about New York City. As the jacket copy makes clear, Diehl’s book is for New Yorkers — past or present — who “remember when” and aren’t interested in the subway as much more than a novelty. As such, there are plenty of pictures showing how subway cars evolved and tokens changed shape, but virtually no examination of the subway in the 1970s and ‘80s, when crime and track fires were major problems, or the mass transit system of today, when riders worry about both rising fares and terrorism. (Oddly, Diehl doesn’t even mention how token booths are being phased out and replaced with MetroCard vending machines.) A more critical survey of New York’s transit system — which still provides enough photos to make it entertaining — comes in “722 Miles,” by Clifton Hood, a professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Hood provides a dense chronology, while also managing to tie in astute sociological observations about the city. Unfortunately, the “centennial edition” updates Hood’s 1993 book only with a new cover and a short preface and fails to address the most basic questions about recent issues within the transit system. Despite a consensus that the MTA has successfully pulled the transit system from its darkest days of the ‘70s and ‘80s, Hood still ends his book in the most pessimistic tone: “Its glory days all but forgotten, the subway belongs to New York’s past rather than its future.” Thankfully, photographer Peter Peter has taken the subways recently and shares what he has witnessed in “The Subway Pictures.” A Czech native transplanted to New York shortly before the World Trade Center attacks, Peter writes in an author’s note that he took the subway every day for about a year in 2001 and 2002. Some might object to his photographic methods — he kept his camera hidden in a bag — but those who pick up his book will find it hard to look away from the resulting portfolio of 77 pictures. Many were taken on elevated tracks, leaving an ethereal glow over their subjects. Peter strives for juxtaposition: His passengers unwittingly sit under advertisements or “scratchiti” or are perched next to the photographer’s own reflection. There is a homeless man snapped as the train passes the Coney Island Ferris wheel and a destitute person sleeping under two well-dressed men sitting on a bench. In another picture, a forlorn-looking 20-something stares blankly beneath an advertisement that reads “Achieve Your Dream.” Peter’s most powerful images are of those passengers reading the newspaper shortly after Sept. 11. One shot, taken through the open doors of a train idling at a station, shows a faceless man reading an ominous headline in The New York Post. He sits across from a woman wearing a weary frown and a head scarf. Between them, stuck on the car’s wall, is an MTA advisory on how to properly evacuate a train in case of emergency. Peter’s tense images will resonate with those who ride the subway today, as the MTA, cautious about terrorism, instructs subway conductors to get on the loudspeaker every 15 minutes and remind passengers to report suspicious packages. Those who pick up “Subway Pictures” won’t learn about how the IRT was built or see photos of old Miss Subways. But they will gain a distinct appreciation of what it means to be a straphanger now. |
LRT AN ENGINEERING FEATEdmonton Sun (Alberta, Canada) October 31, 2004 Running twelve kilometres from Clareview to the University of Alberta, the Light Rail Transit hauled 46.5 million passengers last year. Edmonton’s LRT is 26 years old — and still growing. By the time it expands another eight kilometres south of the university — sometime around 2010 — the total price tag for the 20-km-long rail system will approach one billion dollars. Whether the much-maligned LRT is good bang for the buck is not at issue here — just the glory of its construction. The LRT is one of the great engineering feats in the history of Edmonton. Why? Several firsts are connected to its construction. When it opened, it was the most modern rapid transit system on the continent and triggered a North American LRT revolution. More than a dozen cities now use LRTs. “It was the first modern LRT in North America. People came to visit us (from other cities) before they built their systems to learn from us,” said Brad Griffith, project co-ordinator at Edmonton Transit. Edmonton was also the first city in North America with a population under one million to dig a subway. “We’ve done some firsts,” agreed Griffith. “And some of our tunnelling was done through very difficult ground.” Griffith, a civil engineer, started with Edmonton Transit in 1979 working on the Clareview LRT extension. And he’s worked on every extension since, including the current expansion. Decades ago original LRT proposals ran lines north to Northgate, west to Jasper Place, south to Southgate and Bonnie Doon — even northwest to St. Albert. Light rail was seen as a means of relieving traffic congestion and reducing air pollution in the rapidly expanding city. And when Edmonton became flush with cash in those heady oil boom-time days, the sky was the limit. Until the bubble broke and plans for the LRT were scaled down. “After the crunch in the 1980s, they didn’t build as much. One of the things with Edmonton is they they decided to go underground downtown, which is about five times more expensive. If you look at Calgary, they have a lot larger system. They were able to use the money they saved by not going underground,” said Griffith. “But it makes more sense for us to be underground and I think eventually Calgary will be underground downtown, too.” LRT construction broke ground at 95 Street and 106 Avenue in the spring of 1974. The first segment ran seven kilometres from Belvedere to Central Station, with 1.6 km underground. The Coliseum, Stadium and Churchill stations were also built. Mayor Terry Cavanagh drove the first train out on April 22, 1978. The LRT opened just in time for the Commonwealth Games and provided a link from downtown to the new stadium. Three years later came the second leg, pushing the rail 2.2 km above ground north to Clareview at a cost of roughly $10 million. In 1983, Bay and Corona stations were added in a $90- million 1-km underground extension. A $70-million 800 metre underground expansion to Grandin was added in 1989. The 1.6-km expansion across the river to the university was completed in the summer of 1992. It included a bridge and a station dug 23 metres under the campus and cost $80 million. Originally, plans called for running the LRT across the upper deck of the High Level Bridge. But CPR owned the bridge back then and couldn’t agree with the city on a price. “Also, we did look at what it would cost to refurbish the High Level Bridge and I think at that time it was more than $13 million. We built our own bridge for $14 million.” The Dudley B. Menzies Bridge was the first in Western Canada to use precast concrete segments and when built was the longest span of its type in North America and won an award from the American Concrete Industry. Tunnelling beneath the university involved another North American first: the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM), which allowed precise reaction to changing soil conditions. “It was used in Europe. Zdenek Eisenstein, the professor at the university, was our technical adviser and later became president of the International Tunneling Association. “He was involved in the Chunnel and all kinds of stuff. He put us on to NATM. What it more or less is, it would drive in “spiling” — which is like piles, only horizontally in front — and you would make an umbrella over top so you could excavate the dirt underneath safely,” said Griffith. This helped crews tunnel safely through dangerous sand. Today Edmonton’s LRT system boasts 10 stations, four above the ground and six under. Travel time from one end to another is about 20 minutes. Travel time will, of course, increase once new southern stations are added. Construction on the $600-million 8.2-km extension from the university commenced last year at 114 Street and 87 Avenue. A large hole was first excavated to allow access for the huge tunnel boring machine — a whopping 6.2 metres in diameter. The machine dug the first tunnel, was removed through a shaft, and brought back to the starting point for the second tunnel, which was completed in March of this year. The Health Sciences Station should open in January 2006. “We’ve divided the project into four sections. Section 1A goes from university to health sciences. Section 1B goes from health sciences to the south campus. Then south campus to Southgate. And section three is Southgate to Heritage (at 2323 111 St.). In theory we should be there by 2010, but it all depends on how much money we receive. With our extension coming to the surface, we’ll be able to do a lot more,” said Griffith. Above ground costs $17,000 a metre to construct the LRT versus $68,000 a metre below ground. The 640-metre section will cost $100 million to bring it underground to street level. By comparison, the next leg — a 2.2-km stretch at street level to the Neil Crawford Centre — will cost $136 million. What are the plans after Heritage Mall is reached? “The transportation planners are doing a high-speed transit study of the whole city. They’re looking at links to the west, north and the rest of the city. And that could be LRT or high-speed bus,” said Griffith. |
Birmingham — Streetcar ProposalRail Transit Online November 2004 Jefferson County Commission President Larry Langford has revived a plan for a downtown electric streetcar system to help revitalize the central city. Congress has already set aside $87 million for rapid transit in Birmingham but it has remained unused because local officials could not agree on a project. Under terms of the grant, the metropolitan area would only have to contribute 20 percent of the capital cost. Lawmakers appeared enthusiastic for Landford’s plan. “I think it’s a great idea,” Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins told The Birmingham News. “I see this as a way to get people to come down to shop in an atmosphere that is better than a mall.” Langford planned to hold a meeting with Birmingham Mayor Bernard Kincaid to suggest a partnership between the county and city. Langford claimed some of the tracks from the system scrapped years ago could be used again. “We can start downtown and work our way out,” the commissioner told The Birmingham News. “These tracks run to Graymont, Irondale, East Thomas and East Lake. We have about 300 mi. (482.8 km) of track, and 90 percent of it is still there, with asphalt over it.” Langford said deteriorated track would have to be replaced, modern streetcars purchased and a traction power system installed. Two years ago, a $585-million mass transit proposal that would include a downtown streetcar system and a five-corridor network of HOV lanes was accepted by a subcommittee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (see RTOL, Sept. 2002). The plan was developed as part of a $2.5-million study by transportation consultant STV Inc. The streetcar portion was estimated to cost $100 million, not including an extension from Southside to Homewood, possibly via a one-mi. (1.6 km), $88-million tunnel through Red Mountain. |
DART to Victory Station for big shows, big timesDallas Area Rapid Transit News Release November 1, 2004 The home of the Mavericks, Stars, the Greatest Show on Earth, and musical events for every taste — American Airlines Center — becomes home to Victory Station, the newest stop on DART’s popular light rail system, on November 13. DART celebrates the opening with Super Saturday and Super Sunday customer celebrations from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on November 13 and 14. Enjoy live music, DART Safety presentations, and children’s entertainment. Ride DART Rail from West End Station. Taking in the Texas Stampede on Saturday or Sunday? Take DART Rail. Special trains will operate before, during and after the rodeo and concerts at American Airlines Center. Ride to Victory in 2 easy steps! 1. Go to any DART Rail Station and buy a Day Pass (good for round-trip service) from a Ticket Vending Machine. 2. Take any Red Line or Blue Line train to West End Station, and transfer to any train displaying the word “DART” in its overhead destination signs. Even better, if you’re already on a train with “DART” in its destination signs keep your seat. Your next stop is Victory Station at American Airlines Center! When you’re ready to head home, just use your Day Pass to board these trains: • North Dallas, Richardson or Plano: Red Line to Parker Road • White Rock or Garland: Blue Line to Downtown Garland • West Oak Cliff: Red Line to Westmoreland • South Oak Cliff: Red Line to Westmoreland, transfer to Blue Line to Ledbetter at 8th & Corinth Station Trinity Railway Express (TRE) service from Fort Worth, the mid-cities, and Irving to Victory Station hasn’t changed. It’s still available Monday through Saturday for special events. Look for minor DART Rail changes November 15 DART Rail is making minor schedule changes that will improve schedule reliability. Departure times will vary by only 1-2 minutes in most cases, but all hours of operation on weekdays will be affected. Weekend service will remain unchanged. Details about changes to each trip are available in the new customer rail timetables onboard trains, at the DART Store (1401 Pacific Ave.), or at information kiosks along the rail line. DART Rail Expansion On Track DART currently serves 57,000 daily riders over its 44-mile, 34-station light rail system. The opening of Victory Station marks the start of a 49-mile DART Rail expansion to the southeast and northwest. Through 2018 DART Rail will link Pleasant Grove, South Dallas, Fair Park and Deep Ellum to the southeast with the Medical/Market Center, Love Field, northwest Dallas, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, Las Colinas, Irving and DFW Airport to the northwest. In addition, service will extend south from Ledbetter Station in South Oak Cliff to I-20 and northeast from Downtown Garland Station to Rowlett. To meet growing demand for DART Rail service, the agency will add 20 new light rail vehicles to its 95-car fleet in 2005. |
RIVER RAIL OPENSCentral Arkansas Transit Authority November 1, 2004 The wait is finally over. After years of planning and months of testing, Central Arkansas Transit Authority’s (CATA) River Rail Electric Streetcar system officially opened to the public today. Sneak Preview Last week, the cars operated from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m on just two days and more than 3200 people rode them. Cars had standing room only and many people at platforms were unable to board. Dedication Ceremonies At 10 a.m., CATA Board Chaiman Robert Major, North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Hays, Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines and Chamber of Commerce officials dedicated the streetcar system on the north side of the river. Because of rain the ceremony was moved indoors to the North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce adjacent to the Alltel Streetcar Stop located on Main Street between Broadway and Washington in front of the North Little Rock City Services building. The dignitaries then rode the streetcar across the Main Street Bridge to the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce (Markham and Scott) where they were greeted by Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey and Little Rock Chamber officials for a short dedication ceremony. “It’s been a long time coming,” said Keith Jones, CATA executive director and general manager. “We’re excited that the vision has become a reality. It’s taken a lot of work and coordination among North Little Rock, Little Rock and Pulaski County. However, with the leadership of Judge Villines and Mayors Hays and Dailey, we’ve completed Phase I of our system and look forward to extending the rails to the Clinton Presidential Library and the Heifer Project Headquarters starting next year.” The revival of streetcars to the streets of downtown Little Rock and North Little Rock will not only attract visitors and tourists, it will serve as a means of convenient access to attractions such as Alltel Arena and the River Market District. Grand Opening Activities On Friday, Nov. 5 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. the public is invited to the River Market pavilion for a free hotdog lunch, courtesy of First Security Bank’s Teal Grill crew. Coleman Dairy is donating ice cream bars for the lunch-time event. “We want everyone to take a free ride on the streetcar and come on down to the River Market for our Friday Funfest,” Jones said. “The Bob Boyd Band will be providing music, and we’ll be giving away lots of door prizes from businesses located along the River Rail route.” A Family Fun Day is planned from 2 to 4 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 6. Various entertainers, including magician Derek Rose and guitarist Jeff Hall, will be stationed at all 11 streetcar stops. “Children of all ages will enjoy riding the vintage streetcars so we hope parents will bring their kids downtown on Saturday for free rides and balloons and fun entertainment,” Jones said. For the first time in 57 years in Little Rock and 65 years in North Little Rock, electric streetcars will travel downtown city streets again. River Rail opens with three replica vintage trolleys from Gomaco Trolley Company operating on 2.5 miles of new track. An overhead catenary wire powers the cars, linking vibrant destinations in the River Cities. These include the 18,000 seat Alltel Arena, the 220,000 square foot Statehouse Convention Center, the River Market, numerous loft apartments, hotels, two city halls, the Argenta neighborhood, restaurants, Historic Arkansas Museum, Discovery Museum, the main Library, two Chambers of Commerce, courthouses, the Robinson Auditorium Concert Hall, Riverfront Amphitheater and dozens of office buildings. The project cost $19.6 million and was assisted by New Starts Federal funding, STP transfers, and funding from the High Priority Project section of TEA 21. The streetcar route uses the Main Street Bridge to connect the two cities. There are a total of eleven stops on Markham and Second Streets between Spring and Commerce in Little Rock, and Main Street, Seventh Street and Maple Street in North Little Rock. |
RTD sets ridership record in SeptemberRocky Mountain News November 1, 2004 Weekday transit ridership in metro Denver topped the 300,000 average mark for the first time in September, the Regional Transportation District said Friday. Bus and light-rail weekday passenger trips went up 4.3 percent over September 2003, to an average of 303,460. The total monthly trip count, including weekends, was 7.42 million, RTD said. That is a 5 percent increase over the monthly total a year earlier. Light-rail ridership rose 6 percent, to 968,077. |
Streetcars officially return to LR, NLR River Rail opens; growth in worksArkansas Democrat-Gazette November 2, 2004 Elected officials heralded Monday’s beginning of River Rail electric streetcar service as a glimpse of what’s to come for public transportation in central Arkansas. The $19.49 million project began full passenger service Monday with christening ceremonies in North Little Rock, then Little Rock as a heavy morning rain pushed festivities inside in both cities. Rides are free through Sunday, as they were for the approximately 3,200 who rode in trial passenger runs Thursday and Friday, according to Central Arkansas Transit Authority officials. The basic fare will be 50 cents per trip, or $2 for all day starting next Monday. Some discounts will be available. Service starts every day at 11 a.m. and ends at 10 p.m. Monday-Wednesday, midnight Thursday-Saturday and 5 p.m. on Sunday. The 2 1/2-mile route that crosses the Arkansas River between the cities is a hub for expansion that someday could take riders to the far reaches of Pulaski County, city and county leaders said. River Rail now loops through the two cities’ downtowns. “It is a line that’s going to be expanded,” Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey said, mentioning west Little Rock, Jacksonville and the Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field, as future possibilities. “We’ll see this move us into light rail in the future.” A $9.2 million second phase expansion is under way to reach the Clinton presidential library and the Heifer International center under construction in Little Rock. That extension is scheduled to be finished by the end of next year. “This is really just the beginning,” Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines said at North Little Rock’s ceremony. “What we’ve got now is the hub. There’s no telling what we can do with variations of this.” Central Arkansas is following other Southern cities with new or expanded streetcar service. Tampa, Fla., opened a streetcar line in late 2002 and Charlotte, N.C., did so this year. Memphis and New Orleans opened extensions of lines this year. The streetcar vision for Pulaski County came about as a result of the countywide River Project one-year sales tax voters approved in August 1995 to help build the Alltel Arena in North Little Rock and expand the Statehouse Convention Center in Little Rock. “We talked about how could we connect these things,” Villines recalled, adding in North Little Rock’s recent proposal for a riverfront baseball stadium. “We needed to find a way to move people, not cars. Out of that came the idea of the trolley system. And through the good partnership of the two cities, the county, federal and state, we did it without a tax increase,” he added. Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County paid about $1.25 million each to build the project’s first phase. Federal grants paid the remainder. Each will also pay about $142,000 in annual operating costs to run the streetcars, an agreement reached and approved by all three governments last year that spells out how to divide expansion, maintenance and operation costs. “It is in my recommended ‘05 budget,” Little Rock City Manager Bruce Moore said. Villines and North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Hays said the funding will be there from their governments as well. “Absolutely,” Hays said. “Our one-third will be there. There will be a little bit for this year as well” to cover the last two months of 2004. The streetcars are the first to run in Little Rock since Christmas Day 1947 and are back for the first time in North Little Rock since late 1938. Grand opening festivities will last through the week. A free lunch of hot dogs, soft drinks and ice cream will be provided from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. Friday in the River Market east pavilion in Little Rock. Entertainment is scheduled at all 11 trolley stops in the two cities from 2 p.m.-4 p.m. Saturday. |
Voters give thumbs up to transportation tax extensionArizona Republic November 2, 2004 Extension of the Valley’s half-cent transportation sales tax was cruising to easy victory at the polls late Tuesday, giving life to an ambitious freeway and mass transit plan whose popularity with voters was in question to the very end of an acrimonious campaign. Jubilant local mayors called Proposition 400’s strong showing a sign of positive public sentiment about mass transit and a good omen for future regional cooperation on other issues, like water conservation and air quality. “The fact that we were successful gives us all confidence that we can succeed elsewhere,” Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross said. Advertisement Voters agreed to extend Maricopa County’s half-cent sales tax for another 20 years, raising $8.5 billion toward the cost of a $15.8 billion regional transportation plan that includes freeways, expansion of the bus system, expansion of a local light rail system and improvements to major streets. The rest of the plan will be paid for by state and federal transportation funds. Crafted by Valley mayors through the Maricopa Association of Governments, it will spend nearly three-fifths of the money to build new freeways and expand existing routes. Early projects include the construction of Loop 303 in the West Valley, widening of U.S. 60 in the East Valley and improvements to Loop 101 in the central Valley. “The passage of this is the future of the West Valley,” said Jack Lunsford of Westmarc, a West Valley business and civic coalition. “If this hadn’t passed, we would’ve choked on our own growth.” Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon crowed that the light rail system being built by Phoenix and Tempe also passed another critical test, the first being when Phoenix voters approved the initial 20-mile segment in 2000. Construction is just beginning on that segment. The regional transportation plan will finance $2.3 billion worth of extensions into Valley suburbs. “While this is a regional transportation plan, the opposition made this a referendum on light rail, and it passed big,” Gordon said. “This shows the voters are continuing to invest in the future of this Valley.” Opponents were more staid, particularly after spending upwards of $1 million on a late advertising blitz that had seemed to be moving undecided voters into the “no” column. “The voters can make the decision, and they can’t say they weren’t informed,” said Gilbert millionaire Dave Thompson, who led the No on 400 campaign and financed much of it from his own pocket. “If the voters decide that’s what they want, then I’m going to get on the light rail.” Opponents’ ads targeted the 15 percent of the plan’s cost that was represented by light rail, counting on conservative voters and those outside Phoenix to stop the plan in its tracks. Instead, it appeared late Tuesday that voters in all areas of the Valley opted for more than simply freeways, said former U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, an avid supporter of the plan. “I think it tells us very, very clearly that people want not only freeways but mass transit,” Salmon said. It appeared to be true even in the conservative East Valley, which Salmon called “the most pleasant surprise of all.” |
20 Injured After Empty Train Hits Another Idling at Woodley ParkWashington Post November 3, 2004 An empty Metro train plowed backward into another train idling in the Woodley Park Station this afternoon, sending panicked passengers screaming through the billowing smoke for fear they were under terrorist attack, witnesses said. Alan Etter, spokesman for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, said that a total of 20 people were hurt but that none of the injuries was life-threatening. A Metro employee was among the injured. The incident closed down the Red Line between Dupont Circle and Van Ness-UDC for several hours, authorities said, causing serious commuting problems for the evening rush hour. Shortly after 4 p.m., Metro announced that it was sending trains on a single track between Dupont Circle and Cleveland Park stations, although the trains were not stopping at the Woodley Park Station. Although police had closed the 2600 block of Connecticut Avenue and parts of Calvert Street following the collision, the roads were reopened by mid-afternoon. Metro was providing shuttle bus service to customers between the Van Ness and Dupont Circle stations, running extra buses from the Farragut North station to Van Ness to help relieve congestion on the system and charging off-peak rates on the entire system throughout the evening rush hour. Continued delays are possible for the Thursday morning rush hour. Metro announced on its Web site that it did not expect regular service by morning. It was not immediately known how many people were aboard when the accident occurred at 12:49 p.m. There was also no indication why the one train was backing into the station, although it was on its way to be serviced. The injured included 13 teenagers — ages 15 to 18 — who attended the Marriott Hospitality Charter School in Northwest. Fire officials said they all suffered minor bumps and bruises. Witnesses said they had a warning just moments before the collision. Deana Clingerman, 25, of Alexandria, was on the first car of the train with her boyfriend, Nick Harnice, when the conductor came out of his compartment and told the passengers to get off the train while he held the door open for them. “He just said. ‘Everybody off,’ “ she recalled. “We didn’t know why. He looked scared.” Harnice said he dodged behind a bench. Clingerman ran away from the train, and within five seconds of the conductor’s sudden announcement the crash took place, she said. “We were stopped. All of a sudden, we heard a loud crash. It pushed me out of my seat,” said Jvandia Brown, 42, of Alexandria. Brown said passengers on the sparsely occupied train panicked, “because they thought it was a terror attack.” Washington Post staff photographer Michel DuCille, who was in the train station at the time, reported seeing a conductor on the platform. “Oh man, I’m going to be blamed for this,” the conductor said. “I couldn’t stop it. I just couldn’t stop it. It just kept coming.” No flames were seen, but a huge plume of black smoke billowed from the station. The twisted wreckage of one train car was sandwiched atop the other. “The train cars are like sardine cans, essentially,” said Alan Etter, spokesman for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services. “One car accordioned into the other. Luckily no one was seriously injured.” Philip Whims, 18, a student at the University of Maryland, College Park, was asleep in one of the passenger cars when the impact jolted him awake and he heard people screaming and crying. Some two dozen high school students were in the same car, Whims said, but were quickly herded out by chaperones. “I saw people running out of the cars,” said Whims. “People were very panicky, to the point where I thought it was a terrorist attack.” |
Monorail still on trackSeattle Post-Intelligencer November 3, 2004 Seattle voters appear to have done something both remarkable and commendable in electing to stay the course on the Seattle Monorail Project. Based on early returns last night, voters were soundly rejecting Initiative 83, which would have denied the monorail system the use of city rights of way and effectively scuttled the project. The prospect of dropping an excise tax on vehicles in the city must have been a tempting one. As remarkable as it is for voters to impose on themselves a new tax, it’s surely more remarkable to turn down a chance to end an existing tax. Monorail opponents insisted on this premature and unnecessary rush to judgment on the project. But judgment they got. There was simply not enough information on which to base an informed decision on the monorail proposal — certainly not enough to reach the decision to abandon the project. It’s of no small consequence that the premise of the I-83 campaign went against the Seattle grain. The notion of a campaign bankrolled virtually single-handedly by a downtown real estate baron didn’t sit well with Seattle’s independent voters. Make no mistake, there are still questions to be asked, evaluations to be made and conclusions to be reached about the ultimate viability of the 14- mile monorail project as planned. We are among those watching with anticipation for the release of detailed engineering and financing information from the SMP and the contract bidders on the project. The voters of Seattle retain recourse, provided for in the original monorail ballot measure, to reconsider the project if it faces serious financial difficulties. For now, however, Seattle voters say — for the fourth time — that they’re willing to stick with the little train that could. |
TRANSIT TAX HIKE FULL-SPEED AHEAD; METRO-AREA VOTERS GIVE THUMBS UP TO $4.7 BILLION PLANRocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) November 3, 2004 Voters hiked their taxes in exchange for more rapid transit — to the airport, Boulder, Golden, Thornton and more — and ushered in a new era of metro cooperation in a decisive vote for FasTracks. Hailing the victory as a watershed election, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper congratulated his fellow mayors, business leaders and other backers who pushed the $4.7 billion transit package to victory. “This is a decision by the citizens of this metropolitan area to start to solve their own problems,” Hickenlooper said. Joining him at a jammed victory party at Rox in Union Station, Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer called the election a “graduation” for metro cities. “This is where we go from being just a collection of cities that just happen to be next to each other to developing a regional culture for solving problems,” Tauer said. FasTracks’ 0.4-cent tax increase will take effect Jan. 1. It is estimated to cost an average of $90 a year for a household at the metro median income level of $60,000. The money will help fund the Regional Transportation District’s 12-year build-out of 119 miles of light rail and diesel-powered commuter trains on six new corridors, extensions to three existing light rail lines, including the T-REX line, a new style of rapid bus service on the Boulder Turnpike and a new network of suburban bus connections. When completed in 2017, FasTracks will reshape how people get around Denver as well as channel land development into a tighter and less sprawling pattern. It promises to speed commute times and offer an alternative to bumper-to-bumper traffic — though critics believe the impact on congestion will be minimal. The campaign effort was a $3.5 million affair supported by an unusual coalition of environmentalists, developers, business interests and civic leaders. It was endorsed by all 31 metro area mayors. The campaign flooded the airwaves with television ads showing light rail cutting through traffic congestion. But opponents, notably Gov. Bill Owens, attacked the package as costing too much and doing too little to take traffic off the roads. They complained that by spending so much money on transit, it will be harder to get voters to agree to raise more money for badly needed highway improvements. They urged rejection of FasTracks so transit and highway projects could be developed jointly. RTD General Manager Cal Marsella said there will be ample opportunity to incorporate highway elements into the FasTracks corridors as the state finds the resources to do them. “Nothing we’re doing precludes and planned highway expansions,” Marsella said. Hickenlooper agreed. “I told Gov. Owens that I will work with the state to find highway funding,” he said. Jon Caldara, who was instrumental in defeating a similar RTD proposal in 1997, led the opposition to FasTracks. “I’m really shocked at the result,” he said. “I thought it would be tighter.” He said if opponents had more money and started earlier, they might have made more of a dent in the lead that transit advocates built. Backers sold FasTracks as essential in meeting the needs of a metro area that’s expected to grow by almost a million people over the next 20 years. The campaign reflected traditional transit-vs.-highway battles. Owens, a longtime foe of rail transit, and Tom Norton, executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, said it would cost the state unknown amounts to complement FasTracks lines with highway improvements. On the other side was Hickenlooper and the other mayors saying transit is a necessary component of the total mobility plan for the region. Transit advocates acknowledged that highway improvements also are needed. But they said FasTracks shouldn’t be held up just because Owens and the state lack funding for highway improvements. The FasTracks initiative was one of 31 transit measures on ballots across the nation. What happens next with FasTracks Jan. 1, 2005: The 0.4-cent sales tax increase takes effect. 2005: Environmental studies begin for North Metro, Interstate 225 and Arvada-Wheat Ridge lines. Study already done for Golden line, and under way for airport and Boulder lines. 2006-08: Final design is under way on all but the Littleton and T-REX extensions. 2009: Construction begins on Lakewood-Golden line, Union Station revamp. 2010: Construction begins on U.S. 36 bus rapid transit segment. 2011: Construction is under way on all corridors except southwest and T-REX extensions. 2013: First new line, to Lakewood and Golden, opens along with renovated Union Station. 2014: Commuter rail to Boulder and Longmont and to Denver International Airport open; construction begins on southwest and T-REX extensions. 2015: New lines open on North Metro, I-225 and Arvada corridors, plus downtown line connection from Five Points to the DIA line. 2016: Southwest extension to Highlands Ranch and T-REX extension to RidgeGate open. |
US Rail Transit Hits the Trifecta! Big Wins in Austin, Denver, PhoenixLight Rail Now! Website Novewmber 3, 2004 Rail transit in the USA virtually hit the political Trifecta on Tuesday, November 2nd with solid electoral wins for three major ballot initiatives —two authorizing significant light rail transit (LRT) system expansions (Denver, Phoenix), and a new-start regional “commuter” rail project in Austin, Texas. Here’s a quick summary of developments with these ballot measures: Austin: Rail referendum passes Voters in the Capital Metro service area of Austin, Texas “resoundingly” approved the agency’s referendum to bring passenger rail service to the region, according to the Austin American-Statesman. The proposal for an initial 32-mile “commuter rail” service, connecting downtown Austin with the northwest suburb of Leander, passed with 62.2 percent of the vote. If all goes as planned, Capital Metro would open passenger service on the railway (currently used for freight rail service), with 9 stations, by 2008. [Austin American-Statesman, 3 Nov. 2004] “We are officially declaring the victory” Capital Metro board Chairman Lee Walker told supporters at about 10 PM Tuesday (election night), to roaring, sustained applause at an election night party at Nuevo Leon, a popular restaurant in East Austin, the predominantly minority section of the city. “I think this is a really big deal. This is the first time our regional neighborhood has come together…. We should be proud we’re a part of it.” [Austin American-Statesman, 3 Nov. 2004] Rail opponents, while sour, hinted that they would be continuing their efforts to roadblock rail and transit development. Jim Skaggs, a familiar local leader who fought rail in the ill-fated 2000 referendum as well as in the latest one, groused that “The battle is lost in terms of this particular election. But I don’t think the war is lost.” Referring to the 32-mile rail service planned, Skaggs added, “This rail will demonstrate that it is an ineffective use of transportation dollars.” [Austin American-Statesman, 3 Nov. 2004] However, Capital Metro representatives and the proposal’s outside supporters underscored that the line is a relatively low-cost start toward a larger, regionwide system of rail lines and expanded bus service. With the area’s population predicted to double over about 20 years, they argued, Central Texas’s traffic problems seemed headed for what the Austin American-Statesman characterized as “nightmare status”. [Austin American-Statesman, 3 Nov. 2004] The American-Statesman also gives some hints as the to what Capital Metro planners are envisioning for the initital service: Capital Metro says it will use diesel-powered cars, similar in scale and look to a light rail car, with an engine and driver’s cab at each end, allowing cars to reverse direction without some sort of turnaround. Initially, the agency would run about 14 trains a day, four or five south from Leander in the morning on 30-minute intervals, with one or two in the reverse direction, and the reverse of that approach going out from downtown Austin in the afternoon. There likely would be a couple of trains at midday, one in each direction. The stations, by and large, would be simple affairs with a raised platform, some shelter, a ticketing machine and some seating. At busier stops, the stations could be more elaborate, and a few will have park-and-ride parking lots. The agency also plans to have “circulator” buses waiting for the trains at its final stop near the Austin Convention Center to ferry people to the rest of downtown, the Capital complex and the University of Texas. Buoyed by the overwhelming approval of rail, Capital Metro planners seem to be revving up plans for additional rail expansion. These includes two more regional “commuter” lines, a possible streetcar system, light rail lines in Central and South Austin, or the extension of some type of rail service across downtown. Under current law, any such expansion would require one or more additional referendums. “Such a vote, however, could come sooner than later”, reports the American-Statesman. According to the paper, Capital Metro officials have already indicated that “the studies necessary to bring another referendum to the ballot could be done in time for the 2006 election.” [Austin American-Statesman, 3 Nov. 2004] Denver: FasTracks rail/bus plan passes In the Denver urban area, FasTracks, the Regional Transportation District’s 12-year construction program for rail and bus improvements, was approved Tuesday (2 November) by “a large margin”, according to local station WUSA-TV. Known as Referendum 4A, the transit measure will install 119 miles of new rail transit, add 18 miles of “bus rapid transit” (Quality Bus) on the Boulder Turnpike, and expand suburban bus service. Voters approved a 0.4-cent increase in RTD’s sales tax to help pay for the network. [KUSA-TV, 2004/11/02, Rocky Mountain News, 2 Nov. 2004] The resounding election victory crowned other good news for Denver’s transit system, especially LRT. According to a report released by RTD on Friday (29 October), this past September average weekday transit ridership in metro Denver exceeded the 300,000 average mark for the first time. Bus and LRT weekday passenger trips went up 4.3% over September 2003, hitting an average of 303,460. The total monthly trip count, including weekends, was 7.42 million, RTD added — a 5% increase over the monthly total of a year earlier. LRT ridership rose an even more spectacular 6%, to an average 968,077. [Rocky Mountain News, 1 Nov. 2004] Rail and transit supporters were ecstatic over Tuesday’s electoral success. “We have to give people an alternative as we accommodate this growth in those corridors where the congestion will be the worst” emphasized Maria Garcia- Berry, campaign manager for FasTracks Yes! [Rocky Mountain News, 2 Nov. 2004] “This is an efficient way of moving people through the metro area” noted Garcia-Berry. Light rail moves people very efficiently and it gives people a choice.” She added, “We have to cut into the growth rate of congestion.” [Rocky Mountain News, 2 Nov. 2004] Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, described as “one of the measure’s most prominent supporters”, commented that the FasTracks “helps people have a shorter [commute] time so they spend more time with their families” and “it helps focus development in certain areas so that we keep more open space.” “The whole community came together in the region at a level that we’ve never seen before” Hickenlooper added. [KUSA-TV, 2004/11/02] Phoenix: Prop. 400 passes In Phoenix, LRT and transit backers were also jubilant as voters okayed Proposition 400, authorizing an extension of Maricopa County’s half-cent sales tax for another 20 years, a measure which would raise $8.5 billion toward the cost of a proposed $15.8 billion regional transportation plan that includes 78 miles of new freeways, expansion of the bus system, expansion of the already-approved local LRT system, and improvements to major arterials in the roadway system. With 70 percent of the precincts reporting, Proposition 400 was approved 58 percent to 42 percent. [Arizona Republic, 2 Nov. 2004, KNXV-TV News, 03 November 2004] According to the Arizona Republic, “Jubilant local mayors called Proposition 400’s strong showing a sign of positive public sentiment about mass transit and a good omen for future regional cooperation on other issues….” [Arizona Republic, 2 Nov. 2004, KNXV-TV News, 03 November 2004] While the regional transportation plan approved by voters will finance approximately $2.3 billion worth of extensions into Phoenix-area Valley suburbs, nearly three-fifths of the money authorized will be used to build new freeways and expand existing routes. However, what was especially significant was that voters in all areas of the Valley apparently opted for more than simply freeways, making former US Rep. Matt Salmon, described as “an avid supporter of the plan”, jubilant. “I think it tells us very, very clearly that people want not only freeways but mass transit” Salmon said told the Arizona Republic. The mass transit sweep appeared to be the case even in the politically conservative East Valley, a fact which which Salmon called “the most pleasant surprise of all.” [Arizona Republic, 2 Nov. 2004] Opponents of Phoenix’s rail program seemed shaken. “The voters can make the decision, and they can’t say they weren’t informed” said Dave Thompson, who had led the No on 400 campaign. Thompson, a millionaire from the suburb of Gilbert, who had and financed much of the anti-rail campaign from his own pocket, added, “If the voters decide that’s what they want, then I’m going to get on the light rail.” [Arizona Republic, 2 Nov. 2004] |
SALES TAXES; Counties split on proposals for transit fixesSan Francisco Chronicle November 3, 2004 Sales tax measures to pay for transportation improvements, from filling potholes to widening highways, passed in two counties, led in another and trailed in three more in late returns Tuesday. A parcel tax measure to help fund AC Transit service was leading. Voters in Marin and San Mateo approved countywide sales taxes, and Contra Costa County were approving a tax, while the measures were failing in Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Solano counties. The measures require a two-thirds majority to pass. Voters in Marin, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties were being asked to approve their first such taxes, while voters in Contra Costa and San Mateo counties were being urged to extend existing taxes. All would boost the county sales tax by one- half cent per dollar except in Sonoma County, where the sales tax would rise by one-quarter cent. With state and federal money for transportation increasingly scarce, officials say such local tax measures are the surest way to fund improvements. The “self-help” taxes have become common throughout the Bay Area and the state. Five of nine Bay Area counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara have them. “The half-cent sales tax allows us to keep projects moving and be ready when the state and federal government are in better shape and can contribute more dollars,’’ said Scott Haggerty, a Metropolitan Transportation Commission member. Contra Costa County’s Measure J would extend a half-cent sales tax, set to expire in 2009, for 25 years. It will raise an estimated $2 billion to pay for a new fourth bore for the Caldecott Tunnel, an eastern Contra Costa rail extension to BART and the widening of Highway 4 in eastern Contra Costa. In San Mateo County, Measure A will extend for 25 years a half-cent transportation sales tax set to expire in 2008. The $1.5 billion spending plan will steer 30 percent of its funds to transit; 27.5 percent to highways; 22.5 percent to cities for projects of their choosing; 15 percent to projects to eliminate railroad crossings; 3 percent to bicycle and pedestrian projects; and 1 percent to other congestion relief efforts. Solano County’s Measure A would raise $1.4 billion over 30 years for improvements to the Interstate 80-680-Highway 12 interchange and to I- 80, I- 680 and I-780. It also would pay for increased capacity and safety on Highway 12 and for commuter rail, ferry and bus service. Marin County’s Measure A will increase sales tax a half-cent to generate $322 million over 20 years to pay for bus service and road and infrastructure improvements. Sonoma’s Measure M would institute a quarter-cent sales tax in order to raise $465 million over 20 years for improvements to Highway 101, local streets and roads and transit service, passenger rail and bicycle and pedestrian routes. In Santa Cruz County, Measure J would impose a 30-year, half-cent sales tax to widen Highway 1 from the current four lanes to six lanes from Santa Cruz to Aptos. The remaining third of the $577 million in revenue would go toward bike trails, bus service, road repair, pedestrian improvements and purchase of an old railroad right-of-way. AC Transit’s Measure BB, which appeared on ballots in Alameda County, except for Fremont and Newark, and in western Contra Costa County, would double the current parcel tax to $48 for 10 years to raise $140 million to help support the district, which has been forced to cut service and raise fares. |
New light rail cars to be delivered soonKUSA-TV November 3, 2004 DENVER — 9News has learned that in just two weeks the first of the new light rail cars to travel along the T-Rex corridor will be shipped to Denver. Testing on the trains will begin in December but passengers won’t be able to climb aboard for another two years yet. “The new vehicles.will have 1,500 miles burned on them per vehicle to get them ready for putting into service in December of 2006,” said T-REX spokeswoman Pauletta Puncerelli. The 34 new cars are being shipped from the Siemens Transportation plant in Sacramento, California. Each car has a price tag of $2.4 million. These newest models can travel at 55 miles per hour and hold up to 125 passengers. “We’ve had major snowstorms in the Denver area in the past — and the only thing running are the light rail trains,” says Puncerelli. The trains will run on steel tracks recycled from the stands and supports at the old Mile High stadium. The stretch of track from University to Broadway is ready and that’s where the testing will take place. T-REX officials estimate that once that section opens to riders, they’ll be able to chop 20 minutes off their commute each way. The fare structure for the new line won’t be determined until spring of 2006. T-REX is a $1.6 billion highway improvement project along I-25 between Broadway Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue and on I-225 from I-25 to Parker Road. Part of the project includes adding 19 miles of light rail along those stretches of highway. Referendum 4A — the proposal to add another 119 miles of track that passed Nov. 2 is in addition to T-REX. |
November 2004: Record Number of Transit Funding Ballot Initiatives Pass this Year; Voters Turn to Transit for Traffic Relief, ConvenienceCenter for Transportation Excellence November 3, 2004 Voters approved a record number of ballot initiatives that fund transit this year according to analysis by the Center for Transportation Excellence. Of the decided 28 measures on ballots yesterday , 22 initiatives (worth an estimated total of over $40 billion) that include public transportation funding were approved. Eighteen were approved earlier this year for a total of 40 approved initiatives so far in 2004, reflecting a staggering win rate of 80%. The increase is being driven in large part by citizen demand for more transportation choices. “This has been a record year for transit initiatives. We’ve seen a significant jump in the number of transit initiatives on the ballot and in how many passed,” said Stephanie Vance, program manger for the Center for Transportation Excellence. “This year has also shown that it’s not just big metro areas that are clamoring for transit; medium and smaller communities like Parkersburg, West Virginia, El Paso County Colorado and Kalamazoo, Michigan also see its benefits.” In addition, noted Vance, “This clearly is not a partisan issue. Of the states that passed initiatives yesterday, seven went for President Bush and four went for Senator Kerry. Citizens across the country regardless of party strongly support transit investments and more transportation choices.” On average, initiatives that fund transit garnered 62% support yesterday. All but nine of the decided initiatives this year were supported by more than 50% of voters. In California, where state law requires a supermajority (67%) approval to pass tax increases, of the 11 of 12 total initiatives that have been decided, only three failed, and one of those (Solano County) garnered 64% of the votes — a “pass” in the traditional majority takes all scenario. “People overwhelmingly support public transit. Voters see transit as a way to reduce traffic and air pollution as well as improve quality of life — not only for themselves, but for the community as a whole. B |