Feds will not boost light-rail spending; City will have to find other ways to pay for $38 million price hike

Charlotte Observer

January 8, 2005

More of the cost of Charlotte’s light-rail line apparently will be paid from the transit sales tax after the Federal Transit Administration said Friday it will spend no more than $192.9 million on the project.

With prices up $38 million in the past few weeks because of higher steel and cement costs, Charlotte hoped the federal government would offer more help.

But FTA spokesman Paul Griffo said the department would not commit more money.

Increasing the federal contribution would be unfair to other cities that have also seen transit costs rise, Griffo said.

The FTA will pay 50 percent of the current cost, including $6.4 million from a separate federal transit program. If the price goes up as expected, the feds won’t pay more. “It puts more of a burden on Charlotte, but we are not the only city going through this,” Mayor Pat McCrory told the Observer.

The Charlotte Area Transit System must make “common-sense” trims to the light-rail plan, McCrory said, without hurting the safety and operations of the line.

McCrory said he and transit chief Ron Tober will brief the City Council on Monday about the federal decision and what it means to the 9.6-mile line. “We have some tough decisions to make,” McCrory said.

The higher price must be paid from existing transit money, McCrory said. He would not be specific, but CATS money comes equally from the state and a special half-cent sales tax.

CATS collects more than $50 million a year from the tax, and Tober says his agency has enough money to contribute more to the light-rail project. But that could delay some of four other rail and busway projects CATS wants to build by 2025.

Increasing the state’s share also could be a problem. State deputy transportation secretary David King said the state has committed to spending about $100 million — the same as CATS. The N.C. Board of Transportation and the legislature must approve any increase.

The city will spend another $66 million on water lines, streets and sidewalks along South Boulevard for the train line. Voters approved $50 million in bonds for the work.

Critics have complained about the line’s rising cost, which grew from $227 million in 1998, then to $371 million in 2002 and last March to $398.7 million.

That increase is not unusual, said Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles. Transit planners “hitch their wagon to a good-sounding project and when the price goes up, they don’t want to back out and say they were wrong,” he said.

King said highways as well often cost more than expected. He pointed to the state’s Highway Trust Fund that was supposed to build $8.2 billion of roads over 13.5 years. Higher prices now means it will take $16 billion and 41 years to build those roads, King said.

Tober has said he has cut the $38 million in higher costs in half. He would not say Friday how much more must be cut to meet the $398.7 million budget. But he’s left with trims that would eliminate bridges and stations or scrap a major realignment of South Boulevard.

Tober said he is weighing each of those cautiously because of their serious drawbacks. Cutting stations, for instance, would reduce ridership. Cutting bridges would force drivers to wait for trains to pass. “We have to be very careful,” Tober said. “We are building this to deal with the city’s traffic problems — not to add to them.”

He said making the $398.7 million budget is an important goal but not the overriding one. More important is to build a good line project at the lowest price.

The financial uncertainties have delayed construction, which was to have started in fall 2004. Patrick Cannon, the mayor pro tem, says he expects the line to open in spring 2007.

City Councilman Don Lochman said Tober has promised “in blood” that CATS will build its share with its transit tax and not seek new city money.

Council John Tabor said he is concerned about eliminating bridges to save money. “I don’t want to do something stupid so we can say we came in on budget no matter what,” Tabor said.

Bridges are planned at Tyvola and Woodlawn roads, Archdale Drive and Arrowood Road, busy streets that connect to I-77 interchanges and cross the tracks. The bridges would keep the trains moving without interfering with traffic. “We didn’t just throw them in there,” said city Transportation Director Jim Humphrey. “They’re needed.”

A PRICE TO PAY THE COST OF PERSONNEL IS A FACTOR FOR MASS TRANSIT

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

January 8, 2005

The Port Authority of Allegheny County desperately needs more funding and nobody knows that better than its customers. On March 1, they face a 25-cent increase in the base fare and shortly thereafter a 12 percent reduction in service. On July 1, the base fare will go up by 50 cents and service will be cut by another 15 percent.

But what if part of the reason for the operating deficits — $30 million this fiscal year and $45 million the next — is overly generous wages and benefits, in addition to years of miserly operating subsidies from state government? There is a public frustration with the cost of government generally — an environment where unions seek more and managers, perhaps not as zealous about cost-cutting as their private-sector counterparts, are often too compliant. The Port Authority is not quite in this category, but as a quasi-governmental entity it needs to grapple with the challenge of personnel costs.

In a three-part series titled “A Price to Pay,” Post-Gazette transportation writer Joe Grata showed that there are significant costs to the Port Authority of maintaining wages, benefits and pensions. There is also evidence to suggest that while such compensation is generous and represents more than 75 percent of the operating budget, it is not the main problem at the end of the day. As the series made clear, the top hourly rate of $22.79 for Port Authority operators is fourth-highest in the United States among similar-sized transit agencies. This is hardly cause for celebration, but union employees in Pittsburgh were once the highest paid in the country. Moreover, if the the nation’s larger cities are factored in, the Port Authority’s pay scale drops to 17th highest.

Of course, revelations that two bus drivers earned more than $90,000 in 2003 are the sort of thing that get people’s backs up. But it is more economical to pay overtime than to hire new employees with accompanying benefits. As it is, those bus drivers used to earn more before management efforts to bring down the overall overtime bill.

Pensions are also a concern. The Port Authority’s pension plan is certainly liberal, allowing some employees to retire in their 50s after 25 years of service — an age when they are still young enough to get other jobs — and plenty of workers in America would envy such a deal. Whatever became of the notion of workers collecting pensions when they are truly of retirement age?

Fortunately, the agency hasn’t had to contribute to the pension plan of ATU Local 85, which represents 2,700 employees. It’s the management pension plan that is requiring a worrisome subsidy ($1.2 million last year, $3 million this year).

Last year, Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm, made a study of the Port Authority for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The verdict was that, relative to similar agencies, the “Port Authority has maintained one of the lowest levels of administrative or overhead cost relative to total operating cost.”

That is a corrective to those inclined to think that management has given away the store. While the level of pay and benefits at the Port Authority deserve attention with an eye toward a healthy bottom line, they aren’t in the stratosphere either. The fact remains that the Port Authority, which has reduced staff and worked to hold down costs, doesn’t get enough support from Harrisburg.

Commuter station left in the cold; Town, MBTA at odds over who should pay for boiler replacement

The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)

January 8, 2005

The Patriot Ledger Stoughton selectmen have shut off the water and heat at the commuter rail station out of concern that the pipes will burst because of an old water heater that needs to be replaced.

Assistant Town Manager Paul Dawson said selectmen took the action nearly a month ago because the boiler, which has been a problem for about a year, could fail and cause the pipes to burst. “In the interest of protecting the entire building, we turned the water off,” Dawson said.

In the meantime, commuters, a ticket collector and Stoughton Food Pantry volunteers are suffering through the cold. “We’re dressed like we’re going skiing,” Suzanne Blacker said.

The MBTA owns the property. The town was leasing it until 1999, when the contract expired.

The town and MBTA officials are at odds over who should pay for boiler repairs.

Dawson and other town officials say because the town is not leasing the property, it is the MBTA’s responsibility. MBTA spokesman Joseph Pesaturo said the state agency believes otherwise. “A holdover clause kicks in automatically. The building is under the care, control and custody of the town of Stoughton,” he said. Dawson said the matter will be taken up with the town’s lawyers.

Pesaturo said the MBTA and the town are negotiating a new lease. “We’re hoping to hammer out a new lease in the next 30 to 60 days,” he said.

Dawson said it will cost at least $20,000 to replace the boiler. The building also needs other work, including asbestos removal that could cost $100,000.

Blacker, one of four volunteers who distributes meat, cheese and canned goods to the town’s needy every Tuesday morning, said the volunteers and the clients are muddling through the hardships of no water and no heat. “We’re prepared and braced for the cold, but we’re afraid that they will kick us out,” she said.

Blacker said pantry officials are concerned that they would be moved to a location that would be inaccessible to many of the clients who live near Stoughton Center.

Selectman John Kowalczyk said that if the food pantry had to move, it would be taken care of. “We have properties available and I’m sure we can establish them somewhere,” he said, “and it wouldn’t be the hinterlands.” One option, Kowalczyk said, is a building next to the library.

Kowalczyk said he was unaware that the MBTA claims there is a holdover clause that puts responsibility of the building’s maintenance on the town’s shoulders. He has called for a meeting to see if the public wants the town to continue to lease the building, buy it outright or let the MBTA take control over it.

Some may want the town to retain involvement in the building because of the historic nature of the station and the money and time put into renovating the building about 20 years ago.

Dawson said such a meeting could take place this week.

Ex-MTA auditor critical of agency

Whittier Daily News (California)

January 9, 2005

The chief auditor for Los Angeles County’s massive transportation agency accuses top managers of thwarting his efforts to check on agency spending and says he was finally forced into retirement last week after he wrote stinging reports on a new computer system that is overbudget and behind schedule.

Auditor William Bernsdorf said in an interview that Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble, who was brought in to reform the Metropolitan Transportation Agency after the scandals over subway construction, has retreated on his commitment and allowed the auditing division to be weakened.

“I’m quite concerned about my auditors getting punished for doing their jobs. I’m equally concerned about the agency being hoodwinked, the taxpayers,’ said the 71-year-old Bernsdorf, whose staff was cut from 68 to 24 auditors since 2001-02 and his budget trimmed from $11.7 million to $5.5 million as the number of construction projects dwindled. What we’re up against lately is there’s just an immense amount of pressure not to do the audits, or to call the audits inefficient and ignore them.’

Snoble and his staff dismiss those claims, saying the MTA relies immensely on auditors to oversee the agency’s $3 billion operations. They deny the auditor raised concerns until after he left the agency.

“I’ve always believed in my auditors,’ said Snoble, declining to comment specifically on the personnel matter. “We are one of the most audited places you’ll find. How he feels is how he feels. I have a lot of need for good audit services. I’ve always believed in the way the thing works. … My door’s always open.’

Snoble announced plans days after Bernsdorf’s retirement to fundamentally change how the Management Audit Services Department decides which internal audits to undertake in the future.

Right after Bernsdorf retired, Snoble introduced a policy he described as novel, turning over to his top six deputies the authority to determine which audits are conducted, rather than having the annual work plan drawn up by auditors as has been past practice.

The six deputies who are the heads of construction, bus and rail operations, planning, communications and other departments will serve on the new Audit Review Committee to be headed by Snoble.

Snoble said some auditors want to tackle the big investigations at the expense of more mundane audits, which can be just as important addressing how agency money is spent. “I want to have an audit plan that is workable for everybody,’ Snoble said. “They know exactly what is going on and I have some accountability to the process. This group would look at the audit plan, have input into the audit plan and make it more of a collaborative effort with our managers. It’ll be a more open process where more people will have input.’

Bernsdorf, who retired after 10 years at the MTA and a 40-year career in government oversight, earned $125,711 annually and retired with a package that included six months of salary. Speaking out because he says he’s worried about the direction of the department, he warned that further weakening of the department could lead to problems as the agency is now building the $330 million Orange Line in the Valley and the $898 million extension of the Gold Line into East Los Angeles.

“It’s the money,’ Bernsdorf said. “The contractors. There’s millions of dollars involved in whether they can submit invoices and get them paid without a lot of review and people looking at them to see if they’re really valid. It really takes someone with enough courage and tenacity to say, hey, these really need to be done. Because all the pressures are against doing them.’

The MTA’s Office of Inspector General, which sets audit policy for the agency, declined to comment on “any ongoing investigations or reviews,’ said Deputy Inspector General Jack Shigetomi.

Board members said they were looking into the situation. “This should not be swept beneath the rug,’ said Michael Cano, the transportation deputy to county Supervisor Michael Antonovich. “The supervisor fully expects that these claims and these problems be investigated thoroughly, be discussed thoroughly.’

Los Angeles County Auditor- Controller J. Tyler McCauley said the county’s audit committee is made up of staff members for the Board of Supervisors and he would not allow department heads to serve on its audit committee because they might not be able to provide independent input since they might be audited.

“They’re usually outside people. They’re not part of the organization, so they have sufficient independence,’ said McCauley, adding he could not comment directly on the MTA’s operations.

MTA board member John Fasana said he was still reviewing Snoble’s new plan which also calls for a peer review of the audit department.

But he said the agency is struggling to streamline cumbersome audit procedures for construction projects while ensuring oversight of taxpayer dollars. “We have to be willing to adjust our processes, but we still need an audit function that gives management what they need and the board what they need,’ Fasana said. “I don’t want to make the process so burdensome that you continue the way MTA used to build projects compared to how the Gold Line was built in Pasadena,’ he said, referring to the Pasadena line’s on-time, on-budget project under a separate agency headed by Rick Thorpe, now the construction manager at the MTA.

“On the one hand, it’s a management tool for Roger to make sure departments are working correctly. On the other hand, the auditors have to have some degree of autonomy. There’s a balance there.’

Bernsdorf said his downfall came after a series of reports his auditors did over the past year on a massive new computer system, dubbed M3, which is now at least $4 million overbudget and nearly a year behind schedule.

The reports repeatedly raised questions about management of the system, which is designed to track maintenance and inventory for the agency’s fleet of buses and trains. The computer project is under CFO Richard Brumbaugh, who was Bernsdorf’s direct administrative boss.

In November, Bernsdorf initiated new audits on five big agency contracts including the Orange Line busway, where he said preliminary reports raised concerns about questionable billing. “It was the announcement we were going to do more work that set them off,’ said Bernsdorf, whose job title was managing director, Management Audit Services Department. “They didn’t like the principle of having these nosy auditors come in and poke around. It’s just a prerequisite that the auditors be independent of the people they’re auditing.’

Snoble and Brumbaugh said the new audits were beyond the scope of what was spelled out in the department’s annual work plan. “He had unilaterally decided this is something he wanted to go off and do. We don’t have a situation where people can go off and do what they feel like doing,’ Brumbaugh said. “I think the public would be outraged if they thought we had people in this organization wandering around doing what they wanted to do.’

Brumbaugh said he never told the auditor to stop the new reports, adding Bernsdorf could have taken the issue up with Snoble. “He should have gotten up and walked up and had a conversation with the CEO.’

Brumbaugh said that in the future, auditors will be more tightly monitored. “I think every senior manager is going to take a more active role in making sure the auditors adhere to their work plan. Every time there’s an initiation of an audit, every senior manger is going to ask, is this part of the internal work plan?’

Bernsdorf said he’s worried his forced departure sends a bad message: “Suppress your audits or get out.’

New Hudson tunnel is linchpin of $6B in rail improvements; Commuter plan called ‘comprehensive’

The Record (Bergen County, NJ)

January 9, 2005

A $6 billion plan that would give North Jersey rail commuters a one-train ride to Manhattan has gained support on both sides of the Hudson River and could be completed within 10 years.

The plan hinges on building a new train tunnel under the river that would be fed by a sprawling network of new rail lines in Bergen, Passaic, Hudson and Essex counties. The tunnel is estimated to cost $5 billion, with the additional projects costing $1 billion or more.

Funding would come from the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The bi-state agency could commit up to $2 billion, Chairman Anthony Coscia said. “This represents a comprehensive transportation solution that is completely consistent with what we see as our mission,” Coscia said. “It’s a lot, but for 40 or 50 years we’ve chosen the status quo. Our job is supposed to be to move people and goods throughout the region.”

The Port Authority has already funded a $10 million engineering study that will examine how to expand the platforms at Penn Station to handle longer trains. Federal money will also be a key to getting the project done. “We just have to provide access to Manhattan for public safety reasons,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-Paterson. “You could shut down the whole process of moving in case, God forbid, there is an attack in New York.”

Pascrell said funding would be spread out over the length of construction, and that makes it likely the project will go through. In essence, lawmakers would be approving chunks at a time, not the whole $5 billion nut.

No dollar amount has been set in the next federal transportation budget, which is still under debate. “We need this tunnel as soon as possible,” he said.

Old tunnel at capacity

Aside from terrorism concerns, a new tunnel is needed simply because the 100-year-old tunnel that brings commuter trains between the states is at capacity.

In 1994, 88 trains each day made the trip to Manhattan from New Jersey during the morning rush hours. That jumped to 124 in 1999. And to 186 in 2004. “The rate of growth has been significant over the past decade,” NJ Transit Executive Director George Warrington said. “If you look at where demand is going, where jobs are going to be created, it’s clearly midtown Manhattan. It’s clear that the way to allow that growth to continue is through rail.”

NJ Transit estimates that once the tunnel is built, it would create 16,000 jobs and $3 billion worth of personal income. Ten years after completion, projections show that $100 million each year in additional taxes would be paid as a result of the economic growth created by the tunnel.

“We really have two choices,” Coscia said. “We decide we are going to deemphasize the region … or, alternatively, we find ways to expand the system. The tunnel project is really the only viable solution we have.”

Jeffrey Zupan, senior fellow with the Regional Plan Association, said the project could change the entire region for the better. “The fact that New Jersey is right across the river and has had a barrier all these years from Manhattan will be much less so,” he said. “The … project has an opportunity to transform the state and particularly the relationship with New York, which will not be as distant.”

The project would be done in stages, with the earliest already under way. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be completed this summer, when preliminary engineering would begin. A final environmental impact statement is due by mid-2006, with construction starting later that year. The project could be finished by 2014.

A feat of engineering

The tunnel would be bored through the earth using a gigantic drilling machine that can produce a tube with a diameter as large as 40 feet.

It would begin just west of Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen and continue under Union City and Weehawken before reaching the Hudson River silt. The tunnel would rise out of the silt at a grade of 1.9 percent and curve north to Penn Station. The tracks would continue beyond Penn to a new station at 34th Street.

The location does not interfere with Penn Station, but rather complements it, Warrington said. And tracks would extend underground beyond the new station, providing storage for trains during the day.

The retail possibilities were also viewed as a plus. “There is a lot of interest in working with us,” Warrington said of real estate developers and retailers such as Federated Department Stores, which owns Macy’s. “They are very excited about the possibilities.”

The 34th Street station was key to getting leaders on both sides of the river to agree to the plan. “The Port Authority, NJ Transit and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are in real fundamental agreement,” Coscia said. “The priorities are completely interconnected. We’ve gotten over the notion that each of us, independent of the other two, can be successful.”

Warrington said it was important that New Jersey take into account the needs of New York. For instance, he said, an earlier proposal called for using a rail yard on the west side of Manhattan, where a Jets football stadium could be built, for train storage. “I came to the conclusion that that is a battle we do not need,” Warrington said. “I took it off the table.” Instead, the yard will be in New Jersey.

Warrington said there wasn’t just one turning point, however. “I think it’s been an evolution,” he said. “Historically, there’s not an appreciation for the role New Jersey plays in the New York economy. I think we’ve been successful in educating New York that we do play an important role.”

Working in N.Y.C.

There are some 250,000 New Jersey residents who work in Manhattan, and that number is expected to grow by 200,000 over the next 20 years, Warrington said. Many of those workers will be coming from North Jersey, so a comprehensive system of rail links is needed to feed the tunnel.

Warrington wants to take the $1 billion needed to bring the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail from Ridgefield to Tenafly and redistribute it to other projects. The light rail would still be built - and even extend out to Hawthorne in Passaic County - but at a much reduced cost.

To get the plan rolling, the Bergen County portion of the system - essentially an electric trolley - would be replaced with a self-powered diesel train. The “diesel multiple unit,” or DMU, would run from Ridgefield to Tenafly on Bergen’s Northern Branch, a freight line. It would also stretch from Hackensack to Hawthorne on a freight line operated by the New York, Susquehanna & Western Railway.

The DMU is a new type of train that does not need to be pulled by a locomotive. Instead, small diesel engines mounted near the wheels power the passenger car, which can pull two additional cars.

This line to Tenafly could be built for $500 million and finished by 2010, Warrington said. The Passaic County link would cost $75 million to $100 million and could also be completed by 2010.

Those riding these new rails could reach the proposed Xanadu retail and entertainment complex in the Meadowlands through a transfer at a Tonnelle Avenue station in North Bergen, which is expected to open later this year. From there, riders could also continue directly to Manhattan or transfer onto the light rail to head south through Bayonne.

Warrington said creating all these connections is critical to the vitality of the region. “If we don’t do it, we will have an increasing paralysis of the transportation network,” Warrington said. “What happens over time, almost invisibly, is economic growth slows. You wake up one day and find all the economic indicators are moving in the wrong direction.”

City: T’s Been Taking Us For Green Line Ride; Curtatone Plans Lawsuit To Force Promised Extension

The Boston Globe

January 9, 2005

Stung by years of failed lobbying, city leaders are preparing a lawsuit against several state agencies to force the MBTA to extend the Green Line into Somerville, Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone recently announced.

The lawsuit will accuse the state of breaching a 1990 agreement to extend the Green Line from Lechmere into West Medford as a condition of building the Big Dig.

For too long, we’ve had to breathe the dirty air of Boston’s northern commuters while being saddled with some of the worst public transportation in the region,” Curtatone said in his State of the City speech last Monday. “This is an injustice, a wrong that we will right in the coming years.”

The MBTA’s five-year construction plan does not include any major expansion, the result of what General Manager Michael Mulhern has called financial constraints. The Romney administration has also backed away from the Green Line expansion pledge.

Transportation advocates, including the Conservation Law Foundation, have been threatening a lawsuit since the state announced it was reconsidering its 1990 agreement. The foundation plans to announce its lawsuit this month, said Julia Bovey, its spokeswoman.

Curtatone, who spoke at a Dec. 14 State House hearing on the topic alongside a horde of angry residents, made no mention of a city lawsuit until Monday. He did, however, lobby passionately for the project, after journeying from City Hall for an hour on two buses and a train to arrive at Beacon Hill. Last week, the city’s attorney, John Gannon, said Somerville will notify potential defendants in the lawsuit this month.

The announcement did not come as a total surprise. Frustration among transportation advocates has been building with state inaction. Last month, the city’s Board of Aldermen unanimously passed a resolution saying Route 93 had a “devastating impact” on the city’s air quality and directing Curtatone to investigate legal options. The city clerk sent a copy of the resolution to Transportation Secretary Daniel A. Grabauskas.

It’s important for us to convey how serious we are, and to put [the state] on notice that they’re going to have to defend their actions in front of a federal judge,” said Alderman William A. White, who drafted the resolution.

Transportation advocates have long lobbied for a Green Line stop, complaining of local roads choked by commuter traffic and diesel buses polluting the air. The Big Dig only made things worse, diverting cars into Somerville and slowing motorists on the Central Artery as they slogged above the city. The result is dirty air and higher rates of lung cancer and heart attacks than the statewide average, said Wig Zamore, a member of Somerville Transit Equity Partnership, an advocacy group.

Zamore said several residents are planning separate federal lawsuits against the state for violating the Clean Air Act. If successful, he said Massachusetts could lose all federal transportation funding until it meets air quality requirements. “Premature mortality from heart attacks and lung cancer is not a community tactic,” he said. “The evidence is overwhelmingly compelling.”

Four railroad tracks divide Somerville, but the crowded city has only one train stop, a Red Line station in Davis Square. About 700,000 commuters cut through Somerville daily to get downtown or to Cambridge and other destinations, according to Curtatone.

To gain support for the Big Dig, the state pledged 15 years ago to build a $400 million Green Line extension. Two years ago, a court order reaffirmed that commitment. But the state is reconsidering the three projects, which include, besides the West Medford extension, trolley service in Jamaica Plain and a Red Line-Blue Line connector in downtown Boston.

Judith Foreman, spokeswoman for the state highway department, called the city’s lawsuit “premature.” The state plans at least one more public hearing before February, and officials are still accepting public comment on the projects. “It is still very early in this process,” Foreman said. “There’s been no resolution yet as to how we’re fulfilling this commitment.”

But Gannon said the state squandered its opportunity to avoid litigation. And the Conservation Law Foundation is offering to help Somerville prepare its federal complaint. “Bad pun, but the train has left the station,” Gannon said. “The state failed to live up to its commitment.”

Sparkling Eurostar Sets Signals To Green; Financial — Rail Go-getter Has Put Airlines To Flight, Reports Robin Pagnamenta

Sunday Express

January 9, 2005

FEW businessmen can have enjoyed a more auspicious start to the year than Richard Brown, chief executive of cross-Channel rail operator Eurostar.

Last week, the group revealed passenger numbers on its routes had swelled to a record 7.27million in 2004, a 15 per cent improvement on the previous year. Group revenues surged 15 per cent to a record £433million.

And better still, after years of mismanagement, losses and government subsidies, Eurostar said it was finally on track to earn its first profit, probably in three years.

For Brown, who joined Eurostar as a troubleshooting chief executive in August 2002, the results must taste pretty sweet.

The former British Rail executive has battled hard to rescue Eurostar, which was launched in 1994 and now employs 1,300 staff in three countries, by streamlining its management structure and competing head-on with low-cost airlines with discounted £59 return fares from the heart of London to Paris and Brussels. “We are certainly pleased, “ he tells the Financial Sunday Express. “The results prove our commercial policy has been justified.”

Eurostar has been steadily winning cross-Channel business from the airlines. Its market share on the London to Paris route is now 68 per cent, and 63 per cent on London to Brussels. Airline rivals such as BA and Ryanair are in retreat. The former has scaled back services between Gatwick and Paris while the latter has been forced to abandon flights from London to Brussels.

Eurostar enjoyed an unexpected surge in passengers during the Christmas and new year rush when 250,000 customers used the service, which was expanded to include 17 extra trains, making it Eurostar’s best-ever festive season.

Brown - who has more than 25 years’ experience in the railway industry - was poached from his post as commercial director of railand-bus operator National Express and soon found he had a few other things in his favour.

Last year’s performance was helped by the 2003 launch of the first section of the 186mph Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the high-speed line through Kent which has shaved 20 minutes off journey times between London and Paris and Brussels. “We had a full year’s benefit of the new lines and that gave us an important boost, “ he says.

The remaining sections of the CTRL will open in 2007, when Eurostar will move from its present London home at Waterloo to a new international terminus at St Pancras, slashing journey times by a further 20 minutes.

Brown also points to a marked improvement in punctuality last year, with 89 per cent of trains running on time- up from 78 per cent in 2003. “This has helped attract more passengers - particularly business people who rely on us to deliver them on time, “ he adds.

Brown is confident there is an increasingly bright future for Eurostar, owned by French company SNCF, its Belgian counterpart SNCB and Eurostar UK - a consortium of firms including National Express, British Airways and CTRL operator London & Continental Railways.

HE PREDICTS growth in passenger numbers this year of between 5 and 10 per cent. In 2007, when the full CTRL service is up and running, he expects a further 15 per cent boost in traffic to about 8million passengers a year.

The group’s financial position will receive another lift next year when its payments to Eurotunnel, the embattled Channel Tunnel operator, are reduced by as much as £40million. That should allow its French and Belgian divisions to break even. The group hopes its UK arm, which pays more to use the tunnel than the French and Belgian counterparts, will turn a profit after 2008. In the meantime, Brown has no shortage of tricks up his sleeve to tempt passengers on board.

This year, he is overseeing the refurbishment of all Eurostar’s carriage interiors and also introducing an enhanced first-class service, including wi-fi Internet access. The group is also keen to widen its electronic marketing campaign and its presence on the Net.

Eurostar may not be a listed company but Brown’s efforts have not gone unnoticed. Last year he scooped the Outstanding Personal Contribution Award at the UK’s National Rail Awards.

Nevertheless, if Eurostar is not careful his talents could end up being used elsewhere. Brown has been hotly tipped as a candidate for director general of the Department for Transport’s new rail group, set to replace the unlamented Strategic Rail Authority next year.

Union County gets $9.5 million to build ferry terminal

Newsday

January 10, 2005

ELIZABETH, N.J. — Union County plans to establish a ferry route from Elizabeth to lower Manhattan using a $9.5 million federal grant.

The money, from the Federal Transit Administration, would build a two- slip terminal on Newark Bay near the Jersey Gardens Mall and also pay for dredging, county Manager George Devanney said Monday.

The Union County Improvement Authority is to purchase the land and build a 1,000-car parking lot, which Devanney said would cost about $10 million. The ferries would be privately operated and service could begin in a year or two, he said.

The terminal could eventually be linked to a proposed light rail line between midtown Elizabeth and Newark Liberty International Airport, officials said. “This project isn’t just good for Union County, it’s good for the entire region,” Freeholder Chairman Rick Proctor said. “This project will allow commuters to bypass the transit and road choke points as they head in and out of Manhattan, and will be time- and cost-competitive with similar modes of transportation,” Proctor said.

Several ferry companies already operate routes to Manhattan from Atlantic Highlands, Highlands, Hoboken, South Amboy and Weehawken.

Dollars wasted on transit bureaucracies

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

January 10, 2005

Reality is about to hit. The problem of transit funding in Georgia all of a sudden is no longer just about MARTA.

Gwinnett County, Clayton County and the Xpress bus system operated by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority all are within a year or two of running out of federal start-up funds. That means that each of these entities (GRTA’s buses operate in 11 metro counties) will need to figure out how to pay for operating their transit services or shut them down.

And there’s also the Cobb County Transit system, operating since 1989, that receives its funds from county business license fees and state and federal grants as well as fares. CCT is riding along, but there are no major expansion plans given its limited funding.

Look around. There are four suburban-oriented bus systems in operation today. (There are several other community bus operations like the Buc in Buckhead and the Stinger around Georgia Tech). And then there’s MARTA, which carries well over 95 percent of all the transit riders in the region.

Think about it. It makes no sense to have all these duplicate transit services and agencies.

From a taxpayer’s point of view, from a business efficiency point of view, why would our region want to have different bus maintenance facilities, several transit administrations each with a human resources, legal, security and bus operations bureaucracy just to get people around?

And let’s look ahead. Additional transit systems are planned, such as the Peachtree Streetcar and the Belt Line. Should we create yet two more bureaucracies to operate transit?

The logical answer is no. Why should we be spending our precious transit dollars on duplicating bureaucracies so that each county or entity can claim ownership to its small bus fleet?

The Atlanta region desperately needs one transit agency that can operate heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, express buses, local buses and para-transit. Such an agency could be a hybrid of MARTA and GRTA — - leveraging the operational and legal strengths of both organizations.

It makes all the economic sense in the world. Had GRTA bought its 48 coaches through MARTA’s procurement process (ending up with buses that could be serviced at existing maintenance facilities), it could have saved about $150,000 per bus.

Instead of MARTA having four separate reciprocal fare agreements with the various transit operators, there could be one fare collection system. This will become possible when MARTA introduces its new Smartcard within the next 18 months.

The examples of savings and operational efficiencies are endless — - if only our business and government leaders would see through all the political static to find the best solution.

Once a new truly regional transit agency is in place, the entire region can address funding.

Since 1971, Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb counties have subsidized the mobility for residents throughout the area. The 1 percent MARTA sales tax, slated to go to 0.5 percent in 2032, represents the only major dedicated transit funding in the state. But it’s not fair for Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb to continue being the only governments supporting the ninth-largest transit system in the country.

Mayor Shirley Franklin, Fulton Commission Chairwoman Karen Handel and DeKalb CEO Vernon Jones should lead the push for a regional and state transit solution because they have the most at stake.

The Atlanta Regional Commission has just launched the Region Transit Institutional Analysis, which will address these issues. Initial research is scheduled to be completed within the next few months.

Here’s one idea that has great potential:

What if the 1 percent tax in Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb went to three-quarters in 2032 (it could be earlier if bonds are paid back before then)? What if Clayton, Cobb and Gwinnett counties bought into a regional transit system with a 0.5 percent tax?

Such funding would go a long way toward securing each county’s individual bus operations as well as offering opportunities to expand transit in our region. The other metro counties wanting to be part of a regional transit system could buy in at a 0.25 percent sales tax.

Even better, what if the state government provided an incentive to the communities willing to tax themselves for transit by matching each jurisdiction’s contribution? Then the Atlanta region could adopt a much more balanced transportation plan that would encourage more sensible land use policies that actually would reduce congestion.

We as a region need to expand all forms of transit options, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements, as well as commuter and inter-city rail. But let’s start by creating one unified transit agency that builds upon the expertise of MARTA and the political prowess of GRTA. And then let’s figure out how to financially support transit in metro Atlanta once and for all.

Dubai Metro to be ready on time

AME Info

United Arab Emirates:

January 10 – 2005

The Dubai Light Rail Transit (LRT) project is drawing enthusiastic response from countries in the region even as the project’s technical team is getting ready to award the contract for its electro-mechanical works very soon to one of the five consortia that submitted the offers.

Qassim Sultan, Director General of Dubai Municipality, who chairs the Higher Committee for the LRT project, said he is confident that the project would be completed within the scheduled time as the project is well on track now.

‘There is effective coordination between the LRT team and top builders in the emirate so as to ensure a smooth implementation of the project as well as all other major ongoing projects,’ he said, following a meeting of the LRT Higher Committee on Sunday evening at Dubai Municipality.

Sultan noted that there is stiff competition among top companies that submitted offers for the project. The offers are currently being evaluated and the results will be announced soon.

He said the technical team had completed evaluation of the offers for electro-mechanical works. The offers for underground civil works have already been received while the offers for at-ground civil works are expected to be fully received by the end of January, after which they would be evaluated in detail before awarding.

‘The LRT project has been divided into two segments with the electromechanical works including all mechanical works and supply of rolling-stock while the civil works including construction of tunnels and bridges. Offers on the mode of financing the project shall be fully received by end of March 05,’ he said.

Sultan, meanwhile, noted that works of the project at the site of the Dubai International Airport have already been underway and they were expected to be over by the end of this year. ‘We will soon announce a major international contest for designing a logo for the Dubai LRT project. At the same time, the Higher Committee, during its next meeting, will define they vision and mission of the project,’ he noted.

The meeting was attended by Major General (Retd) Sharafuddin Mohammed Hussein, Saeed Al Sharid, Director General of Emirates Transport Corporation, Mattar Al Tayer, Assistant Director General of Dubai Municipality for Roads and General Projects Affairs, Dr Khalifa Mohammed Hareb, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the UAE University, and Eng Nasser Ahmed Saeed, Director of Roads Department at Dubai Municipality and General Coordinator of the project.

The Dh12.5 billion project reflects the keenness of Dubai to establish a high standard infrastructure which will meet the requirements of and facilitate the rapid economic development of the emirate.

Sultan said that the construction of the project will not affect the flow of traffic, since the 10-metre-wide work sites will be at a distance from the roads. The underground works for stations and metro will be carried out without affecting buildings, Sultan said and added that residents will not be disturbed by the excavation work. According to the last amendment, the length of the underground railway line is 3.5 kilometres.

The project’s first phase is a 35km stretch from Rashidiya to the American University in Dubai (AUD) to be finished in May 2009. The second phase will cover some 32 kilometres from the American University to Jebel Ali and the second line, which will be constructed from Dubai International Airport to Dubai Medical City and it, is expected to be completed by 2012. The train will transport more than 23 thousands passengers per hour.

The project is of immense significance to the emirate, as it is designed to meet the growth in population, estimated at 6.5 per cent annually. The population will increase from 1 million in the current year to 3.5 million in 2020, he explained. With the rise in population, there will also be a proportional increase in the number of vehicles on Dubai’s roads.

Light-rail: Higher prices, later arrival; Tack on another $28 million to city’s transit plan

Charlotte Observer

January 11, 2005

The price of Charlotte’s light-rail line has gone up again, to $427 million — a $28 million jump since last spring.

And the timetable has slipped six months, with service now starting in April 2007, transit chief Ron Tober told the City Council on Monday.

Charlotte Area Transit System has been scrambling to deal with the latest price increase on the planned south corridor line. Last fall, construction bids came in 30 percent over estimates. Then another blow fell this winter when the Federal Transit Administration said it wouldn’t pay more of the higher cost.

Tober told council members he plans to use reserves, borrow more, delay building a garage for Charlotte Trolley and ask the state for more money to offset the increase. And he’ll cut cost by reducing the amount of steel, eliminating some public art projects and cutting out an elevator tower in the light-rail garage.

All bridges and stations will be built. Tober had considered scrapping three bridges to save $18.6 million, but he said that’s a bad choice that would worsen traffic.

The council questioned Tober closely for an hour on how he would trim costs and pay the higher price. Mayor Pat McCrory said he wanted CATS to work harder to anticipate price increases for the remaining contracts.

Tober said engineers have increased their estimates for future construction bids because of their experience with the track and garage. The $427 million includes a contingency fund of $23.5 million. That should be plenty, Tober said, because 70 percent of costs are firm through contracts and low bids.

Local taxpayers will not pay more, Tober said. And bus service and future rapid-transit projects will not be affected.

Lewis Guignard, president of Citizens for Effective Government, said in an interview that the increase in material prices won’t be a one-time problem for CATS. China’s booming economy will continue driving up the cost of steel, cement and petroleum. “I would say it’s a good time for the city council to be more careful how they throw money at projects,” Guignard said.

The council is scheduled to vote on the construction contracts late this month or in February. The Metropolitan Transit Commission, which oversees the project, will hear about the higher price on Jan. 26. The commission is made up of the seven mayors in Mecklenburg and board chairman of the county commissioners.

The 9.6-mile rail line will run parallel to South Boulevard, from uptown to Interstate 485 north of Pineville. It is the first of five rail and busway projects that CATS expects to build by 2025.

Because the line’s overall cost has increased, FTA funding will cover only 47 percent, not the 50 percent that CATS expected. Tober will ask the state to spend an additional $7 million so that it will continue its commitment to pay 25 percent of the line’s cost. CATS will contribute 28 percent, up from its former 25 percent share.

Tober says he also will eliminate several pieces of art to save $600,000, including the QP tower sign planned at the old Queens Park theater site at the future Scaleybark station. Art that is an integral part of the stations, such as fencing and pavement, will remain.

CATS will save $4.5 million by delaying construction of the trolley barn, planned for South Boulevard at Bland Street. Terry Shook, president of Charlotte Trolley, said he is confident the barn will still be built and his organization is continuing its fund-raising plans to help with the project.

Support For Streetcar Extension Stirs Up Storms

Tampa Tribune (Florida)

January 11, 2005

TAMPA — Hillsborough County Commissioner Ronda Storms threatened Monday to deny HARTline money next year because the board decided to support extending the city’s streetcar line. “It will be a cold day in hell before this commissioner will give any money to [HARTline] whatsoever,” said Storms, a HARTline board member. The county’s budget process begins this month, with requests expected throughout the spring.

Storms’ comment came as HARTline board members considered whether to support seeking $2 million in federal transportation money to extend Tampa’s streetcar line three-eighths of a mile to Whiting Street. The money is earmarked for projects that reduce air pollution and alleviate traffic congestion.

The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization had rejected seeking $3 million for the project, but last week, the planning group decided to consider putting $2 million into the streetcar and $1 million toward Plant City transportation projects. No date was set for a vote.

Storms wanted the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority board on Monday to support putting money into transit rather than the streetcar, but her effort failed as other board members, including Tampa City Councilwoman Linda Saul-Sena, suggested the streetcar is an economic development tool and its expansion could lead to better commuter services. “This is not the streetcar board,” Storms said. “This board owes a primary obligation to HARTline services.”

HARTline runs buses throughout the county. The streetcar connects Ybor City with the Channel District.

Hillsborough County contributes more than $1.3 million to HARTline’s operating budget. The county also gives HARTline about $240,000 from impact fees, with the money funding capital projects such as bus shelters.

While relying heavily on the county for operating expenses, HARTline depends largely on federal and state grants for capital costs. The agency’s annual budget is about $53 million.

If the county withheld money, operating services such as weekend buses and special-event shuttles could be jeopardized, HARTline spokesman Ed Crawford said. “That’s not helping the people we’re supposed to be helping,” Crawford said.

Commissioner Brian Blair, a HARTline board member, also argued against the streetcar expansion but said later he probably wouldn’t withhold county money from the transit agency. “I don’t want to punish somebody for what somebody else did,” Blair said, noting that the board is expecting two new members and a new executive director.

He said he would continue to oppose the streetcar expansion, saying more people would benefit from better bus service. “You’re taking a chance on a streetcar system that goes from no place to nowhere,” Blair said.

The streetcar project would cost more than $7 million. State and federal money to cover the rest of the extension cost has been requested or secured, streetcar officials have said.

Light rail may add three cars

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)

January 11, 2005

Metro Transit officials hope to order three new rail cars this month for the Hiawatha light-rail line to cope with higher-than-expected ridership.

The Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee voted Monday to buy one rail car with $3.15 million left in the rail project’s budget, and two others using $6.3 million from Hennepin County.

Transit officials are trying to place the order by Jan. 23. Otherwise, the rail car manufacturer, Bombardier Transit Corp. of Canada, which made the first 24 transit cars, plans to shut down production, transit officials said.

Part of the financing is tied to the proposed Northstar commuter line, which would run on existing rails between Big Lake and Minneapolis. The Hiawatha line would be extended four blocks to meet the Northstar line behind the Target Center.

The cost of the Hiawatha extension, along with two more Hiawatha light-rail cars to handle the additional passengers, has been included in the Northstar’s $265 million estimated budget. Transit officials hope to buy those two cars immediately, using funds the county has committed to Northstar.

The catch is that the Northstar line has not been approved by the Legislature. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has asked legislators to approve an initial $37.5 million for the Northstar line to finish the design.

If light-rail officials waited until the Legislature made a decision, its contract with Bombardier would expire in the meantime, said Metro Transit’s deputy general manager Mark Fuhrmann. Bombardier has declined to extend the contract.

Officials say buying the cars immediately has three benefits: It would save money over a new contract, either with Bombardier or another car builder; it allows the purchase of cars identical to the first 24 and it makes three new cars available for use on the Hiawatha well before 2008, when the commuter rail line would start service.

Higher-than-expected Hiawatha ridership has required Metro Transit to run more trains farther and longer each day than planned, making it difficult to find time for maintenance, Fuhrmann said. Metro Transit has paid mechanics overtime to do maintenance work.

The Federal Transit Administration must approve rail car purchases. Metro Transit has asked for an immediate decision from federal officials.

The Metropolitan Council is set to vote on the matter Wednesday. The Hennepin County Board had agreed to contribute $6.89 million to the Northstar project and will meet Thursday in a special session to consider the $6.3 million rail-car purchase as most of that contribution. “There’s agreement up here that this makes sense,” said Commissioner Peter McLaughlin of Minneapolis.

Under the arrangement, the county would be obligated to pay for the two Hiawatha cars even if Northstar doesn’t proceed. Gary Erickson, Hennepin county’s assistant administrator for public works, said the cars are needed. Hennepin pays half the cost of operating the Hiawatha line and has promoted it from the beginning.

The Northstar Corridor Development Authority, which represents the cities and counties along the commuter line, approved the rail car plan on Thursday. Work on the Northstar is progressing with money approved last August. The Northstar development agency put in $10 million to continue with design work and the Metropolitan Council put up $2.5 million to win a $10 million matching grant to buy land needed for stations and parking lots.

China to use rail contract as carrot

The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo)

January 11, 2005

The construction of a 12,000-kilometer high-speed railway network throughout China at a cost of more than 10 trillion yen will begin this year, and is scheduled for completion in 2020.

In addition to the railway lines linking Wuhan, Hubei Province, and Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, on which trains will travel at 300 kph, China also plans to invite companies to tender bids to supply high-speed trains for the new system.

This is a great opportunity for Japan, which has a consortium of six companies hoping to enter a bid, but the Chinese government seems likely to use the project as a diplomatic card. The fate of the consortium, therefore, will continue to hang in the balance.

On Jan. 20, China’s Railway Ministry will receive international tenders for technical consulting services for three sections — Wuhan to Guangzhou; Zhengzhou, Henan Province, to Xian, Shanxi Province; and Beijing to Tianjin, on which construction begins this year.

Japan Railway Technical Service is expected to submit a bid.

Of the three sections, the sections through Wuhan and Zhengzhou will be designed to accommodate speeds of 350 kph so trains can travel at 300 kph, a speed similar to that of the fastest Shinkansen bullet train.

In January, China’s State Council, which is similar to the Japanese Cabinet, approved the plan to build the railway network, under which four systems would link the country’s south and north and another four would link its east and west. The three sections comprise the first stage of construction.

The Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway project, for which Japanese, German and French leaders have tried to help companies from their countries win contracts, was incorporated as part of the national project, but the Beijing-Shanghai system was not selected for construction this time.

According to sources close to the Japanese consortium, it will be difficult for the Chinese government to make a decision based on political considerations with the three countries involved. “The Chinese government had no choice but to incorporate the Beijing-Shanghai system into the project,” the sources said.

According to sources close to the Chinese government, the Railway Ministry plans to invite companies’ bids to provide trains capable of speeds of 250 kph to 300 kph as early as summer.

The Japanese consortium, which includes Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Corp. and Hitachi, Ltd., is expected to tender a bid with the upgraded version of the Shinkansen Hayate train.

The Japanese consortium’s rivals are German industrial giant Siemens AG, which sells high speed InterCity Express trains, and Alstom SA, a leading French industrial firm that markets TGV trains. The three undoubtedly will compete fiercely for the contract.

Last year, Alstom and the Japanese consortium won a contract to provide 480 coaches to form 60 trains capable of running at 200 kph for a plan to speed up existing lines under a different project. Most of the coaches’ specifications were those of the Hayate train.

On Dec. 28, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei told the Japan-China New Century Association, a suprapartisan group headed by House of Representative member Otohiko Endo, that the trains proposed by the Japanese consortium had met China’s requirements. “But the current chill in China-Japan relations has put an end to the consortium’s efforts,” he said.

Xu Jialu, vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, said he realized that the Shinkansen train was good for the Beijing-Shanghai project. “I can push for the the Shinkansen train if Japan changes its political approach,” he said.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visits to Yasukuni Shrine irritated China, as did the government issuing a tourist visa to Taiwan’s former President Lee Ten-hui, and controversy concerning its territorial claim to the Senkaku islands.

The vice chairman’s remark, therefore, is regarded as a call on the Japanese government to make political concessions, while China uses the high-speed railway project as a carrot.

Siemens, which was said to be the top contender for the bid to supply trains for China’s existing railways, was not allowed to take part in the bidding. The reason remains unknown, but a Japanese company employee believes the German firm upset the Chinese government.

The Japanese consortium could make the same mistake too. The Japan-China relationship is said to be economically hot and politically cool.

Bids, which are judged on quality and price, can be used by China as a political card. It remains unknown whether the Japanese consortium can overcome the difficulties.

Meet the Urban Transit Anti-NIMBYs

TheStranger.com

Vol 14 No. 17, Jan 6 - Jan 12 2005

BRING THE TRAIN

Neighbors describe the Roosevelt business district, a colorful collection of street-level shops and two- and three-story apartments and taverns, as a work in progress. And there’s no denying that things in Roosevelt are changing: You can see it at the intersection of Northeast 65th Street and Roosevelt Way Northeast, where a four-story condominium complex is rising slowly from a giant hole in the ground, and over on Northeast 65th Street, where an ever-evolving collection of shops and bars now includes an Australian pub called Pies & Pints, a German bar called Die Bier Stube, and Pop Tots, a store for punk-rock toddlers.

Another major development is in the works: Sometime in the next decade, Sound Transit plans to build a light-rail station in the neighborhood. Two options are on the table: an elevated Eighth Avenue station abutting I-5 and an underground 12th Avenue station that would sit smack in the middle of the Roosevelt business district. While light-rail construction would rip up busy streets and block access to businesses in the neighborhood, residents nonetheless overwhelmingly prefer 12th Avenue, where single-family homes bump up against supermarkets and 65-foot-tall apartment buildings. Others, including Mayor Greg Nickels and some members of the Sound Transit board, have expressed an interest in Eighth Avenue, which — according to current estimates — would save the agency as much as $80 million, but would plunk an elevated light-rail station down on the periphery of the bustling neighborhood.

On a recent blustery weekday morning, four Roosevelt residents stood at the corner of Eighth Avenue and 61st Street, where the roar of freeway traffic threatened to drown out our conversation. Unlike many neighborhood activists, however, these Roosevelt residents are not anti- density NIMBYs. Quite the opposite: “We’ve been trying to get the density up on 12th, and now they’re talking about building the tracks [on Eighth] instead,” a frustrated Andrew Reay-Ellers said, gesturing toward the freeway. “Where’s the whole transit-oriented development thing that the city talks so much about?”

And indeed, the development on Eighth Avenue is anything but dense: A row of single-family houses faces the flat concrete wall of I-5, where a massive park-and-ride is about the only thing remotely transit-oriented. In the Eighth Avenue alignment, light rail would emerge from the ground around 63rd Street, run elevated for two blocks, and plunge back underground at 65th. But with an elevated portion of I-5 dominating the two-block span between 63rd and 65th, it’s unlikely that the land would ever be redeveloped. And because I-5 functions as a wall that cuts off Roosevelt from neighboring Green Lake, ridership would likely be diminished.

Twelfth Avenue, in contrast, offers what neighbors see as the perfect combination of attributes: a vibrant urban streetscape, complete with dense apartment housing and a Whole Foods- anchored shopping district. “We want to redevelop this block in a smart-growth way,” Roosevelt Neighborhood Association President Jim O’Halloran said. “We need light rail to support this development.”

Fortunately for Roosevelt neighbors, the 12th Avenue option seems to be gaining traction. Even Nickels, a longtime proponent of keeping Eighth Avenue on the table, appears to be coming around. The Sound Transit board will vote on the alignment at its meeting on January 27.

Home sought for abandoned trolley cars

Newsday, Inc.

January 12, 2005

Anyone wishing for a bigger train set might want to visit the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Eleven authentic trolley cars are available — all for free.

The 60-year-old cars are the abandoned property of a Brooklyn man who once dreamed of reviving a trolley network in the borough. Now the cars are rusting in a lot — in danger of being disposed. “We have tried to figure out how we can get them out of here,” said Eric Deutsch, president and chief executive of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp., a nonprofit group that manages the 300-acre site for the city. He said numerous trolley enthusiasts and museums have turned him down.

Now, with their last owner evicted after failing to pay $22,000 in storage fees, the only thing the corporation can do is dispose of them. There is no set demolition date, but carting companies have been contacted. “The Brooklyn Navy Yard cannot leave them here indefinitely,” he said.

He might have a taker in a pair of Brooklynites seeking to revive trolleys in the borough that inspired the Dodgers, named after trolley dodgers, that is. The problem is that the group, the Brooklyn City Streetcar Co., says it has no money to transport or store the hulks. They are seeking tax-deductible donations of money or space. “We’re trying to find some place for them to go where they will be safe and secure,” said Jan Lorenzen, one of the founders.

The red-and-white cars were built in 1946 in Baden, Mo., by the St. Louis Car Co. Until 1953, they served riders in the Twin Cities before ferrying suburban commuters in Cleveland, where they were eventually retired in 1985. When the last owner, Bob Diamond, acquired them is unclear.

Once the darling of city officials and transit aficionados for his plan to bring trolleys to Red Hook, Diamond has since witnessed the end of the project.

Officials blamed his anemic fund-raising.

Deutsch said Diamond did not contest his eviction. Diamond could not be reached Wednesday.

Musings

The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo)

January 12, 2005

The following is a translation of the Henshu Techo column from The Yomiuri Shimbun’s Jan. 11 issue.

With the Hokkaido Shinkansen superexpress line project given the government go-ahead to start construction in fiscal 2005, the Seikan (Aomori-Hakodate) Tunnel will likely be in the limelight again.

The section planned for construction, from Shin-Aomori to Shin-Hakodate, will cover a distance of 149 kilometers. The Seikan Tunnel accounts for 82 kilometers of the planned Shinkansen section. At the time of its construction, the tunnel was designed with future Shinkansen use in mind.

JR Hokkaido is in charge of the tunnel’s maintenance. The company has been pumping out water that seeps into the tunnel, which at 21 tons a minute is enough to fill 70 percent of Tokyo Dome in a month. JR Hokkaido says it has to spend nearly 700 million yen each year to continue draining the tunnel.

Before the privatization of Japanese National Railways in 1987, a budget examiner of the then Finance Ministry lashed out at the tunnel water drainage and other Seikan Tunnel-related expenditures as “one of the three most absurd outlays of the Showa era, comparable to the folly of building the battleship Yamato.”

The tunnel today is used for 18 passenger train services and 23 freight train runs per day on each of the inbound and outbound tracks. So the tunnel plays a considerably important role beyond transporting people, serving as an artery for sending farm and marine produce and other goods from Hokkaido to the rest of the country.

It is unprecedented in the history of the Shinkansen for a train to travel through such a long tunnel. New standard-gauge tracks for use by Shinkansen trains are to be laid alongside the narrow-gauge conventional tracks to allow both the superexpress and conventional trains to run side by side. It is also the first time that slow freight trains will be run in parallel with Shinkansen through the same tunnel. Some experts are concerned about the complexity of juggling schedules for trains using the tunnel.

To prevent a Shinkansen train from passing a conventional train traveling in the same direction in the tunnel, sidings for the latter are planned at the entrance and exit of the tunnel.

Experts, however, point out the fear of empty freight train containers being blown off train when a Shinkansen passes a freight train that is traveling in the opposite direction in the tunnel. This contingency has not been solved yet.

Authorities concerned with the Hokkaido Shinkansen project should bear in mind the need for confirming in advance the safety arrangements of train operations, in addition to securing stable sources of funds for financing the Shinkansen construction.

Such preparation is essential, as the project for linking Hokkaido and Honshu with Shinkansen services will comprise many things that will be the first of their kinds.

Kent high-speed rail operator’s search begins in Britain

Evening Standard (UK)

January 12, 2005

Bidding has reopened to see which operator will run Britain’s fastest commuter train franchise, promising 140-mph journeys into London from Kent and halving the journey time from Ashford to the capital to just over 30 minutes.

The Strategic Rail Authority is issuing revised guidelines for the Integrated Kent franchise to replace the old South East services, which performed so badly under the previous license holder, French group Connex.

The new franchise is set to shake up life for Kent commuters. From 2009, it is planned to use Japanese-built high-speed trains on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, bringing commuters into the international rail terminal being built at St Pancras as opposed to the traditional terminals of London Bridge, Charing Cross and Victoria.

The service will allow commuters to reach London from the likes of Ramsgate in east Kent in 75 minutes against the current two hours. The SRA is having to release revised plans for the Kent franchise after its initial proposals were given a cool response by the four short-listed bidders.

The companies trying to land the historically heavily taxpayer-subsidised franchise are:

— FirstGroup, operator of Great Western services out of Paddington.

— GNER, operator of the East Coast Main Line intercity services out of King’s Cross, which is bidding with Hong Kong mass transit operator MTRC.

— Go-Ahead in its joint venture with French group Keolis, which already operates Southern services out of Victoria, as well as Thameslink.

— DSB, the Danish State railway company, in a venture with Stagecoach which runs South West Trains out of Waterloo and owns almost half of Virgin Trains’ Euston services.

The South East train franchise has consistently been the most controversial London commuter network.

Connex’s poor post-privatisation operating record led to it being sacked by the SRA and the withdrawal of the old-fashioned slam-door trains in favour of modern Electrostar rolling stock has taken far longer than had been expected. Even with the introduction of high-speed services, commuters from the Medway towns of Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham fear their services into London may be disrupted during a changeover period.

Other commuters into the City say their lives will disrupted by arriving in London at St Pancras rather than their traditional terminals.

A MAP FOR TRANSPORTATION

The Boston Globe

January 13, 2005

THE CONSERVATION Law Foundation and the mayors of Medford and Somerville are prepared to file suit to maintain a state commitment to transportation projects devised in the 1980s. The Romney administration, if it wants to preempt the lawsuits, needs to present a better agenda to guide transportation policy in the new century.

The administration expects to provide a first draft of such a plan in the next couple of weeks. It is likely that the Green Line extension into Somerville and Medford, which prompted the mayors to act, will pass muster. This project, important though it is, should not stand in isolation. The administration needs to integrate it into a plan that emphasizes smart growth: incentives for housing and business development in compact areas served by public transportation.

The Dukakis administration had a simpler objective when it attached a list of MBTA expansion projects to environmental approvals for the Central Artery project. It wanted to make sure that enhancements to T service would keep pace with the highway improvements. Dukakis’s successors, including Romney, vigorously implemented commuter rail commitments but lagged on several projects in the inner core around Boston. The Conservation Law Foundation filed notice of intent to sue in federal court yesterday to enforce commitments to restore rail service on the Arborway line, connect the Red and Blue lines at Charles Circle, and extend the Green Line.

If it wishes to forgo any project on the Dukakis list, the Romney administration needs to advance an alternative plan that would expand and improve MBTA service. After two fare increases in less than five years, T riders should not be expected to pick up the tab.

At a press conference yesterday, the Law Foundation’s president, Philip Warburg, raised the possibility of tolls for motorists who use Interstate 93, prime beneficiaries of the artery project. This would be technologically difficult and would require federal approval. A better option would be an increase in the state gasoline tax, which has remained at 21 cents a gallons since 1991. It should be 29 cents today just to keep up with inflation.

Another option would be to sell bonds financed by anticipated tax revenue expected from future economic growth around the new transportation projects. This is an untested mechanism in Massachusetts, and to be credible, Romney’s transportation agenda will probably need other sources of revenue.

Lawsuits should not be necessary to prod state government into providing the infrastructure for economic growth and environmental protection. The Conservation Law Foundation and the two mayors are performing a service by making sure the governor moves transportation closer to the top of his agenda.

Station site size questioned

Ballard News Tribune

January 13, 2005

How much land does one monorail station need?

Representatives from the Seattle Monorail Project say the half-block of real estate the agency seeks to buy in downtown Ballard is necessary for one of its stations.

The owners of the Denny’s property, at the corner of Northwest Market Street and 15th Avenue Northwest, contend that the 1.4-acre site is excessive. “They wanted a total of 60,000 square feet where they needed 10,000 square feet,” said Al Symington, a spokesperson for the owners of the Denny’s property.

The Market Street station is one of three stops in Ballard along the 14- mile Green Line that extends as far south as Morgan Junction in West Seattle. No one knows how large this station, which will accommodate a dual-beam guideway, needs to be, but the agency also plans to use the location as a construction staging area. The rest of the property could be used for Metro bus parking or as a bus turnaround.

Symington said those uses don’t justify the monorail’s taking of a half- block. The owners offered to sell the monorail a portion of the property for a station, then lease the rest of it at low rates.

The south side of Market Street first looked attractive to staffers at the Seattle Monorail Project. A station there would be next to the Walgreen’s store and parking lot. Joe McWilliams, the agency’s lead right-of-way manager, said the idea fell through when monorail staff found the station would be too small without cutting into the Walgreen’s parking lot.

When the Seattle Monorail Project decided to pursue the Denny’s site, the owners agreed to work with them. According to McWilliams, leasing a portion of the property for construction staging wasn’t economically feasible. The agency doesn’t know how long it needs the land.

The property owners refused to sell, so the Seattle Monorail Project condemned the property. A judge initially ruled in favor of the monorail, but an appeal has been filed.

They accuse the monorail of having ulterior motives. In numerous depositions, said Symington, monorail staffers never mentioned the idea of using the land for a bus turnaround. “The monorail’s interest for the property is not for transportation,” he said.

Joe McWilliams, the Seattle Monorail Project’s right-of-way director, said the agency needs all of the land it’s bought. Whether it will once the Green Line is built is hard to say. “We don’t know yet that there will be any surplus property at all,” said McWilliams, suggesting that the monorail might permanently own the 60,000 square feet it wants to purchase, regardless of how large the station is.

The agency also bought the existing Sudden Printing building and an apartment building between the Denny’s restaurant and its parking lot. The combination of those purchases means the Seattle Monorail Project would own a half-block of real estate on the busiest intersection in downtown Ballard.

McWilliams said the monorail might need that much space in order to make room for a bus waiting area, or a turnaround spot for Metro buses. The intersection at 15th Avenue and Market Street is a busy one, said McWilliams, and neither the Seattle Monorail Project nor King County Metro want to make things worse by parking buses on the street.

Jack Lattemann from King County Metro confirmed that the two agencies are talking about bus/monorail connections at the Market Street location, including ideas like the bus turnaround or off-street waiting area. “It’s quite likely that one or more buses would terminate at or near 15th Avenue,” said Lattemann. No bus lines currently terminate there, but that will probably change once the monorail is built.

The owners of the Denny’s site suspect the agency’s real intentions lie in future development. “The highest and best use for the property is for mixed-use development,” said Symington. “There’s no question about that.”

According to court documents, the Seattle Monorail Project commissioned a study to determine what the future value of land around potential monorail stations would be. One of the sites mentioned in the report is the 15th and Market station.

In late 2003, the agency spent $150,000 for the study, which has been sealed by the court.

The owners of the “sinking ship” parking garage in Pioneer Square, as well as the owners of a future station site at Fifth Avenue and Bell Street downtown, made similar arguments, that the Seattle Monorail Project wants more land than it needs for the stations.

The Seattle Monorail Project has a perfect record in condemnation cases, though. So far, every court has ruled in favor of the agency.

Attorneys for the owners of the Denny’s property are expected to file an appeal this week.

Bids beat CATS budget; Proposals for light-rail fare collection system are lower than expected

Charlotte Observer

January 13, 2005

In a turnaround from a recent spate of high prices, all bids came in under budget for Charlotte’s light-rail line’s fare collection system, transit chief Ron Tober said Wednesday.

The low bid of about $2 million was 31 percent less than the $2.9 million estimate.

Four firms offered to supply the 50 ticket vending machines, which will sell tickets at the 15 planned stations. But the $900,000 savings on the machines will do little to offset some of Charlotte Area Transit System’s most costly contracts, which came in 30 percent over budget because of higher prices for steel and cement.

Currently, CATS will spend $5 million more than expected for its train garage and about $22.9 million more than estimated for track and bridges. Those two bids are the reason the project’s cost increased $28 million this week to $427 million.

The vending machines contract is one of CATS’s smallest for the train line, which will run on double tracks along South Boulevard between uptown and Interstate 485 near Pineville.

Another big contract, $52.5 million, for 16 light-rail cars, was under estimates last spring. Train control and communication contracts were $47.3 million, about $2 million below budget.

CATS has bought about 90 percent of the land needed for track and stations, and real estate spending is within budget. Bids will be opened later this year for the stations and a parking deck.

Tober told council members Monday he will use $7.6 million in savings from other contracts to help offset the higher costs.

Train service will start in spring 2007 if the federal government agrees, as expected, to pay 47 percent of the project’s cost.

Project manager David Leard said the council will be asked to approve the ticket machine contract Jan. 24 or Feb. 14. The machines cost $20,000 to $25,000 each. The balance of the contract pays for installation, programming, spare parts, insurance, bonds and a contingency fund.

Passengers will buy a ticket from a vending machine at the station and then board the train without giving up the ticket. CATS, like many other U.S. transit agencies, will use an honor system that relies on random checks aboard the train to find passengers without a ticket.

New York City MTA’s photo ban plans spark firestorm of protest

Light Rail Now! NewsLog

January 13, 2005

As we reported earlier (see New York City transit tops move toward criminalizing transit photography), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of New York City recently resurrected a proposal to outlaw photography on the city’s subways and other transit systems (except for certified “press” representatives holding police-issued ID cards, or officially approved “authorized” agents). This sinister clampdown on free _expression, professional transit-industry photography, and the traditional, historic photographic documenation of the evolution of the city’s legendary system has unleashed a veritable firestorm of protest, uniting a wide range of photographers, transit industry professionals, avocational fans of railways and transit, civil libertarians, and others. A final decision from the MTA on this repressive proposal is expected imminently.

One of the organizations opposing the ban, the group maintaining the pro- transit website NYCSubway.org, cites a number of examples of individuals and organizations opposing the ban, including NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. According to a New York Daily News article (22 May 2004), Dunn called the photo ban “grossly excessive”, adding, “There is no reason a tourist taking a snapshot in a subway car should be interrogated by the police or face the prospect of being taken into custody.”

[NYCSubway.org, 2005/01/11]

NYCSubway.org also points out that two photo contests have been launched in formal “protest” of the MTA ban. These are the Straphanger’s Campaign Contest and the Village Voice Contest . Further information is available of the NYCSubway.org site:

http://www.nycsubway.org/photoban.html

Other interests and professions impacted by the proposed ban have added their protests. One of these is deviantART.com. In a commentary posted January 8th, deviantART.com CEO Angelo Sotira underscores, “We cannot stand by while there is such a blatant strike on artistic freedom.” He added, “While deviantART sympathizes with the desire to improve security in New York, this attempt is totally misguided and unfairly targets artists. Will they try to ban photography in Times Square? It’s a slippery slope. When will it stop?”

The group further notes that “Photography comprises the largest group of artists participating on deviantART.com, which currently hosts artwork by over 1.1 million artists across the globe. The reaction of the online community to the proposed ban has been unified alarm, disgust, anger and disappointment and has been channeled by the website’s executive staff into the Global Subway Photography Contest. The contest, launched less than a month ago, encouraged deviantART photographers to get into mass transit and submit photos for delivery to New York authorities. Thousands of photos have already been submitted for the silent protest.”

“Our subways are an important part of urban culture, and this contest celebrates that fact” declared Eric Kolb, deviantART.com Director of Artist Relations. “We wanted to bring artists from around the world together to express their love for these underground marvels in the way they’re best able. These photos serve as a clear and unambiguous indication that there is a great deal to be lost if the MTA adopts these rules banning photography and video photography.”

The proposed photo ban has elicited a similar outpouring of opposition from a very wide range of affected invididuals and groups. Below we provide a small sampling.

Stefan Mashkevich, posting of 2005/01/08 to an online tramways dicussion group: I strongly believe that this ban is totally stupid, ineffective, and constitutes “handwaving”, or false self-convincing that “measures are being taken”, rather than a real step towards improving security. In fact, one can argue that it will have a *negative* impact, as police officers will have to spend their time dealing with people taking pictures time which will thus be unavailable for addressing real threats.

Stefan Mashkevich, letter of 2005/01/08 to MTA: These days, it seems that the words “in the need of security” have become pretty much a wildcard; as long as they are pronounced, that is supposed to be the end of discussion. Is the restriction reasonable? Will it actually promote security? You should not be even asking!

First and foremost, photo technology has been advanced to such extent that taking pictures without being noticed is more than easy these days. Photo cameras built into cellular phones are but the simplest example. Consequently, your ban is, in effect, not enforceable. More precisely, if there are any people with malicious intentions out there, they will be carrying out those intentions with ease, against the background of your Authority’s bragging about its “efforts on fighting terrorism” in terms of numbers of tourists or rail fans caught for taking pictures.

Second, there is already a huge amount of subway pictures existing and available for anyone to look at and use in any way. If you seriously believe that new pictures pose a threat to security, you have to make the same conclusion with respect to old ones, because objects depicted there remain in place, for the most part. Since I doubt that you can declare those old pictures illegal, the “effect” of your ban is severely undermined by their presence.

Last but not least, there will obviously be people who *will* be taking pictures be it out of negligence, out of spite, or because they have the legal right to do so as per your own rules. Those people will be approached by police officers, questioned, sometimes convicted. Time and effort being wasted on such so-called law-enforcement activity will mean that police will not be able to pay as much attention to real security threats, or plain crime, on the subway (or elsewhere)

Bob Atkins, article posted Jan. 2005 on http://www.photo.net/oped/mtaban/

If a photography ban seemed likely to be effective in preventing terrorist activity, then maybe such a restriction on photography would be a reasonable measure, but I don’t think that’s the case. Today lots of devices contain cameras, from cell phones to PDAs to MP3 players. Unless all of these are banned too, the effect of a ban on “photography” will simply mean that anyone with questionable motives for taking pictures in the subway will simply use a device that doesn’t look like a camera. The only people who will really be affected by the ban will be tourists and

serious street photographers.

NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign, “Statement on Proposed Rules of Conduct for New York City Subway and Bus Riders”, Tuesday, 30 November 2004:

http://www.straphangers.org/photoban/conduct.htm

We object to the proposed rule that would completely ban taking photographs, film or video in the subways and on buses with limited exceptions. We respect the need for security in the transit system, but believe that there are important values in having photographers document life and conditions on the subways and buses.

The Campaign notes that in this year of the subway centennial, the MTA itself has sponsored an exhibition of photographic images “offering a peek into the lives of New Yorkers throughout the decades, from quiet moments reading on a crowded train to grandstanding youths on an elevated platform.” Photographers in the MTA-sponsored exhibition include Bruce Davidson and Henri Cartier-Bresson. (See MTA News Release here.)

The proposed rule provides two exceptions that raise serious First Amendment issues of favoring one kind of _expression over another. The rule would permit photographs by “members of the press holding valid identification cards issued by the New York City Police Department” or “where written authorization has been provided by NYCTA.” No standards are detailed in the proposed rules for issuing such authorizations.

Margaret Cho’s Blog, 2004/07/09: http://margaretcho.net/blog/proposedphotoban.htm

Outlawing photography seems to be one of the knee-jerk reactions of many institutions concerned about “security” issues these days. If I thought this proposal would increase safety in the subway one bit, I might have some sympathy for it. But cameras are so ubiquitous, and come in so many sizes and formats that it would be impossible to stop someone from sneaking a photo of the transit system for nefarious purposes. And why would they need to take a picture anyway? What vital information could a terrorist gain from a grainy cell phone picture that they couldn’t get from the subway maps available on every corner? The only people that would be hurt by a photography ban are tourists and photographers documenting life in this essential part of New York City. What is the real motivation behind this proposed photo ban?

NYCSubway.org, 2005/01/11: http://www.nycsubway.org/photoban.html

The madness doesn’t just extend to New York City. New Jersey Transit has also enacted such a ban, even so far as having police detain and question people taking photos of NJT trains from PUBLIC STREETS. No trespassing was involved, no laws were broken. This has affected regular users of this very web site. Was their camera taken? No. Were they arrested? No. Charged? No. So, no harm no foul right? Well, if you consider being taken into custody, deprived due process and Miranda rights, interviewed by local terrorism agents, “all right”. …

An interesting unanswered question is: “Why prevent only NEW photography?” Is this a prelude to even more bans, this time on web sites? nycsubway.org includes over 11,000 photos of the subway lines, past and present, and over 17,000 more of transit systems worldwide. Should these be considered historical documents or a source of information to terrorists? Webmasters and contributors could even be labeled terrorist facilitators. Even the Library of Congress has close up, detailed photos of key structures and bridges, “soft targets”. Will there be attempts to censor the Library of Congress? Permitting a ban on NEW photography is another step toward removal of ALL of these websites, in the name of “security”.

Shinkansen projects up in air

The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo)

January 13, 2005

While construction work on three new Shinkansen lines has been given the go-ahead in the fiscal 2005 government budget, a number of hurdles must be cleared before their completion.

This is the first time in four years that appropriations have been made for Shinkansen extension. It also has been a little more than 30 years since the government worked out a blueprint for building a nationwide Shinkansen network.

The three sections slated for construction in the next fiscal year are:

— Between Toyama and Kanazawa on the Hokuriku Shinkansen.

— Between Shin-Aomori and Shin-Hakodate as part of the Hokkaido Shinkansen, no section of which has yet been built.

— Between Takeo Onsen and Isahaya on the Nagasaki Route of the Kyushu Shinkansen.

The government approval means that construction work will begin on every one of the new Shinkansen lines originally envisioned in 1973 under the Nationwide Shinkansen Network Construction Law.

The Shinkansen network project was in line with the 1969 New Comprehensive National Development Plan that called for “balanced development of all regions of the country.”

The Shinkansen lines envisaged in the 1973 legislation are known as the “Seibi (newly planned) Shinkansen lines” and are distinguished from those built before the law — the Tokaido, Sanyo, Tohoku and Joetsu Shinkansen lines.

The new Seibi Shinkansen lines were envisioned during the heyday of Japan’s economic growth, when no problems were envisaged in raising funds. But the national economy was dealt a heavy blow from two major oil crises in the 1970s and a protracted slump following the burst of the bubble economy.

When Japanese National Railways was privatized in 1987 into seven separate corporations, some voiced skepticism about the wisdom of constructing new Shinkansen lines amid fear the projects would drive the new JR companies into financial difficulties. As a result, the start of full-scale construction work on the new Shinkansen lines were put off until 1991. Construction work began under the knowledge that the pace of construction would be affected by the country’s economic situation.

The latest government decision in favor of starting construction for the extensions comes with the knowledge that partial construction of the Tohoku Shinkansen, between Hachinohe and Shin-Aomori, is already under way and scheduled to be completed in the next six years, according to government sources.

In giving approval to the construction late last year, the government and the two ruling coalition parties, the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito, agreed that the go-ahead should be subject to a review depending on circumstances.

The agreement effectively meant there would be the possibility construction of extensions not included in the budgetary appropriations for fiscal 2005 could be approved in the not-too-distant future, the sources said.

No official go-ahead has been given yet in certain local communities, between Kanazawa and Shin-Osaka on the Hokuriku Shinkansen and the Shin-Hakodate-Sapporo section on the Hokkaido Shinkansen, but they are said to welcome the ruling coalition accord as a sign of their Shinkansen dreams coming true.

Raising funds a hurdle

The biggest hurdle standing in the way of building the new Shinkansen extensions is securing funds. The cost of the planned three sections is estimated at 1.16 trillion yen. But just how to secure funds for the construction is still shrouded in ambiguity.

Under the current agreement between the central government and local governments concerned and the various JR companies, the central and local governments are to bear two-thirds of construction expenses. The JR firms in charge of operating the Shinkansen lines, for their part, are to contribute their share of the expenses “in proportion to estimated gains in JR profits” from the extended Shinkansen.

Expenditures made by the central government are to be divided into two categories: public works budgets and what are called “transfer revenues” that will come from the regional JR companies.

The revenues from the JR firms stem from contracts the JR firms concluded with the central government in 1991 in purchasing Shinkansen trains and other facilities. The JR firms are to make payments in installments over a period of 60 years.

The government, however, is banned from using the revenues from the JR firms for purposes other than financing construction work on the Shinkansen sections that are already under way. The ban will be in effect until the end of fiscal 2012.

The central government, under the circumstances, plans to have a portion of revenues from the JR firms after fiscal 2013, estimated at 1.9 trillion yen, to be front-loaded to make ends meet. However, shortages of cash to finance the new Shinkansen extensions are a high possibility.

The government therefore has been urging the JR firms to take on the highest financial burdens possible, claiming that the JR firms will see their profits rise once the new Shinkansen lines are finished.

The JR firms have reacted bitterly to the government’s argument, saying that such thinking cannot be compatible with managerial judgment of the JR firms as private companies.

Another concern is the expected business hardship that conventional train lines will incur that run along the routes proposed for the extensions. Such conventional railways are operated by entities of local governments and private companies, and most are in the red.

Some local governments that will be affected by the extension projects of the Nagasaki Route of the Kyushu Shinkansen are strongly opposed to the new Shinkansen plans, saying that the extension would worsen the financial crunch on the conventional railways they manage. As a result, no date has been set for the start of construction of the Takeo Onsen-Isahaya section.

Spillover benefits eyed

The new Shinkansen lines, unlike the Tokaido and other trunk Shinkansen lines built before 1973, are mostly aimed at helping stimulate the local economies concerned.

Expectations are high among local communities concerning spillover effects of the extensions.

After the Tohoku and Kyushu Shinkansen lines were partially completed in 2002 and 2004, respectively, the number of tourists visiting the Tohoku and Kyushu regions rose considerably, according to the Construction and Transport Ministry.

Regarding the spillover effects of the proposed extension projects, the ministry has announced projections that the effects over a decade or so will be worth 3.7 times for the Hokkaido Shinkansen and 2.3 times for the Hokuriku Shinkansen in comparison to their construction costs.

However, some analysts point out that the opening of the new extensions may have negative impacts, such as depopulation. Hirotaka Yamauchi, a professor at Hitotsubashi University, said, “Information relevant to the ministry’s cost-benefit analyses concerning the new Shinkansen projects should be fully disclosed, while the validity of the analyses should be checked continually after the completion of the lines.”

Partly because of pressure from politicians who played major roles in promoting the construction of new Shinkansen lines in their electoral areas, no post-completion verification of profitability of the lines has been carried out.

The government, in pushing ahead with the new extension constructions, should explain to the public the positive and negative effects of the new lines on the basis of objective evaluation of the data.

Historic Traction Co. building covered city block at Druid Hill Avenue and Retreat Street; 4 workers for Life-Like Products escape injury

Baltimore Sun

January 14, 2005

A five-alarm blaze tore through a Northwest Baltimore warehouse filled with foam picnic coolers Friday, destroying a turreted turn-of-the-century building that once powered and stored city cable cars.

The blaze broke out about 12:30 p.m. in the historic Baltimore Traction Co. building, which took up a city block at Druid Hill Avenue and Retreat Street.

Four workers for Life-Like Products, which used the building to store polystyrene coolers, were unloading a tractor-trailer filled with boxes of coolers when one of them saw flames in a storage area. “I ran back to the truck and said, ‘The room’s on fire,’” said Maurice Brown, 20. He and his father, also an employee, tried to douse the flames with extinguishers but soon fled. “We tried,” Brown said. “It was too overpowering.”

Soon flames roared through the building, and billowing black smoke could be seen from miles away. The four employees — the only people known to have been in the building — escaped unhurt, and no firefighters were injured, city and company officials said.

But firefighters came close to disaster when the roof of the structure collapsed, officials said.

When they arrived at the scene, about a dozen firefighters entered the building and several others took to the roof. They soon determined that the roof was too weak and were ordered by supervisors to come down, said Division Chief Theodore Saunders of the city fire marshal’s office.

“Conditions deteriorated rapidly and almost simultaneously,” Saunders said. “The guys inside heard the rumblings and they got out. We were lucky today,” he added.

The cause of the fire was not immediately determined and neither was the dollar figure for damage, officials said Friday.

It took about three hours to bring the fire under control, with about 200 firefighters, paramedics, commanders and support staff at the scene. About 60 firetrucks and other apparatus were called to the building, which at 55,000 square feet was about the size of a modern supermarket.

Mayor Martin O’Malley came to the scene in the Penn-North Neighborhood, not far from Druid Hill Park and the Maryland Zoo. “It’s sad to see a nice old building be destroyed, but sometimes in the wake of something like this, it can allow for someone to come in and develop the area — and not just a piece of it — but the whole block,” O’Malley said. “It’s definitely an area we are looking at improving. Some new construction has already begun nearby, it’s near the park, and we can certainly do much better than what’s here now.”

As smoke and flames engulfed the stately, brick-and-brownstone building, dozens of residents from surrounding rowhouses were drawn outside — some out of curiosity, others out of fear that they were not safe in their homes.

“I looked out and saw smoke coming from the big building,” said Davone Ellerby, who lives across Druid Hill Avenue. “Then there was this big, loud boom. Something blew up and flames were shooting out the top of the building. I started feeling heat here [inside the house], so I told everybody, ‘Let’s go out back,’” said Ellerby, who was with his mother and cousin.

Beyond the danger of the fire itself, the burning polystyrene did not pose any health hazards for neighbors, Saunders said. “It’s no more toxic than any other combustible material when it burns,” he said.

Built between 1889 and 1891, the building still bore the Baltimore Traction Co. sign from the days when it was a car barn and powerhouse for a the city’s short-lived cable-car system. Cables in the basement powered cars that ran on streets from 1891 to 1896, when service was electrified.

Life-Like Products used the building to store its coolers, some emblazoned with Baltimore Ravens and other sports logos, that are made at a plant in Brooklyn and marketed under the name Lifoam, said Herb Bank, chief financial officer.

The company also has operations in California, Texas, Florida, Georgia and Illinois, according to the Life-Like Web site.

Minneapolis: More light rail cars ordered to meet strong ridership demand

Light Rail Now! NewsLog

January 14, 2005

Ridership on Minneapolis’s brand-new Hiawatha corridor light rail transit (LRT) project has been soaring – so much so, that Metro Transit, the public transport agency, has been exploring measures to accommodate the increased demand. Procuring additional rolling stock is one, readily available method.

According to Metro Transit General Manager Brian Lamb, even just one more additional LRT car (light rail vehicle, or LRV) would help the agency cope with the higher-than-expected ridership as well as address increasing maintenance demands. The Hiawatha Line needs 22 cars during rush hours, leaving only two spares, Lamb told the Minneapolis Star Tribune (5 January 2005).

So, on Wednesday, January 12th, Minneapolis’s Metro Council voted to purchase three more LRVs from the original vendor, Bombardier.

According to a report from Minneapolis engineer and longtime LRT advocate George Isaacs, “As expected four members voted against it. Money for two of the three vehicles is embedded in the 37 million bonding for the Northstar commuter line between Minneapolis and Big Lake Minnesota. The purchase will bring the total to 27 of which 24 are on hand.”

Metro officials seek clean, efficient system

WASHINGTON TIMES

January 14, 2005

Metro officials outlined a proposal yesterday to make the system cleaner and more efficient, including revamping the customer-service call center and returning trash cans to rail stations.

The initiatives package would cost $10.2 million and is not included in the proposed fiscal 2006 operating budget of more than $1 billion.

Metro officials want to spend $1.3 million to hire 16 more employees to help reduce the increasing number of complaints they say have overwhelmed the agency’s customer-service department.

Leona Agouridis, Metro’s assistant general manager for communications, said the major reasons for the additional complaints are the sharp increase in ridership, unreliable service and fare increases.

Board member William D. Euille, the mayor of Alexandria, said a better solution would be to eliminate the complaints by spending more money to improve service. “We’re not in the business of taking calls. We’re in the business of running” trains and buses, he said. “We should be examining what we are doing to reduce the calls. I’d rather invest the money in the service part than in customer service.”

The trash cans were removed from the platforms following the September 11 terrorist attacks. But recent surveys show customers are increasingly displeased with trash strewn throughout the rail system. In response, officials are proposing explosion-resistant trash cans for rail station platforms and mezzanines.

Board member and D.C. Council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, wanted to know how soon the trash cans, which would cost $800,000 to install, could be added. “It would be a tangible, immediate improvement that customers will respond to very well,” he said.

Arlington County board member Christopher Zimmerman agreed. “We’ve got to do some things to give us credibility [with riders] that we really are making an effort,” he said.

Officials also recommend using $4 million to improve safety and reliability, including $2 million for a rail-management program and for hiring additional track inspectors.

Richard A. White, Metro’s chief executive officer, proposed in December a base annual operating budget of $1.004 billion for fiscal 2006. Included in the budget proposal is a recommendation for $1.7 million in maintenance upgrades, which includes doubling the staff assigned to clean rail cars at the ends of major lines and adding 10 cleaners to frequently clean high-volume stations.

To avoid fare increases such as those imposed for the past two years, the District and the Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions served by Metro will absorb the $41.7 million shortfall in the agency’s proposed $1 billion operating budget for fiscal 2006 and the $31.1 million projected shortfall for fiscal 2007.

In December, Mr. White said a $1 billion budget will help the agency provide a “baseline of service” for the fourth-largest transit system in the country.

The agency’s budget committee will review the budget plan until June. The board of directors will then make final recommendations and take a vote. The budget takes effect July 1.

Metro raised fares in June 2003 for the first time since 1995. Then the board of directors voted on June 27 to increase fares and parking rates to close a $23.4 million shortfall in the fiscal 2005 budget.

Metro officials also said yesterday that a committee created by Metro’s board of directors will conduct the first formal evaluation of Mr. White in about three years. The ad hoc committee formed last fall met yesterday to discuss Mr. White, but did not formally evaluate him, said Steven Taubenkibel, an agency spokesman.

Mr. White was last evaluated by the board after his contract extension in 2002, Mr. Taubenkibel said. The results of Mr. White’s evaluation will not be released. Mr. White’s pending evaluation, which is supposed to be conducted annually, was brought on by a problem-plagued 2004 for Metro.

The recent problems include an accident Nov. 3 on the Red Line in which one train rolled backward into another, injuring 20 riders at the Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan Metro station. Investigation into the accident is pending.

In September, a pregnant woman was forced to the ground, handcuffed and taken to jail for speaking loudly and swearing on a cell phone at the Wheaton Metro station. In August, a pregnant woman and her husband said a broom-wielding Metro station manager berated them and pushed the husband for inquiring about an out-of-service escalator.

In July, a passenger was handcuffed and arrested for eating a candy bar as she was entering the Metro Center station. And in June, the Metro Board approved a fare increase for the second consecutive year.

Officials reported in February losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars from its parking lots and garages. An internal audit found cashiers employed by then-contractor Penn Parking stole $500,000 to $1 million a year from cash payments made at the lots and garages.

Light-rail riders topped 600,000 in December

Minneapolis Star Tribune

January 14, 2005

The Hiawatha light-rail line had about 600,300 riders in December, including 87,500 free rides on the opening weekend of service to Bloomington, Metro Transit said Friday.

The rail line’s weekday ridership, which includes commuters, averaged 19,200 a day in December. “Our ridership target — set before construction began — was to reach 19,300 rides per weekday by the middle of 2005. In our first month of extended service we already are approaching that goal,” Metro Transit General Manager Brian Lamb said.

Since its opening on June 26, the rail line has carried 3 million riders the agency said.

To estimate ridership, Metro Transit counts boardings on 25 percent of the rail line’s trips. It includes those who transfer from buses.

Dubai: Standard-rail “light metro” vs. monorail… Capital cost reality check

Light Rail Now! NewsLog

14 January 2005

Monorail vendors and enthusiasts frequently claim that, for equivalent capacity and configurations, monorails are significantly cheaper to construct than standard two-rail rapid transit systems. Usually it’s difficult to impossible to resolve the monorail vs. standard-rail cost argument, but two somewhat similar standard rail rapid transit and monorail projects in the urban area of Dubai, capital of the United Arab Emirates, may at least add further fuel to this ongoing argument.

According to recent reports, Dubai is accepting bids for constructing an automated rail rapid transit system (euphemtistically dubbed the Dubai Light Rail Transit project, although it’s actually more of an automated light metro). The “Dubai Light Rail Network” will consist of two lines, according to a September 2004 report:

[Daily Star , 13 September 2004 ]

- The Red Line will initially run from close to al-Ghurair Center to the American University of Dubai though BurJuman and Sheikh Zayed Road, and will progressively be extended to Jebel Ali Port in the south and the intersection of al-Nahda and Damascus roads through al-Qiyadah intersection in the north.

- The Green Line will initially run from close to Dubai Municipality to Rashidiya bus station through Deira City Center and the Airport Terminals 1 and 3, and will progressively be extended to serve the Deira and Bur Dubai central areas and Souks up to BurJuman and Wafi shopping centres.

Initital reports stated the two lines “will total nearly 70 kilometers [43 miles], with 35 stations along the 50- kilometer-long [31-mile] Red Line, and 22 along the 20-kilometer-long [12-mile] Green Line.” Two transfer stations, located at al-Ittihad Square and BurJuman, are planned to be common to both lines. “In total, the Dubai Light Rail System will include 55 stations, 18 kilometers of tunnels, 51 kilometers of viaduct, one major train depot and maintenance facilities site and several auxiliary stabling facilities. The total fleet size will be slightly in excess of 100 trains” states the report, which also notes that once it’s in full operation, the “Dubai Metro System” is projected to carry approximately 1.2 million passenger boardings on an average day, and 355 million passenger-trips per year.

[Daily Star , 13 September 2004 ]

A more recent report refers to a total of 67 km [41.5 miles] of route, with a first phase stretching 35 km from Rashidiya to the American University in Dubai (scheduled to be completed in May 2009), and a second phase extending some 32 km [20 miles] from the American University to Jebel Ali, plus a second line to be constructed from Dubai International Airport to Dubai Medical City (projected for completion by 2012). The system is expected to have capacity to transport more than 23,000 passengers per hour.

[AME Info, 10 January 2005]

The total estimated cost of the project now tendered is Dh12.5 billion, or about $3.4 billion. This calculates to a cost of about $50 million per km, or about $81 million per mile, for the predominantly elevated system. Apparently, there has been no dearth of potential suppliers – for the project’s electro-mechanical systems alone, five international consortia have emerged with bids.

[AME Info, 10 January 2005; 11 January 2005]

Concomitantly, Dubai also seems to be proceeding to take bids on a 5.6- km (3.4-mile) monorail project for the city’s “prestigious” Palm Jumeirah project., located in “a luxurious residential area which includes a marina and seven world-class hotels on a piece of land that is shaped like a palm tree”, according to a news report from the Business Times of Malaysia.

[Business Times, 13 January 2005]

“Under the monorail contract, the successful bidder will be required to supply up to 5 three-car trains as well as build the tracks on which the trains will run” reports the Business Times, which also notes that the project’s US$1.2 billion price tag “is a result of the very high specifications laid out by the Dubai municipality.” This would calculate to a cost of about $214 million per km, or $353 million per mile. Currently, only two bidders have emerged: MTrans of Malaysia (vendor and operator of the Kuala Lumpur monorail) and the Japanese firm Hitachi, which has been aggressively marketing its monorail technology mainly to Third World cities.

[Business Times, 13 January 2005]

On the basis of this report, the monorail project would appear to have a unit cost more than four times that of the rapid rail (light metro) project. However, we have not seen all the details of either project, so we caution against drawing conclusions too precisely. Nevertheless, the available information does not seem to bode well for monorail promoters’ portrayals of the breathtaking capital cost savings which monorail technology can provide compared to similar standard-rail rapid transit.

Stations on light rail line get permanent names

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

January 14, 2005

The Sound Transit board adopted permanent names yesterday for eight of the 12 stations on its 14-mile light rail line from downtown Seattle to Tukwila. The other four stations are in the downtown transit tunnel and already have names.

In most cases, the working names for the stations were based on their street locations, but yesterday the board opted in all but one case to go with neighborhood names.

The station at South Royal Brougham Way, a new one added by the board yesterday, will be known as the Stadium Station. The South Lander Street Station becomes Sodo. The Beacon Hill Station will keep that name. Mount Baker Station will be the new name for the South McClellan Street Station. The South Edmunds Street Station takes the name Columbia City.

The board decided to stick with Othello as the name of the station at South Othello Street. A housing development there is calling itself “Othello Station,” Pelz said. The “secondary name” of the station, which will appear on the station entrance, Web site and printed materials, will be “New Holly.” Primary names will be in bold and will be what riders first notice, said senior architect Debora Ashland.

The station at South Henderson Street becomes the Rainier Beach Station. The station at what was once South 154th Street in Tukwila will now be known as the Tukwila International Boulevard Station, which, at 29 letters, came close to the Americans with Disabilities Act limit of 30 letters.

The secondary names of all stations except Othello will be the street names where they’re located. In Tukwila, that will be Southcenter Boulevard, the current name for what once was South 154th Street.

Cancellation of free trips for police not to bring ec advantages

TASS News Agency �

January 14, 2005

The cancellation of free trips in public city transport and commuter trains for policemen “is not quite a thought-out step that is most likely to only weaken the fight with crime in the country,” Doctor of Juridical Sciences Pyotr Skoblikov told Itar-Tass on Friday.

Meanwhile, he voiced the hope that deputies “will realise their mistake and get back to this issue and amend the law.”

Article 32 of the law On police that grants the right of free trips to policemen was abolished under the slogan of replacing benefits with money compensations back in August 2004, but the new law took effect on January 1. “This decision was taken without considering the specifics of police service,” the source emphasised.

Free trips in public transport for policemen “is not a classical benefit that is to say some kind of advantage before other categories of people,” Col. Skoblikov believes. “The sense of this benefit i