Boston Globe August 21, 2004
An MBTA Green Line train carring 30 passengers derailed at the Northeastern University stop on the E line yesterday at around 11am. One of the passengers, a woman, was transported to the Brigham and Women’s hospital with a head wound.
The derailment was sufficient to smash an iron fence and other peripheral items. Had the derailment occurred during a weekday with its high passenger volume — both within the train and at the station — it’s likely the consequences would have been far more serious. “This is a problem we thought we had adequately addressed. Now we have some concerns. We have not determined the solution to the problem.” {Current MBTA General Manager Michael Mulhern, interviewed at a BREDA derailment in 1999}
The T’s BREDA trains have a long, sad, and (of course) expensive history beginning in 1999 when the T took delivery, and likely long before, when the T consumed cash and time in “engineering”. The results are poor. The trains derailed, then sat in a storage yard for several years, then — in fits — resumed service but at very slow speeds. The T has spent over $218 Million in track “repair” and residents lost sleep as the T’s “work” crews used grinders to shape rail in the wee hours of many long nights.
The slow operating speed of the trains have also caused portions of the already overcrowded and inefficient system to be further stressed. This is believed to be one of the reasons the T closed several stops along the B line in an attempt to boost performance. In this regard, the T’s thinking patterns are rather backward. To increase performance, reduce passenger load. To increase revenue and boost performance, increase fares.
Houston Chronicle August 21, 2004
Metro asked the federal government Friday to chip in $830 million over the next eight years to help fund expansion of the city’s light rail system.
Such a contribution would cover 56 percent of the estimated $1.48 billion cost of the first phase of the “Metro Solutions” rail plan voters approved last November. The four proposed segments, a total of 22.1 miles, would branch off the existing 7.5-mile Main Street line to Northline Mall, southeast Houston, the East End, and the Hillcroft Transit Center.
Regardless of what happens in Washington, the Metropolitan Transit Authority already may face opposition to the plan here because it proposes to continue building rail at street level despite concerns about safety and slow speeds.
Metro is asking the Federal Transit Administration to cover 100 percent of the costs for the first two extensions while local funds would be used for the other two. The FTA typically splits the cost of each segment. Metro said its request to split segments instead would allow this phase of rail to be finished a year or two ahead of the 2012 goal.
Metro officials argue their approach is mandated by the language of the November referendum. “Metro can not consider any one element of the system in isolation,” the authority states in the introduction to its application, which, along with a preliminary filing sent in June, fills thousands of pages in nine binders that stack 2 feet high. “Metro must view the extensions in the four corridors as a single project to be completed by 2012.”
If built as planned, the authority projects an average of 141,000 weekday train boardings by 2025, or about 70,500 passengers.
The FTA will evaluate Houston’s submission and issue a rating early next year. If Metro obtains a “recommended” rating, it will be eligible to negotiate a funding plan during fiscal year 2006.
Any agreement with the FTA is subject to congressional appropriations. In 2000, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, blocked federal funds for the Main Street line because he objected to the lack of a public vote. With voter approval of MetroRail expansion, DeLay has said he won’t stop future funding if the Houston lines obtain a recommended rating.
Spokesman Stuart Roy said Friday that DeLay had not seen Metro’s request. “We’re going to withhold comment and not weigh in until we see the application,” Roy said.
Metro leaders will go to Washington next week to brief members of Congress and FTA staff on their submittal.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, is “totally committed to making sure they get a grant agreement,” spokesman Kevin Schweers said.
Local leaders had mixed reactions to Metro’s plan Friday.
Bob Eury, Houston Downtown Management District director, said he has “grave concerns” about Metro’s intention to build all the rail lines on the street.
Downtown groups have been lobbying heavily for the next city-center segment to be built in a subway, but Metro President & CEO Frank Wilson said it would be too expensive.
Gilbert Moreno, director of the Association for the Advancement for Mexican Americans, said he is among those East End leaders happy at the prospect of a rail line a year or two ahead of schedule.
METRORAIL EXPANSION
Highlights of Metro’s federal funding request filed Friday (all costs have been adjusted upward for inflation):
- Northline: 5.4 miles from downtown to Northline Mall, completed in 2008, $356 million. - Southeast: 7.1 miles from downtown to Long Drive/Loop 610, completed in 2009, $424 million - Harrisburg: 3.0 miles from East Downtown to Magnolia Transit Center, completed in 2010 or 2011, $160 million - Westpark: 6.6 miles from Wheeler Station to Hillcroft Transit Center, completed in 2011 or 2012, $439 million - Trains: $30 million for additional trains on the existing Main Street line - Railyard: $70 million for a second maintenance and storage facility - Total expansion cost: $1.479 billion - Federal funding request: $830 million (56%) - Local tax funding proposed: $649 million (44%)
Capital Times (Madison, Wisc.) August 21, 2004
On Saturday, June 26, the quality of Andrew Brantingham’s life took a sudden — and rather dramatic — turn for the better. On that day, the first segment of Minneapolis’ long-awaited, much ballyhooed — and still controversial — Hiawatha high-speed light-rail line opened.
For now, it stretches from the funky Warehouse District in downtown Minneapolis to Fort Snelling, a historic site and state park in southeast Minneapolis. But in December, the remainder of the 12-mile system will open, linking the downtown with Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the Mall of America in Bloomington.
And Brantingham, 23, is so ecstatic about the whole thing that he and his roommate threw a big party June 26 at their southeast side apartment, which is just a half-mile walk from the 46th Street station, one of 12 stops on the line.
A recent graduate of Macalester College in St. Paul, Brantingham works as a legal assistant at a downtown law firm, and before June 26 usually commuted by bus. And while he didn’t particularly mind, he’s since discovered what tens of thousands of other Minneapolis residents have: that, if anything, light-rail advocates — including former Gov. Jesse Ventura, who jump-started the project in the late 1990s — had understated what a pleasant, stress-free experience high-speed rail can be.
“It’s certainly more reliable than the bus,” Brantingham said one night last week over a beer at the Cardinal Bar (Minneapolis has one too), just a few blocks from his apartment. “It’s also faster, cleaner, quieter. And, to be honest, just a whole lot cooler.”
As for the critics — most notably Republican state Rep. Phil Krinkie of suburban Shoreview — who still argue that the $715 million Hiawatha project was a shameful waste of taxpayer money,
Brantingham shakes his head and sighs. While he may not be an expert on mass transit, Brantingham says, he has ridden the subway in London and the El in Chicago. And with freeways as congested as they are, only a fool would oppose investing in some sort of rail system, he maintains. “I don’t care if it’s Minneapolis or Madison, Wisconsin, or any other fast-growing metropolitan area,” he says. “If you want to take your city to the next level, you need first-rate mass transit.”
In Minneapolis, which has a population of 375,000, “People need to see this as a necessary first step to a larger rail network,” says Brantingham, noting that — despite intense opposition from conservative legislators and the Minnesota Taxpayers Alliance — rail advocates now want to pursue several other lines: a Minneapolis-to-St. Paul line that would run through the University of Minnesota campus; a Northstar commuter rail line to Anoka and Sherburne Counties that would use heavier diesel cars; and possibly a third line to Minneapolis’ burgeoning southwest suburbs.
“I mean, people in other areas of the city are saying, Hey, what good does the Hiawatha do me?’ I understand that. But this is just the beginning of what could be a really great rail system. So it’s going to take 10 to 15 years before it’s helpful to everyone.”
However one perceives it: there seems no denying that many locals share Brantingham’s enthusiasm for the sleek, wide-window trains, which run every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour, cruise along at 40 mph once they leave downtown and cost the same as the bus — $1.75 during rush hour, $1.25 all other times.
Indeed, the Hiawatha has been attracting 15,000 riders per day — nearly double the rosiest projections — since its unveiling June 26. It’s been especially popular with Minnesota Twins fans, who zip to the game in air-conditioned comfort, no longer have to shell out $8 for parking and are deposited right in front of the Metrodome.
But the biggest surprise, observers say, is that it’s drawing hordes of young suburbanites who are dropping off their cars at one of two park-and-ride sites along the route and taking the Hiawatha to downtown bars on weekend nights. (The trains run until 1 a.m.)
Of course, “this is just the initial startup phase, so we’re not sure how much of that is novelty and how much we’ll be able to sustain over an extended period of time,” cautions Metro Council Chair Peter Bell. “But it should be quickly noted,” he says, “that the other two major portions of the line — the Mall of America and the airport — have not yet been added. And I think that will provide a significant additional boost to ridership.”
Just as important, he says, the project was completed on time, despite a 44-day transit strike, and under budget. (The estimated annual operating costs are $16 million, one-third of which will be paid by the state, one-third by Hennepin County and one-third by Hiawatha fare revenues.)
Yes, Bell says, there are still problems with traffic tie-ups at certain intersections, where rush-hour traffic was backed up for several blocks shortly after the Hiawatha opened. “But all in all, I think this is a model opening. It’s hard to have a $715 million project without a few complications. And the signaling snafus and some of the traffic tie-ups we’ve had are part of it.”
So who are these people riding the Hiawatha?
Judging from a random survey of about a dozen riders one morning last week, they represent a surprisingly wide and diverse spectrum of Twin Cities residents.
To be sure, many are white-collar commuters like Nathan Van Engen, 29, a resident of suburban Hastings, who parks his car at Fort Snelling and takes the Hiawatha to his job at U.S. Bank in the Pillsbury Center, where he’s an underwriter. “It really doesn’t save me that much time, but it sure reduces the stress and any concerns about parking,” he says. “Once you get inside the 694-494 loop of the interstate, traffic is just a nightmare.”
But there are also college students and shoppers and tourists, and a fair number of senior citizens, such as Sarah Standefer, 64, a nurse who last week was taking the Hiawatha for the first time with her 11-year-old grandson, Michael Casello, A “huge supporter” of mass transit, Standefer says the Hiawatha’s high ridership numbers merely confirm what she’s felt all along: If you’re willing to invest in quality mass transit, people will use it. “I mean, look at New York City or anywhere else where there’s mass transit,” she says. “People ride it in droves, not only because it’s convenient but because — well, I just think there’s something about being with people that gives you a lift. You’re not isolated like you are in a car.”
And statistics recently cited by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune appear to support that view. Although rail systems in San Jose, Calif., and central New Jersey are struggling, no less than nine cities — ranging in size from Houston (population 2 million) to Salt Lake City (181,000) — are in the process of expanding their rail lines. And a half-dozen other cities are about to join the club.
So much for the oft-stated notion that mass transit will never catch on in this country because Americans are hopelessly in love with their automobiles, Standefer says. “I mean, that’s the car lobby talking, isn’t it?” she says. “As far as I’m concerned, passenger rail makes sense today, and it made sense 30 years ago.”
John Derus can’t help but chuckle when he hears such remarks. Ah, but if only people had listened 30 years ago, muses Derus, a former Minneapolis City Council member and Hennepin County commissioner who back in 1970s and ‘80s fought a lonely and seemingly futile battle to get the city to consider some form of rail. “Sure would have been a lot cheaper back then,” says Derus during a late-afternoon interview at the Nicollet Island Inn on the banks of the Mississippi.
A proud and disarmingly candid man, Derus, now 64, dropped out of politics years ago and runs a public relations firm. But — much to his own surprise — he’s now being heralded as one of unsung heroes of the Hiawatha success story. Not only because he refused to let the idea die, but because people remember all the scorn and ridicule he endured while pushing for a rail system at a time when many cities were dismantling their rail lines.
The Star-Tribune, he notes, “ran about 15 or 20 cartoons poking fun at me — I’ve still got most of ‘em.” And the (St. Paul) Pioneer Press, he adds, was almost as brutal. “The general feeling, I think, was that I was too big for my britches — that I was reaching too far and should get back in my box. And it wasn’t just the papers who felt that way. We were fighting the state Legislature, the federal government, practically every county in the state and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, for gosh sakes,” he says.
Actually, Derus and a small group of Democratic supporters originally favored a subway linking Minneapolis and St. Paul — in large part, he says, because the layers of glacial drift, limestone and sandstone under Minneapolis “provide some of the best and cheapest tunneling conditions in North America.”
To be honest, he figured the idea was so bold and innovative that it couldn’t help but boost his political career, Derus says. “That’s the self-serving reason I pushed it. The altruistic reason was that I just thought, why not? Why shouldn’t we do this just because nobody else will?
“I could see that we were choking to death on our own success around here. There wasn’t any more money for freeways, which become obsolete the moment you build them. And even if you wanted to build them, they’d eat up all the farm land.
“Plus, we had an aging population, a lot of poverty and people with handicaps who don’t drive cars. We had all kinds of reasons why people need good, dependable mass transit — including, incidentally, the worst temperature swings in North America.” Nonetheless, the critics howled. And they continued to howl until the 1990s when public attitudes about rail gradually started to shift.
What caused it?
Certainly Ventura played a prominent role, says Derus, who speaks to civic groups across the country about the merits of passenger rail. Beyond that, Derus suspects that even the critics got fed up sitting in massive traffic jams and realized something had to be done to ease the congestion.
Asked if he thought a light rail or trolley system would be feasible in a city like Madison, with a population of 220,000, Derus says, “Sure, it could.”
“I’m not anti-car,” he says, “but the better question, I think, is can Madison justify building another freeway? I’ve been to Madison, it’s a beautiful city. And the last thing you want is to pave over the whole place. I mean, one of the benefits of light rail is you’ve got a fare box on the thing. And it would probably pay for about 40 percent of your maintenance costs.”
Derus says one of the great ironies of the Hiawatha story is that some of his most vociferous critics are now among the rail line’s biggest cheerleaders. That includes Curt Johnson, a former Metro Council chair who heads the Itasca Group, a business organization that’s pushing for rail expansion. And, believe it or not, even the Star-Tribune.
Yes, it’s true, says Steve Berg, a Star-Tribune editorial writer. The paper now believes, in retrospect, that the Hiawatha was a wonderful idea. But one line, he emphasizes, “doesn’t make a system. And until there’s an interconnected rail-bus network, you won’t notice much change in traffic.”
Even so, “the thing we’ve got to keep in mind is that by 2025, there will be a million more people (in Minneapolis) and almost a million more cars on our roadways,” Berg says. “Where are we going to put these cars? The only way to solve this … is with wider roads and more choices, like transit.”
Peter Bell, the Metro Council chair, expresses similar sentiments. “I don’t think light rail’s a panacea in any sense,” he says. “But, you know, people want to divide the world into, are you a roads guy or are you a transit guy? And the fact of the matter is, I personally am both. In this region, traffic congestion is growing very, very fast. I think it’s the No. 1 livability issue in the seven-county metro area. And I think that expanding our transit system is one piece of the puzzle.”
Clearly, not everyone agrees.
Republican Rep. Phil Krinkie says he not only isn’t impressed with the Hiawatha but is amazed that people are actually falling for the “pro-rail propaganda.”
“First and foremost, I’ve never seen, nor heard, nor read of anyone who can document that public transit reduces congestion,” he says. “Like Alka-Seltzer, it may offer some temporary relief but it is not a solution. In fact, what we’ve already seen in its first month of operation is that the Hiawatha has actually caused congestion,” adds Krinkie, who last month charged that state and city officials had concealed e-mails and other correspondence that expressed concerns about the Hiawatha causing traffic delays on cross streets.
The other thing people need to remember, Krinkie says, is that rail systems “always have huge capital costs. So for people to purport that rail is a better method of moving people than buses or additional freeway lanes is just ridiculous.”
Bell, for one, says he welcomes such criticisms. “Frankly, when you’re going to spend $715 million you should argue over it,” he says. “However, at the end of the day you’ve got to come down on one side or the other. And I am a transit supporter.”
Derus concedes that Krinkie and his anti-rail cohorts have played a meaningful role in the debate. But he also believes that the momentum is definitely on the side of rail advocates now.
Indeed, whereas Bell refuses to predict what will happen next, Derus says he has absolutely no doubts that the Northstar line will become a reality within two or three years. “Now, people will say I’m nuts, but I’m telling you it’s going to happen,” he says. And the reason it’s going to happen, he says, is because even many skeptics are being won over by the Hiawatha.
Toni Borwege, 61, a retired Lutheran lay pastor from suburban Burnsville, admits having been one of those skeptics. “I used to think the Hiawatha was absolute folly,” she says. “Why would a city put up that kind of money for an experiment?”
But as she rode the Hiawatha last week with mouth agape, Borwege said she realized how wrong she was. “It may be an experiment,” she said, gazing out at the Minneapolis skyline, “but it’s obviously going to be a successful one. I mean, it’s so easy, why would you use your car to go downtown anymore — especially with parking as crazy as it is? “Makes you wonder why we didn’t do it decades ago.”
Toronto Globe and Mail August 21, 2004
Sauna-like summer afternoon commutes on packed streetcars could soon be a thing of the past if plans to retrofit Toronto’s fleet with air conditioning are approved, TTC officials say.
Engineering staff are working on a series of improvements for the Toronto Transit Commission’s 196 aging rigid streetcars, which first hit the streets in 1979. The $200-million plan calls for a complete rebuild that would also see new propulsion systems and new controls for drivers at a cost of about $1.1- million a car.
The streetcars, known as Canadian Light Rail Vehicles, were originally designed with what was billed as an air-conditioning system but was actually a forced-air ventilation system that didn’t work. At first, the cars’ windows didn’t open, turning them into mobile sweat lodges, and they had to be modified.
TTC chairman Howard Moscoe says air conditioning is no longer a frill, and would draw people out of their cars and onto public transit. “I can’t think of a single person who would buy a car without air conditioning today,” Mr. Moscoe said. “If people have the choice between sitting in their air-conditioned cars and sitting in a hot, stuffy streetcar, they are going to choose their cars.”
The proposal, if approved this fall, would see the rebuilds begin in 2007 and completed by about 2013. Prototypes could be riding the rails as early as 2006, says Stephen Lam, the TTC’s superintendent of vehicle engineering.
The rebuilds would extend the life of these streetcars to around 2020, which is when the natural life of the TTC’s fleet of 52 newer articulated streetcars is also expected to end. At that point, the transit authority aims to buy a new fleet of streetcars, likely similar to high-tech, low-floor accessible vehicles now used in Europe and the United States, Mr. Moscoe said.
But Howard Levine, a former city councillor who fought to save Toronto’s streetcar system when the TTC planned to scrap it in the 1970s, thinks spending millions to rebuild the current vehicles would be a “tragedy.” He says the current streetcars are ill-designed, and should be scrapped and replaced with a more modern system as soon as possible. “It’s a complete waste of money,” says Mr. Levine, a long-time critic of the TTC, adding that rebuilding the streetcars would make Toronto “the laughingstock of the transit world.”
Cities across the United States are buying new modern light-rail systems now, he says, while Toronto — once a public-transit leader — is clinging to the past. “This is the Toronto tragedy. At one time, we were in the forefront. But the world has passed us by.”
Mr. Moscoe says it would cost more than three times as much to buy new streetcars, and that it made more financial sense to stretch the life of the current fleet to 40 years.
Alameda Times-Star (Alameda, CA) August 22, 2004
Plans for a California bullet train network and conveniently linked Bay Area transit are joined at the hip in downtown San Francisco. Yet top California High Speed Rail Authority officials appear more supportive of a downtown developer than either public transportation project.
A 51-story condominium development at 80 Natoma Street stands in the path of proposed bullet train lines into the new Transbay Terminal’s basement. Attempts at diffusing a political collision course there have raised questions about conflicts of interest and new doubts bullet trains will ever reach downtown San Francisco.
In May, Mayor Gavin Newsom invited Rail Authority Chairman Joseph Petrillo to intervene, Petrillo said. But city records show that Petrillo’s employer, international law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, had helped 80 Natoma developer Jack Myers execute financial deals two months earlier.
Myers’ firm took title on March 25 for $10, plus other undisclosed “considerations,” and then took out a $124 million construction loan, city records show.
An attorney in Petrillo’s division of the law firm told Petrillo that he had represented Myers, the rail chairman said in an interview.
Myers built the office complex where Petrillo’s firm is headquartered a block away from 80 Natoma. Petrillo convened bullet train contractors at that office for a fund-raiser, also in May.
San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly said 80 Natoma and the terminal can’t co-exist, describing the collision course as “a pretty significant conflict.” Last week he voted against a new plan that some in San Francisco believe would allow both projects to proceed.
At stake is a downtown San Francisco terminal that would allow people to transfer between major Bay Area transit systems under one roof while using one fare. From the basement, bullet trains would carry people to downtown Los Angeles in 21/2 hours.
The glittering $1 billion terminal could revolutionize the region’s disjointed transit network. Sponsors envision one of the world’s great rail stations, to rival New York’s Grand Central, London’s Victoria and Paris’ Gare du Nord.
Several state laws and voter-backed measures pay for the terminal and require rail platforms in the basement for Caltrain and bullet train alike.
The Rail Authority’s environmental report projects the future Transbay Terminal as the busiest station in the entire 700-mile network.
Without trains, the Transbay Terminal would — as critics have called it — become the world’s most expensive bus stop. Independent engineers found no option for tracks other than under Myers’ property. But while Rail Authority Executive Director Mehdi Morshed was telling people he didn’t care if his trains ever reach the terminal, Petrillo’s actions seemed to bolster Myers’ negotiating position.
The public agency developing the terminal needs Myers to suspend work until it can tunnel under it. Myers refuses, and the agency has begun an eminent domain proceeding to buy the property. “Every dollar going into that high-rise is one-for-one coming out of the public’s pocket,” said San Francisco transit advocate Michael Kiesling. “I believe Myers is trying to scam public money out of this.”
Daly put it more politely, calling Myers effective at “trying to better his negotiating position.”
Myers said that’s nonsense. “I don’t want condemnation, and I’m going to fight it all the way,” he said. He sued to overturn the Transbay Terminal’s environmental study.
In a May 4 meeting Petrillo tried to resolve the dispute. “Petrillo was acting like Myers’ man, barking out stuff. He hasn’t been a friend of the Transbay Terminal,” said Jerry Cauthen, an engineer on the terminal project.
The Transbay Terminal authority paid two consultants to assess whether tracks could reach the terminal without tunneling under Myers’ project. They said no. “Petrillo was involved on the phone. He was trying to muzzle the consultants,” said Tony Bruzzone, AC Transit’s point-man on the terminal.
The same two consultants are retained by the Rail Authority and helped prepare its environmental study. Petrillo acknowledged they were placed in the awkward position of serving two masters.
Petrillo said he was merely trying to cut to the chase to see if 80 Natoma and the terminal could co-exist. “They were debating numbers that didn’t communicate to me the basics I needed to know: whether there were any fatal flaws,” Petrillo explained.
AC Transit fired off a letter to San Francisco officials two weeks later, arguing: “Failure to acquire this parcel will cause the entire Transbay program to collapse.”
The Washington Times August 22, 2004
EDITORIALS The pitch is on for financing the Metro transit system. On Thursday, its board warned of a $42 million spending gap in the proposed 2006 budget and called on regional and federal governments to increase their respective subsidies. Instead of leaning more heavily on subsidies, however, Metro officials should look inside their own shops to find ways to increase revenues, such as advertising.
Metro’s financial picture is not exactly grim, though it is a bit cloudy. But it’s nothing that can’t be fixed with better financial planning and efficiency, and better marketing.
Money is tight because of new projects already on the books — such as employee benefits and a new station on New York Avenue NE — and capital projects Metro officials already have on the drawing board, whose price tag is $1.5 billion in capital through this decade. If local authorities do not boost funding, Metro officials said that passengers would faced crowded buses and rail cars, and that repairs and maintenance would suffer. Timing is important, they said, since they are trying to purchase and bring new rail cars online this fall.
Board member Chris Zimmerman of Arlington said huge increases in subsidies are needed to “avert disaster.” Mr. Zimmerman’s assessment, however, is an exaggeration.
Notwithstanding the costs to keep up with natural wear and tear, both policy and management decisions significantly drove up — and are driving up — the costs. We could list the lengthy missteps made in just the past six or seven years that got Metro in this fix. Suffice it to say, as Board member David Catania, a D.C. representative, did, “We have nearly doubled what we spend on health care for employees in the past five years, driven disproportionately by prescription drugs.”
No first-class transit system can survive on fares and subsidies alone, and that is why Metro began pushing itself as an advertising venue.
To be sure, such options and, more importantly, such revenues, are substantial and could be used as a guaranteed dedicated source of funds — so long as the ads do not advocate breaking the laws of the District or morality. (A cursory spellcheck would be a good idea, too.)
While we hesitate to push for yet another — but obviously necessary — increase in fares, the below-market rates at Metro parking lots could certainly stand another increase. Yet instead, Metro officials and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority are pushing for increased subsidies, which bear down on all taxpayers.
The crowded subway platforms, jammed parking lots and late-night demands prove Metro’s popularity. Public transportation is a pay-as-riders-go system. It simply would not be fair to overburden local, state and federal taxpayers, when the overwhelming majority of them do not use the system with any regularity. Since regional governments are not in a financial position to finance Metro’s Plan A, we urge officials to go back to the drawing board in search of Plan B.
Vietnam News Agency: August 22, 2004
HCM City, Aug. 22 (VNA) — A group of experts from Japan’s Marubeni- Hitachi Groups will go to Ho Chi Minh City in September to prepare a feasibility study on a 20-km monorail line to submit to the city’s authorities next February.
Addressing a seminar in HCM City on Friday, Hideo Inoue, Department Manager of International Sales of Hitachi Group, said the cost to build a monorail line is two-thirds of that for a Metro line with the same transport capacity.
Japanese experts estimated the cost for one km of monorail line at 30 million USD, so HCM City would need a total investment capital of 600 million USD.
According to Japanese experts, the Monorail system will be able to transport 20,000-30,000 passengers an hour. In Japan, the Monorail system has operated for 40 years without any accidents.
Vice Mayor of Ho Chi Minh City Nguyen Van Dua said the city’s public transport service has met only 5 percent of demands and the city planned to invest in developing Metro and Monorail systems in the future.
Pasadena Star-News August 23, 2004
A state Public Utilities Commission judge, who for two years has weighed legal arguments about Gold Line noise, will gain firsthand exposure to local complaints today Administrative Law Judge Anne Simon, who hears cases for the PUC, will take testimony from residents regarding the Metro Gold Line, the Los Angeles-to-Pasadena light rail that began operation in July 2003. The PUC regulates railroads.
The public participation hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the community room at South Pasadena Library, 1115 El Centro St.
A citizens’ group, Pasadena Avenue-Monterey Road Committee (PAMRC), filed requests before the PUC asking that South Pasadena be exempt from some state regulations that mandate the loudness levels of train horns and crossing gate bells and the allowable speed of passing trains.
In April, South Pasadena reached a settlement with MTA — which operates the light rail system — and the Gold Line Construction Authority, which built it, agreeing on certain measures to lessen the noise and other adverse impacts of the Gold Line’s 200 daily trains.
PAMRC, another party to the negotiations, rejected the proposed settlement, saying it didn’t go far enough to bring relief to residents who say the Gold Line’s volume, vibrations and 22-hour-a-day operation have robbed them of sleep, privacy and the enjoyment of their homes.
In South Pasadena the railroad tracks primarily run through residential neighborhoods, often next to backyards, driveways and houses. “We just want the judge to understand what the personal impact is,” said Ernie Arnold, president of PAMRC. Some residents can only sleep by creating masking noise, such as the whir of an air conditioning unit, he said.
Others say they have have have moved just to get away from train noise at their house. Longtime resident Jessie Rogers moved to Palm Springs and now rents her Gold Line-adjacent house for $200 a month less than market value, Arnold said. “There is a (reasonable) expectation that any light rail that’s built will meet the state law,” Arnold said. “The people who live next to it should have the expectation that it will be as loud as (the builders) said it would be.”
Neighbors’ complaints about the Gold Line began months before it started service, when the rail system was being tested in early 2003. Residents get most annoyed by the crossing gate bells that ring each time a train approaches and the screech of steel train wheels rubbing against the tracks, especially on curves.
Meanwhile, the judge ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to release a study the agency conducted on Gold Line noise levels. PAMRC and the city of South Pasadena have long argued that the system’s decibel levels far exceed those forecasted in the environmental studies conducted when the rail line was being planned.
In one bit of good news for the Gold Line, ridership bumped upward in July from the previous month, said MTA spokesman Ed Scannell. The agency measures one-way passenger trips, called boardings:
San Francisco Examiner August 23, 2004
Transportation planners and engineers unveiled their latest plans for improvements to public transit service between Visitacion Valley and Chinatown.
In a public meeting last week, San Francisco Municipal Railway officials presented three possible scenarios for the central subway portion of the Third Street Light Rail connection, which will span 7.1 aboveground miles between the Caltrain stations of Bayshore Boulevard and King Street and 1.7 underground miles between King and Clay Streets. The project would link the Bayview and Visitacion Valley neighborhoods in The City’s southeast sector with South of Market area, downtown and Chinatown.
Because the plans have competing merits, Muni put the options before the public to find the best possible solution. “Hearing the concerns of the public, we have looked for alternatives,” said John Thomas, project manager for Muni, which has held five public meetings since May.
At last week’s meeting, Thomas presented three options for underground “portals” through which light-rail cars will transition from surface to underground operation along Third and Fourth streets.
In the first scenario, portals would be located between Brannan and Bryant streets and northbound trains would enter the underground tunnel on Third Street. Southbound trains would enter on Fourth Street.
In the second scenario, referred to as “Option A,” portals would also be built on Third and Fourth streets, but they would be moved south one block to Townsend and Brannan streets.
In the last scenario, known as “Option B,” a double portal through which two trains would run in either direction would be located on Fourth Street.
While some neighbors expressed concern that Option A would eliminate 78 parking spots, others were concerned that building any portals would eliminate certain lanes of traffic. On days the Giants are playing a baseball game at SBC Park, having fewer lanes of traffic would make driving through that section of the South of Market area virtually impossible, several residents said.
The aboveground stretch of the project should be completed by early 2006. The underground portion is scheduled for completion by 2015.
San Diego Business Journal August 23, 2004
It seems that San Diegans’ favorite mode of transportation is their automobile.
While buses can be seen on the freeways and roads all around the county, the ridership levels of the two largest bus operators in San Diego County, the North County Transit District and the San Diego Transit Corp., have gone down in the last several years.
The North County Transit District bus system, dubbed the Breeze, has slowly seen a decrease in its ridership levels — a drop of 2 percent from 10,534,000 passengers in 2002 to 10,287,000 in 2003. The passenger levels on all Breeze buses have dropped nearly 9 percent since 2000. “We are down slightly from the previous year,” said Tom Kelleher, an NCTD spokesman.
Dianne Jacob, the chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, said mass transit is just not conducive to the entire region. “It’s just not working here,” Jacob said. “Only 2 percent of the population uses mass transit. Transit has its place and it should be available in major urban areas where the ridership is higher, but it is a very expensive system.”
In 2003, NCTD said it spent more than $ 40 million in operating costs to maintain the district’s 146 buses and 53 fixed bus routes.
A Costly Ride
“When you pay your bus fare you are paying for 22 percent of the cost of your trip,” Kelleher said. “We make up the difference. With 164 buses out there from dawn to dark, it is an expensive proposition.”
The Breeze travels more than 1,020 square miles in North County, from Del Mar to San Clemente, Ramona to Escondido and Vista to Oceanside. The 40-foot buses carry a capacity of about 70 people.
Kelleher said no documentation was available on the average number of passengers on each bus. While the decreases in ridership have been minimal, Kelleher said the buses are still a great and practical way to get around San Diego.
Trips In Under An Hour
“We’ve made every effort in the last few years to organize and make it faster and easier to get around,” Kelleher said. “In 2003, we reorganized our system — we really wanted to achieve a minimal amount of time that people would have to wait. We try to keep most routes under an hour.”
The most popular route is route 302, from Escondido to Oceanside, which stops of fat the Plaza Camino Real mall in Carlsbad, Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside and Palomar College in San Marcos, Kelleher said. “In the morning we get people going to work and school,” Kelleher said. “It’s certainly our workhorse route. In June we had 158,000 passengers on that route alone.”
A survey released in March by the San Diego Association of Governments, the region’s planning agency, showed that the majority of passengers who ride buses in the San Diego region are heading to work, taking the bus an average of four to six times a week. Of those, 27 percent live in a household with a total yearly income of less than $ 10,000, a mix between passengers of Hispanic descent and white descent, 37 percent each, according to the survey.
As NCTD covers the North County, the Metropolitan Transit System, the coordinating agency for public transportation within the San Diego region, covers the rest.
MTS covers 570 square miles throughout the county, serving 2.1 million passengers with 100 routes. Its operators include the San Diego Transit Corp., Chula Vista Transit, San Diego County Transit System, National City Transit and MTS contract services.
San Diego Transit Corp., the largest bus operator in San Diego, has been around for 117 years, yet, like NCTD, has Seen its numbers slowly fade. Since 2000, San Diego Transit Corp. has decreased from 125,211 daily weekday passenger boardings to 107,617 in 2003, a 14 percent decrease. Total passengers for SDTC in 2003 reached nearly 29 million, down 9 percent from 2002. The highest ridership level SDTC had ever seen was in 1977, with nearly 37 million passengers.
Military Gone, Fares Up “Ridership has been down as of late,” said Nancy Irwin,. an MTS spokeswoman. “We have had a lot of military deployed and a fare increase as of June 1 — that makes a difference. But we are feeling really positive about the future of bus transit.”
SDTC alone covers more than 610 miles and 31 routes throughout San Diego, El Cajon, La Mesa and National City, but Irwin said the company is not able to cover the entire region. “San Diego was built without mass transit in mind. It’s the way San Diego is built — it is not feasible that we can go everywhere,” Irwin said. “We are constantly re-evaluating where the buses can go. The buses can’t be used for every trip.”
But the buses do go to places that the public needs, including schools, Irwin said. “We are opening the transit center at San Diego State University in the spring or summer of next year,” Irwin said. “If we can get kids into the habit of using mass transit, we can help save pollution in the air and make the freeways less crowded.”
Starting Sept. 7, MTS will provide express service from Downtown San Diego to Poway via Mid-City. The new route 830 will provide access to the South Poway Industrial Park in a total travel time of 60 minutes from Downtown and 40 minutes from Mid-City.
The new route is expected to save an hour of travel in each direction for those who otherwise would be driving. Express route 830 will have three daily northbound trips starting from 5:30-6:40 a.m. and two southbound trips between 3:30-5:30 p.m. daily. The fare for this service will be $ 2.50 one-way, or $ 64 for a monthly pass.
More than 50 percent of passengers are riding the buses on monthly passes, Irwin said. Passengers who purchase monthly passes can ride any bus or trolley route in the county. The prices range from as low as $ 14.50 for seniors and people with disabilities to $ 84 for a regional monthly pass. “A monthly pass is a really good way to go,” Irwin said. “We encourage people to save some money and ride the buses.”
As traffic in the region gets worse, Irwin said buses are a great option. “When politicians are asked what are the concerns of the region, they say traffic problems. It is probably in the top three,” Irwin said. “You can’t build yourself out of traffic. You would have to put concrete over Balboa Park if you really wanted to make a difference in traffic. We would have to pave over paradise just so we can allow for more cars.”
Houston Chronicle Aug. 23, 2004
It’s summertime, and the pickings were easy for two Metropolitan Transit Authority police officers at the MetroRail crossing recently at Main and McKinney in downtown Houston.
Lunch-hour customers at a doughnut shop watched as the pair wrote one jaywalking ticket after another. Some came outside to warn pedestrians.
Officer M. Cavazos said he and his partner wrote about 50 tickets in three hours. They could have written many more. In one 15-minute interval they issued far more verbal warnings. Cavazos said he was just enforcing the law and trying to keep pedestrians safe. Metro is under pressure to stem the number of accidents along the 7.5-mile line. Only two of the 57 MetroRail collisions recorded by late last week had involved pedestrians, but they are far more likely to cause death or serious injury.
Jodie Sinclair, spokeswoman for the Houston Downtown Management District, was outraged at the ticket-writing campaign. “We work our butts off for years trying to get people to come downtown, and now this,” she said.
There seemed to be several problems. Some pedestrians seemed to think the walk/wait signal on the far side of Main didn’t apply to people going to the boarding platform in the median.
And the signals were, indeed, out of sync. Sometimes pedestrians and vehicles both got red lights. Sometimes only the pedestrians did. But Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton said the signals are working as designed.
Nottingham Express Transit 23rd August 2004
Tram passenger figures for the first six months of operation have been so encouraging that NET has decided to improve the system timetable by nearly 10% to cope with demand. From September 6th, there will be more trams, more often on both weekdays and weekends.
The new weekday timetable will be significantly improved from the current frequency of trams every 7.5 minutes to every 6 minutes from 7am until 6pm providing a really frequent service throughout the day. Weekend services will also be enhanced with the Saturday timetable offering trams every 6 minutes from 8am until 6pm, when currently they run every 7.5 minutes. On Sundays, trams will now run every 10 minutes between 10am and 5pm; currently they run every 15 minutes.
Passengers will be able to pick up the new timetable from the NCT Travelcentre in the Old Market Square, from the dispensers on trams and other city information outlets in the next few days. It will also be inserted into over 60,000 copies of the Evening Post on September 6th.
Fare Changes
NET will also be making some changes to the fare structure. The adult singles fare structure is simplified to become two clear ‘zones’ : 80p between Station Street and Royal Centre stops. — £1.10 for all other trips.
This represents a reduction for those who currently pay £1.20 and an increase for those who currently pay a £1 and some who currently pay 80p. We will be freezing the price of all-day and weekly tickets at £2 and £9 respectively, leaving the vast majority of passengers unaffected.
Child fares rise from 60p to 70p, though the all-day option at £1.20 and the weekly ticket at £5 are frozen.
Colin Lea, marketing manager for NET said, “We are very encouraged by the initial usage figures for NET and are pleased to be able to offer more trams, more often after only six months in operation. Having studied patterns of use, we are also taking this opportunity to simplify the fare structure, whilst keeping the majority of passengers unaffected by the changes.”
Houston Chronicle August 24, 2004
U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay threatened Tuesday to block congressional passage of a six-year transportation funding authorization unless the bill sends more highway dollars to Texas.
“I am working on the conference committee to guarantee that bill will not go on the floor of the House until we guarantee every state gets at least 95 cents of every dollar back that they put into the highway fund,” the U.S. House majority leader told a lunch meeting in Houston of the Alliance for Interstate 69 Texas. “It’s high time Texas highway dollars stayed here to create Texas jobs.”
DeLay and other Texas Congress members have worked for years to boost the state’s share of federal transportation funding. U.S. motorists pay an 18.4-cent federal tax on every gallon of fuel purchased. That money is deposited in the Highway Trust Fund to pay for roads and mass- transit projects. According to the Texas Department of Transportation, the state gets back 86 cents of every dollar of gas tax its residents send to Washington.
The Sugar Land Republican’s comments were among his strongest yet indicating he would prevent passage of the House-Senate conference report if it doesn’t improve Texas’ take. As majority leader, DeLay controls the House agenda.
“Since the current highway-funding system was established in 1956, Texas has lost more than $5.3 billion because of its status as a ‘donor’ state,” DeLay told the gathering of 189 alliance members at the Hilton Americas-Houston. “The federal government has been taking Texas dollars out of our state and giving them to other states to create jobs there. There’s shared sacrifice, and then there’s highway robbery. This is unacceptable and has to stop.”
Texas’ delegation failed to achieve its 95-cent goal in versions of the bill passed earlier this year. A funding dispute with the White House has stalled the legislation’s final approval, which was due last October, and limited the amount of extra highway dollars that can be allocated to states that help subsidize road building in other parts of the country.
DeLay’s push for a higher return of federal gas tax payments is tied to the state’s ability to get enough funding to move Interstate 69 closer to reality. “The future of trade and transportation in Texas relies heavily on the intelligent and timely development of Interstate 69,” DeLay said.
Jim Kollaer, president and chief executive of the Greater Houston Partnership, which provides staff for the alliance, said it’s key I-69 receive a substantial allocation in the transportation bill, which is passed every six years.
The Virginian-Pilot — Norfolk August 24, 2004
Virginia Beach and Norfolk, longtime rivals that they are, can’t seem to make regional cooperation work — even when they try hard. A case in point is the current impasse over the purchase of Norfolk Southern’s freight line for use as light rail.
Talks broke down this month just as Hampton Roads Transit’s decades- long effort to build a mass transit line reached a critical stage in Washington.
The barrier is the price, a barrier raised much higher than necessary by the desire of the two cities to speak with a single voice. That’s commendable, but counter-productive. It could cost the region its best chance for years to come at securing a mass transit system.
Here’s why: Light rail is proposed on only five of the 15 miles, the stretch confined to Norfolk. It’s a starter line that might one day be extended and enlarged later as demand increased. The line has been appraised for $7.8 million. The stretch in Virginia Beach is twice as long and, because it slices through a commercial corridor, is far more valuable at $40.6 million, according to the appraisal.
But Virginia Beach is not interested in starting a light rail system and is not part of the federal light rail project. It wants only to bank the abandoned ribbon of land in case it needs a transportation corridor in 10 or 20 years. That’s too smart, by half. The Beach’s involvement makes a difficult negotiation even harder.
Trying to buy both sections, even though only one is needed, breaks the budget for the Norfolk line, dooming whatever slim chance it has in Washington.
Odd as it seems, the region’s best chance for getting a mass transit system may be from Norfolk and Virginia Beach parting company and making a separate deal with the railroad. It might set regionalism back a peg, but it could get light rail in Hampton Roads back on track.
Jakarta Post August 24, 2004
As one of Jakarta’s sister cities, Shanghai, China — with a total population of 13 million and an area of 6,341 square kilometers — has similar problems. In a recent comparative study organized by the City Council, The Jakarta Post’s Damar Harsanto was invited to visit Shanghai to learn how that city’s officials deal with the problems. This is the first of three articles.
While Jakarta is still focusing on the development of another busway line and later a monorail line to deal with its chronic traffic, its sister city Shanghai has been able to manage its potential transportation problems.
Shanghai began operating its subway network — as part of its mass rapid transit (MRT) system — in 1995 to cater its population of 13 million. Today, Shanghai has 36 subway lines connecting 48 stations citywide covering a distance of 65 kilometers. Another new line is under construction and is slated to be operational by the end of this year.
According to published reports, the Shanghai administration has promised to further expand the subway by 11 lines covering 400 kilometers by 2010.
To encourage its residents to use the subway, the Shanghai administration has also widened sidewalks for pedestrians and banned motorcycles and bicycles from major thoroughfares in downtown areas. Those efforts have apparently been welcomed by the people as many now use the bustling subway system. They have an efficient vending machine ticketing system and most passengers spend less than five minutes in line, then catch the next of many passing trains and within a few more minutes are at their destination.
Compared to the subway system in relatively smaller cities like Singapore and Taipei, the one in Shanghai is very crowded, especially during peak hours. Nevertheless, it is less crowded than Jakarta’s electric commuter trains and, of course, no passengers climbed atop the cars for a free ride.
The public’s positive response to the subway was also due to its integrated system, which links other modes of transportation such as buses and taxis.
An expatriate working for a foreign company in Shanghai, Florence Lee, was very pleased with the convenient prepaid ticketing system, in which monthly passes can be used for the subway, buses and even taxis. Lee said she only needed to swipe the debit card over the magnetic reading device to open the turnstiles in the subway station. The value on the card is automatically updated, she said. “In that sense, Shanghai’s transportation system is the most well-developed compared to other cities that I have visited, like Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. In those two cities, passengers are required to have different tickets for different public transportation means,” she told the Post.
In addition to the subway, Shanghai also has river transportation. Several boat taxis operate along the Huangpu River which divides the city into two: Pudong in the east and Puxi in the west. However, the river transportation was initially established to cater to tourists, and not necessarily to tackle the bigger transportation problems. Boat taxi tickets can be from between US$12 and $15 per person.
Shanghai also has a high-tech Magnetic Levitation Vehicle (Maglev) speed train. The train, which can top out at 430 kilometers per hour — is still quite costly for an average commuter, and at present only travels runs along a 31-kilometer track between Shanghai’s Long Yang station and Pudong International Airport.
The Maglev train has not, however, received a warm welcome from the residents because the cutting-edge technology means each ticket is priced at 40 Chinese yuan (US$4.8). A price that many Shanghai residents consider too high.
Local media reported that the construction of the Maglev train was fueled by a political rivalry between China and Taiwan, rather than concern for transportation issues. The media also has criticized the new train, because the schedule does not coincide very well with airline schedules at the airport.
Despite its weaknesses, Jakarta can learn some things from Shanghai. Its administration has a strong will and consistent policies, which put public interest first and they see that as the key to tackling transportation woes.
Shanghai Population: 13 million Area : 6,341 square kilometers River : Huangpu River Means of transportation: - Maglev trains, subways, buses, taxis, cars, boats, motorcycles, bicycles - Number of Vehicles: 600,000 cars, 789,000 motorcycles, 40,000 taxis, 3,000 buses, nine million bicycles
Jakarta Population : 8.6 million (Greater Jakarta: 18.6 million) Area : 661 square kilometers River : 13 rivers Means of Transportation: - Train, buses, taxis, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, bajaj (three-wheeled motorized taxi) - Number of Vehicles: 1.3 million passenger cars, 403,100 cargo vehicles, 2,000 buses, 2.6 million motorcycles, 23,000 taxis
Nation August 24, 2004
Bt75-bn takeover, ‘then Bt15 fares’
The Transport Ministry has announced it expects to conclude its purchase of shares in the subway and skytrain operators — Bangkok Metropolitan (BMCL) and Bangkok Mass Transit System (BTS) — by next month. “Following the share restructuring, both systems will be merged and a new single flat fare will be introduced. Then all passengers will pay a single fare of Bt15,” Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit said.
The ministry expects to spend Bt75 billion to acquire both companies, according to a paper Suriya presented at a logistics-related Cabinet conference in Hua Hin last weekend. In the paper, compiled by the Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning Office, the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA), which is in charge of subway development, is expected to require a total of Bt521.6 billion to complete a 291-kilometre subway extension in Bangkok and peripheral provinces.
A number of financial sources are named in the paper to finance the extension and the share acquisition, worth a total of Bt597 billion. Most of the financing is expected to come from the government, for both infrastructure and the rail system.
The rail system is projected to cost Bt210 billion, with Bt82 billion coming from the government and Bt128 billion from supplier credit. The infrastructure costs of the project have been put at Bt387 billion — Bt200 billion from the central budget and Bt187 billion from a number of state agencies such as the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the Energy Fund.
According to Suriya, the committee, chaired by deputy permanent secretary for finance Uthit Thamvathin, expects the share price of both companies to be lower than proposed. “After negotiations are completed, we will start working on project financing as well as cutting fares to draw more passengers to the service,” the minister said.
At present, BTS fares range from Bt10 to Bt40 while BMCL charges between Bt12 and Bt31.
The proposed flat fare of Bt15 is based upon the mass transit system in Seoul. The Korean subway charges a flat rate equivalent to Bt20 per passenger, which has attracted a high level of passengers. “The purchasing power of Thai passengers is lower than that of Koreans, so the fare should be lower,” Suriya said.
He noted that existing fare structures charged by both Thai companies have proven unattractive. BMCL witnessed a 50 per cent decrease in passengers immediately after it raised fares on August 13, from a flat fare of Bt10 offered during July, up until August 12.
He said lower fares would not eat into company earnings. “Compensating for the lower fare price is the higher number of passengers. No matter how many passengers they accommodate, fixed costs remain the same.”
The government has sought to encourage Bangkok commuters to rely more on public transport to help reduce oil consumption since world oil prices started rising.
Canadian Press August 24, 2004
MONTREAL (CP) — A transit equipment manufacturing plant in Kingston, Ont., that employed 230, is being permanently closed by Bombardier Inc. due to a lack of orders.
The facility has been temporarily closed since November 2003, and about half of its 230 employees have taken severance packages and left, said spokeswoman Helene Gagnon on Monday. Gagnon said the 115 people on the company’s recall list were told on Monday the plant will officially close in December.
The company said a test track facility there and 150 administration employees for the company’s Total Transit Systems will not be affected. Those employees are involved in project development, sales, engineering and support services.
The Kingston plant was completed in 1982 by the Urban Transportation Development Corp. by the Ontario government to provide transit equipment, including subway cars for the Toronto Transit Commission. A similar plant was built at Thunder Bay, Ont.
The latest contract at Kingston was a monorail for Las Vegas, completed in July. It also assembled the AirTrain, an automated passenger service at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport, the Detroit People Mover and Vancouver’s SkyTrain, among other projects.
Gagnon said the Thunder Bay plant will remain open, with work until the end of the year, and it is “well positioned” to get a new contract expected to be placed in 2006 for Toronto subway cars. “Thunder Bay remains an important part of Bombardier’s manufacturing network, but the next two years will not be easy ones for the Thunder Bay plant,” Gagnon said.
After a short ownership by Montreal engineering firm Lavalin Group, the two Ontario facilities were acquired by Bombardier Transportation in 1992. That division of Bombardier Inc. is in a major restructuring begun this year, which involves 6,600 job cuts, mainly in Europe.
Another production facility in Barre, Vt., was also permanently closed last May.
Railway Technology August 24, 2004
The Brussels Metro is operated by STIB/MIVB (Societé des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles) which is also responsible for a 133km tram network (12km of which is in tunnels). Conversion from tramways to metro us ongoing.
Brussels considers itself as being at the centre of Europe, a claim which is backed up by the fact that many institutions of the European Union have their headquarters there.
Plans to provide the city with a modern rapid transit system were put in place during the mid-1960s, and the first tram tunnel, along the alignment of what has since become Line 1 of the metro network, was opened in 1969, between Schuman and De Brouckere.
A year later, it was followed by a second section, between Madou and Port de Namur, which has subsequently become known as Line 2.
In August 1998, the system ended six years without any further development, when Heysel station, serving the national sports stadium, was put underground. At the same time, the line on which it is situated, Line 1A, was extended beyond to Koening Boudewijn.
Line 2 of the system runs north to south and passes just west of the city centre. It was built along the line of the city’s inner ring road. Originally opened in 1985, it was adopted for full metro operation in 1988.
The final element of the pre-metro rapid transit system was known as the Outer Ring Road Pr.-m.tro line. Now known as Line 5, this crosses Line 1 at Montgomery and was opened between 1972 and 1975.
The Brussels Metro’s operator, STIB, also runs a further 133km of older- style tram network, split into a web of 15 lines. The official tram museum is still connected to this system and preserved trams are occasionally allowed out for special operating days. Many elderly trams used on these lines enjoyed a thorough refurbishment during the 1980s and 1990s, and the four types of trams still in use can often be seen alongside their newer counterparts.
Trams run throughout the network to a uniform timetable, operating every seven minutes between 0500 and 0100, seven days a week.
THE PROJECT
Expansion of the metro is continuing, with new lines under construction, and new stations being added or planned on existing lines.
An important project has been the extension to Line 1B, opened in September 2003. Running from the north-east to the south-west of the city, the extension is at the latter extremity, and extends the existing line from its Bizet terminus to Erasme hospital. The line has four stations, at La Roue/Het Rad, Ceria/Coovi, Eddy Merckx and Erasme/Erasmus. The last 800m and Erasme/Erasmus station are on the surface and all stations have a central platform which is directly accessible from street level.
In September 2000, an extension of Line 2 from Clemenceau to Beekkant via Delacroix was announced for completion by June 2005.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Investment was made during 1998-99 to upgrade maintenance and stabling facilities at the main depot, Avenue de l’Hippodrome. More of the old-style tramway was also converted to light rail.
Many routes are still operated as pre-metro or trams. However, the number of annual journeys by the new metro system has overtaken that of the old-style trams.
ROLLING STOCK
The design of the latest generation of trams has come mainly from Design Triangle, Cambridge, UK. Manufactured in Canada by Bombardier from 1993, they have a low floor and each unit consists of two vehicles connected by an articulated central section.
However, investment in new rolling stock had not just been confined to light rail vehicles. In keeping with the city’s aim of maintaining and developing an integrated public transport system, STIB has also purchased buses, with a new form of diesel-electric drive, for use on a dedicated route.
SIGNALLING/COMMUNICATIONS
Conversion from tramway to metro operation involves a substantial upgrading of signalling and communications systems. This has entailed the provision of in-cab signalling equipment. New rolling stock is fitted with automatic train protection and automatic train control systems, which are used to help maintain the regular interval services which the network advertises.
An additional measure to help maintain schedules is the fitting of ‘greenwave’ radio equipment, which controls and changes traffic lights at road junctions where necessary to give priority to rail-borne vehicles.
THE FUTURE
The momentum of tramway to metro conversion is set to continue, although the city is keen to maintain a presence of the older tram vehicles as they have proved popular, particularly with tourists and visitors to the city.
From 2007, the entire network will be restructured thus:
Line 1A: Herrmann-Debroux to Erasme Line 1B: Stockel to Gare de l’Ouest Line 2A: Simonis to Arts-Loi, Gare de Midi, Gare de l’Ouest, Simonis and Roi Baudouin Line 2B: As Line 2A, but only from Simonis to Simonis
Railway Technology August 24, 2004
The island of Singapore is densely populated and highly urban, and great economic growth experienced over the last two decades has demanded major improvements in public transport. The government set up the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in September 1995 to provide a highly efficient, comfortable, safe and convenient transport system at an affordable price.
The long-term plan is to have 540km of passenger railway. There are currently six lines, the North-South, East West and NorthEast lines, Bukit Panjang, Sengkang (East), and Sengkang (West).
NORTHEAST LINE INFRASTRUCTURE
The LTA received approval to begin construction of the Northeast Line (NEL) on 16 January 1996, and after seven years work the 20km (12.5 mile) line was commissioned on 20 June 2003.
The world’s first fully automatic heavy rail metro, it runs from Punggol in the north east to the Harbor Front in the south, and has the highest passenger capacity.
The route is entirely underground and passes through the central business district, following the transport corridors of Serangoon Road and Upper Serangoon Road to the new towns of Hougang, Sengkang and Punggol. There are 16 stations, all in tunnel, with platform screen doors for maximum protection. The system operator is SBS Transit.
NEL ROLLING STOCK
French-based Alstom was hired by the LTA to manage the project and provide the rolling stock and control equipment.
The 25 trains, which run in six-car formations (two units coupled together), can carry up to 1,920 people. Taking power at 1,500V from the DC overhead line, they are of welded aluminium construction with external sliding doors. Maximum speed is 100km/h, although only 90km/h is reached in normal service. There is air-conditioning, a passenger information system, public address and a front-end detrainment door. There is wide gangway access throughout the length of the trainset, good acoustic ergonomy and a fully equipped driver’s desk for manual operation at full speed. An underframe fire barrier is designed to last for one hour and there is a comprehensive fire and smoke detection system. All train status information and data is managed by the control centre.
There are two CCTV cameras (video-surveillance) in every car and the leading bogies on each of the leading cars are fitted with an obstacle deflector/detector system. Should a train touch anything lying across the track the brakes are applied immediately.
Every major critical component has been duplicated to improve reliability. For example, on-board batteries can take extended loads to ensure train equipment continues to function in case of primary power loss. Cabin lighting, ventilation, on-board computers, automatic train control systems, radio and train-to-track links, the CCTV network, public address and passenger information systems all remain active for at least one hour.
A full scale model of the train was delivered from France in July 1999 to validate the interior design and the results of a public questionnaire led to changes in the interior design and layout.
Alstom’s test track in Valenciennes (France) enabled the company to deliver rolling stock ready for operation and avoid transport and other costs for testing abroad. The tests covered 1,500 scenarios ranging from failure of a simple component to a major breakdown.
NEL SIGNALLING/COMMUNICATIONS
The Northeast Line employs a complex electronics system that powers the trains and keeps constant tabs on all its on-board functions ranging from braking to air-conditioning. The control centre in Sengkang monitors the health of all the sub-systems.
Alstom’s MASTRIA strategy uses automatic moving-block technology with two-way digital transmission with Automatic Train Protection (ATP) to eliminate the risks of collisions and derailments, an Automatic Train Operation System (ATO) which drives the metro and Train Data Management System (TDMS) to concentrate and dispatch the rolling stock information with fixed equipment. A Waveguide information network has the capability to transmit video and is almost maintenance-free. Base stations are located within the signalling equipment room.
The control centre can decide whether to pull the train out of service at its next stop or wait until the end of the day’s revenue service before it is sent to the depot for repair.
Trains can travel as close as 90 seconds apart at 90km/h, compared to two minutes and 80km/h on other lines. Extra trains can be safely introduced into service at any moment to increase passenger capacity almost instantaneously.
THE FUTURE
There are no plans at present to extend the Northeast Line, although the LTA has let contracts for the first stage of the new Circle Line which, whilst running with a third electrified rail instead of overhead, will feature much of the same technology.
The initial 5.2km section (Dhoby Ghaut, Museum, Convention Centre, Millennia, Nicoll Highway and Stadium Boulevard) is planned to open in 2007 and might eventually be expanded to 33km with 29 stations. The third phase (5.7km) has five stations at Bartley Road, Serangoon (interchange with NorthEast Line), Lorong Chuan, Bishan (interchange with North-South Line) and Marymount Road (2008).
Circle Line Phases 4 and 5 are targeted for completion by 2010. They will have a total route length of 17km and comprise 13 stations.
Three new rail lines will be built over the next 15 years to serve Bukit Timah, Jurong and estates in the eastern part of Singapore.
Philadelphia Inquirer August. 25, 2004
Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a Princeton University geologist, has a suggestion for Thanksgiving 2005: “Give thanks for a century of cheap and plentiful oil.” That is when he predicts global oil production will peak, making it increasingly difficult to meet the world’s voracious appetite for inexpensive energy.
“The exploration game is essentially over,” Deffeyes said yesterday at the American Chemical Society’s national meeting at the Convention Center and nearby hotels. “We are unable to find new oil at the rate society or chemical engineers would request,” Deffeyes said to a roomful of chemists, whose industry has been pummeled by rising energy costs.
Deffeyes and other scientists, including Nobel Prize-winning chemist Richard E. Smalley, urged at yesterday’s symposium a research push on the scale of President John F. Kennedy’s 1960s space program to figure out what will replace oil as the lifeblood of the global economy. “I believe this is the biggest challenge any of us will face in our lifetime. This is the big one,” said Smalley, a professor at Rice University in Houston.
Scientists concentrated on future energy supplies, while the public and many government officials have focused on this year’s sharp increase in oil prices, which are 43 percent higher than a year ago, despite declining in the last three trading sessions. Volatility in oil prices may be here to stay because demand — which is soaring in China, India and other rapidly growing economies — is nearly at the world’s production capacity. “The reality is that no unused surplus production capacity exists anywhere in the world,” Deffeyes said.
Deffeyes based his prediction that production would peak next year on a methodology developed by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist for Shell Oil, now the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Hubbert predicted in 1956 that oil production in the United States would top out in the early 1970s. As he forecast, annual oil production in the United States peaked at 4.1 billion barrels in 1970, and it declined to 2.1 billion barrels last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Even if Deffeyes is wrong about global production, as some critics say, the world economy faces an upsurge in energy demand that oil alone cannot meet. Smalley said he expected global energy consumption to more than double, and perhaps increase by a factor of four, by 2050. Nuclear, solar and geothermal energy are “the only real options,” he said.
The Economy; Will spike bring inflation, recession or both? You pull the SUV into your regular gas station, and you suddenly notice the price at the pump. Do you:
(a) Snarl, fume, and then begin thinking of ways to cut other spending so you can afford to keep filling up your tank; or (b) Fume, snarl, and then plan to ask your boss for a raise, so you can afford to keep filling your tank.
Take your time because a lot is riding on the answer. Like interest rates, home prices, and maybe the direction of the entire economy.
Crude-oil prices may have come down a bit in the last couple of days, but unless something very unexpected happens there’s little reason to expect energy costs to fall by a lot.
The facts of soaring global demand, especially from places such as China, and a lack of growth in supply mean we’ll probably be seeing those $2-ish prices at gas stations for a while yet.
But we’re only beginning to fathom what all this might mean for the wider economy. And it turns out that despite our experience with oil-price shocks in past decades, experts are quite foggy on some key points. Such as: Do rising energy prices drive inflation? If the answer seems obvious, think again.
It’s true that oil flows like sap through the whole economy. When its price goes up, it affects everyone from airlines to manufacturers to hospitals. Supermarkets see higher costs for shipping and packaging. Utilities pay more for fuel to generate electricity. Even schools face bigger bills to bus students.
That sure sounds like inflation. But is it? Unsatisfyingly, the answer is maybe. It depends.
One possibility is that airlines, manufacturers, power companies and local governments facing higher energy costs succeed in passing those costs on. Prices go up for groceries, utilities, even property taxes. Workers demand — and receive — raises to keep up with the cost of living. That’s inflation for sure. And if it takes off, you can be sure the Federal Reserve will respond, administering a painfully sure cure: sharply higher interest rates.
But a second possibility could also play out, in which rising energy costs lead to slower spending, rather than faster price increases. In this scenario, people and businesses compensate for higher oil prices by cutting back: driving or heating less or scaling back other budget items. Expectations are lowered, belts are tightened, plans are deferred.
If that’s the trend, the short-term result would be less overall growth in the economy — even a recession, if the oil shock is big enough. And here’s where it gets tricky, at least for Alan Greenspan.
If the economy is slowing down, the Fed chairman’s job is normally to bail it out with lower interest rates. That’s what happened in early 2001, when the Fed began an aggressive series of cuts that lowered the key short-term rate from 6.5 percent to 1 percent by mid-2003.
As signs of an economic expansion mounted early this summer, the Fed began raising rates again. Observers widely expected Greenspan to continue “measured” rate hikes well into next year.
Now oil has complicated the issue.
If crude prices continue to flirt with $50 a barrel, experts agree there will be an impact. They just don’t agree on what that impact will be. Will it be more inflation? Slower growth? A combination of the two, like the dismal “stagflation” of the mid-1970s?
The Fed has to figure this out. The wrong analysis could lead to the central bank’s raising rates when they should be lowered — or vice versa. And the wrong call could play havoc with housing or other interest-sensitive parts of the economy.
None of this takes place in a test tube, moreover. So what worked in the past might not be effective this time. The good news is that rising oil prices don’t have the same economic impact, dollar for dollar, as they did in the 1970s. But the other side of that coin is that Greenspan & Co. can’t rely on a 30-year-old playbook to help them make the call.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin) August 25, 2004
Commuter rail plans in the Madison and Milwaukee areas are continuing to advance, but on different tracks.
In Madison, Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and Supervisor Scott McDonell sought this week to break a logjam on rail transit by proposing to start preliminary engineering on a $52.7 million hybrid commuter rail-light rail line. But Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz is still voicing interest in a regular light rail or streetcar system.
Meanwhile, in southeastern Wisconsin, authorities are close to a deal that would start preliminary engineering on a $152 million plan to extend Chicago’s Metra commuter trains from Kenosha to Racine and downtown Milwaukee, said Kenosha County public works chief Fred Patrie.
The Madison-area debate centers on the Transport 2020 plan for a $188 million commuter rail line from Middleton to Madison’s East Towne Mall, linked to a $53.4 million countywide express bus network. The Madison Common Council and Dane County Board had voted to start preliminary engineering on that plan before Cieslewicz was elected and sought more streetcar discussion.
Billed as a 12-mile starter system, Falk’s plan would run hybrid diesel-electric trains on existing freight tracks from Middleton to downtown Madison, then shift the vehicles onto new light rail tracks in downtown streets for a one-mile loop. Stops would include the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Camp Randall Stadium, the Kohl Center and Capitol Square.
Except for the streetcar element, the plan is similar to one that Falk had advanced with former Mayor Sue Bauman. Falk and McDonell said the new plan combined “the best of both worlds,” serving commuters, but allowing local service downtown, while laying the groundwork for later expansion to the larger system.
Cieslewicz considers the plan a step forward but still wants more study of streetcars to ensure service to urban neighborhoods and minimize air pollution from diesel vehicles, said his spokeswoman, Melanie Conklin.
In the Milwaukee area, the issue hasn’t been which type of train to use, but whether state or local officials would lead the $4.6 million preliminary engineering phase.
A Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission study committee recommended a 33-mile line on existing tracks from Kenosha to new stops in the Town of Somers, Racine, Town of Caledonia, Oak Creek, South Milwaukee, Cudahy and downtown Milwaukee, with seven round-trips each weekday and three each on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
Patrie said he expected administrators to agree this week on terms of a seven-way partnership among the cities and counties of Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha and the state Department of Transportation. If elected officials agree this fall, study could start next year, he said. Funding for both the Dane County and Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail plans remains uncertain
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN August 25, 2004
Minneapolis City Hall plays a courageous but dangerous game by threatening to delay reconstruction of the notorious Crosstown Commons bottleneck unless the state includes rapid bus service in the package.
In the best of all possible worlds, Mayor R.T. Rybak and his allies are, of course, correct. A truly modern and responsible state government looking to update its most important transportation corridor — in this case, Interstate Hwy. 35W running south from downtown Minneapolis — would include additional lanes for cars and a complete bus rapid transit (BRT) line of the sort that the Legislature is now studying. That line would consist of a dedicated lane for carpools and for high-speed, low-floor buses with stations. Such a line, from downtown Minneapolis to Lakeville, would dramatically expand the capacity of the roadway while minimizing the need to expand its width.
Although the state’s plan for the Crosstown segment includes a lane for buses, it lacks a solid commitment to build an actual BRT line. “Giving us more cars now and promising BRT later isn’t good enough,” Rybak said. The state should consider the bigger picture. Without a real transit commitment, fixing the Crosstown Commons — a three-mile stretch between 42nd Street in Minneapolis and 66th Street in Richfield — won’t accomplish much, he said. Within a year, the new lanes will fill with traffic and the bottleneck will simply shift a few miles down the freeway. Rybak is right about that, too.
Indeed, by withholding its consent to the Crosstown project, Minneapolis lays bare for all to see Minnesota’s two biggest transportation shortcomings: a Legislature that cannot be relied upon to invest adequately in the metro area’s roads and transit needs, and a state that lacks a dedicated fund to finance ongoing transit projects and operations. Without predictability, it’s difficult to have faith that any BRT line will ever appear, whether on 35W or anywhere else. What Minneapolis is trying to do, and nobly so, is to make transportation policy for a state that’s not fully doing its job.
Unfortunately, the city’s elegant point is likely to be lost on most people. By delaying the Crosstown project, Minneapolis would anger 100,000 drivers who suffer the bottleneck daily, and would draw the scorn of suburban neighbors and legislative enemies always eager to punish the city.
Minneapolis has a long, sad history of infuriating suburban commuters by opposing freeway expansion, ostensibly to protect homes and businesses. With the Hiawatha light-rail line off to a successful start and Northstar commuter rail project gaining momentum, now is a bad time for Minneapolis to make itself a villain once again. A case can be made that the city is exceeding the purview of the municipal consent law in an attempt to make transit policy, a job that belongs, like it or not, to state government.
The Crosstown project is long overdue and badly needed. Delay will only inflate its $212 million cost. Our hope is for a compromise. Minneapolis should consent to the Crosstown project on condition that Gov. Tim Pawlenty commit to supporting an eventual BRT line between downtown Minneapolis and Lakeville. The governor, in a letter to Hennepin County last Oct. 20, already went partway by advocating “major transit investments” as part of the Lake Street access project, also along Hwy. 35W.
This dispute is not as big as it seems. “We’re saying ‘no’ but with our hand extended,” Rybak said. MnDOT and Minneapolis actually favor the same outcome. The governor and the mayor should find a way for both sides to say “yes” on this important issue.
City News Service August 25, 2004
A state panel meeting in Sacramento today rejected a bill that would allow work to continue on the 14-mile, $330 million Orange Line busway.
On Aug. 2, a 2nd District Court of Appeal panel in Los Angeles temporarily halted work on the project that would go from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s North Hollywood Red Line station to Warner Center in Woodland Hills. Citizens Organized for Smart Transit filed a lawsuit in 2002 challenging the environmental studies for the project. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge threw out the case, but the appellate panel reversed that decision in July.
The court order halts construction, while a Rapid bus system is studied as an alternative for the San Fernando Valley. The Senate Environmental Quality Committee Committee voted 5-1 to reject Assembly Bill 1798, introduced Friday by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, committee secretary Ann Boone said. Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, the committee’s vice chair, cast the lone yes vote.
In hopes of swaying the committee, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky sent a letter today to its chair, Sen. Byron D. Sher, D-Stanford. The letter from Yaroslavsky, who is on the MTA’s Board of Directors and recently ended a term as board chairman, expressed “strong support” for the bill, which would have superseded the court order and allow work on the Orange Line to continue, while the Rapid bus study is conducted. The letter stated the delay “is costing taxpayers $70,000 per day and could cost the MTA an additional $100 million or more to finish.” If work stops for too long, “the contractor will likely be relieved of his commitment under his low bid contract, forcing the MTA to renegotiate or re- bid the construction contract — resulting in an increased cost of over $100 million,” the letter stated.
Yaroslavsky, a self-described “environmentalist,” said this money could be used to fund “other environmentally sound projects such as light rail, other busways and clean fuel burning buses.” Yaroslavsky also said Rapid buses were only in the testing stage when the environmental impact report on the Orange Line project was done. “This alternative was not considered in the EIR originally, because at that time Rapid bus was a pilot program being tested to determine its viability as a transit strategy for our region,” the letter stated.
Yaroslavsky also explained the problems that have arisen from the shutdown of construction. “The disruption that has been caused by the construction has now been frozen in place,” the letter stated. “Businesses are suffering and resident and motorist are severely inconvenienced by the 14-mile long construction site.” Earlier this month, the Los Angeles City Council urged the state appellate panel to reverse its decision.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (San Gabriel Valley, CA) August 26, 2004
The Gold Line board upheld a decision Wednesday night that was challenged by San Gabriel Valley officials who have fought for greater decision-making power regarding the rail extension to Montclair.
In a vote at its July 14 meeting, the Metro Blue Line Construction Authority board of directors approved an amendment to the rail agency’s administrative code. That action deleted the following sentence: “Board members may be removed by their respective appointing authority at any time, in the same manner as they were appointed.’
The action did not sit well with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, which charged the board with adding the proposal to the board agenda less than 72 hours before the meeting. COG has led largely unsuccessful efforts to give more representation on the board to the 11 cities through which the 24- mile, Pasadena-to-Montclair light rail will pass.
In a July 20 letter to the Gold Line board, COG legal counsel Leland Dolley said the change to the agenda violated the state’s open meeting law. Further, he said the agenda did not provide a “clear and concise description’ of the matter to be decided. Dolley demanded the board correct its actions. Construction Authority attorney Mike Estrada told the board that they could do so by taking another vote on the issue.
The board voted 4-1 to reaffirm last month’s decision. COG representative Al Leiga dissented, and alternate Gerry Miller represented Los Angeles. The board’s five members, and the cities or agencies they represent, are Councilman Ed Reyes, Los Angeles; Little, a Pasadena councilman; Vivien Bonzo, Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Leiga, San Gabriel Valley COG; and Councilman David Margrave, South Pasadena.
In other matters, the board unanimously approved revisions to the project’s design and scope.
Draft environmental studies released this spring proposed the light rail extension be built in two segments: from Pasadena to Irwindale, and then to Montclair. But after public hearings in each city along the route, the agency now recommends the first segment run to Azusa, Construction Authority Interim CEO Habib Balian told the board. The 11.4-mile segment would then reach 25 percent more riders, serving Citrus College, Azusa Pacific University and the upcoming Monrovia Nursery project.
Rail planners originally felt Irwindale would be a natural stopping point, since the Gold Line’s service facility will be built there, on land next to the Miller brewery. The maintenance plant would have space for 121 rail cars — the entire fleet of trains that will run on the Gold Line’s Pasadena, East Los Angeles and Montclair segments.
The 500-acre Monrovia Nursery site will be developed with 1,250 homes, a new school for kindergarten through eighth grade, parks and commercial space next to what will be called the Gold Line’s Citrus Station.
The board also granted approval to a plan to allow the Gold Line to operate on a single track through Claremont, where the rail right-of-way already includes eastbound and westbound tracks for the Metrolink commuter system.
Claremont city officials lobbied for this change because widening the right-of-way would have required the Construction Authority to purchase property. “It’s real tight between College [Avenue] and Indian Hill [Boulevard]. The right-of-way is just 66 feet wide,’ said Jim Lewis, assistant to the city manager.
Lewis noted that Metrolink trains operated on a single railroad track in Claremont for a decade even sharing their track with freight trains until Metrolink added a second track in recent years.
Calgary Sun (Alberta, Canada) August 26, 2004
>From the ashes of the Calgary General Hospital rises The Bridges. A three-phase residential project situated in the friendly and culturally diverse community of Bridgeland-Riverside, The Bridges development will see the City of Calgary act as the landowner and land developer of development, which is currently underway on the old Calgary General Hospital site.
“The vision for The Bridges land is the creation of an urban village that respects, enhances and takes cues from the surrounding neighbourhood, while creating a distinct environment of its own,” says Colleen Roberts, project manager for The Bridges development. “It’s such an exciting project, because how often do you get to redevelop 36 acres in an inner-city neighbourhood of a North American city?”
The pedestrian-friendly design of The Bridges, combined with landscape elements such as tree-lined wider boulevards and distinctive street lighting, will encourage residents to walk to public transit, work, stores and recreational amenities. “We will be planting 1,156 new trees in the community,” Roberts says.
The Bridges is within walking distance to downtown Calgary, the Calgary Zoo, the Bow River, pedestrian pathways and the Bridgeland LRT (Light Rail Transit) station.
The 36.8-acre lands are generally bounded on the north by 1 Ave. N.E.; south by Memorial Dr.; west by 7A St./8 St.; and east by 9A St.
Phase 1 of The Bridges will include 425 multi-family residential units; a retail and commercial component along 1 Ave.; a large 8.7-acre central park with community and recreational facilities and General Avenue Plaza.
The concept emphasizes street-oriented residential units with apartments on the upper floors. Construction of buildings in Phase 1 began this spring.
Phase 2 of The Bridges includes a total of five parcels of developable land, which will house a maximum of 716 residential units. It includes the area south of McDougall Rd. N.E. to Memorial Dr., and west of 8 St.
Building heights will range up to eight storeys for commercial use and up to 12 storeys for residential development. “One of the key objectives for this phase is to take full advantage of the presence of the Bridgeland LRT Station and encourage more ridership of the C-Train,” Roberts says.
Phase 2 also includes McDougall Park and the creation of a new public square to be called McPherson Square. “Residents and visitors to the area will enjoy the new McPherson Square, which will serve as a quiet space for informal sitting, reading, and socializing,” Roberts says. “McDougall Park will be left in its existing state with a passive area for seniors, a playground and a baseball diamond.”
Timing for Phase 2 land sales will depend on unit sales in Phase 1 and market conditions.
Phase 3 of The Bridges includes the land east of 9 St. and north of McDougall Rd. It includes three parcels of land for mixed-residential use buildings from four to seven storeys. Due to previous commitments, development cannot begin on Phase 3 until the lease for the existing laundry facility ends in 2008. “This is the first time the city has undertaken a residential, multi-family development like this,” Roberts says. “It really is fabulous.”
Pasadena Star-News August 27, 2004
The city, stung by unforeseen problems with the inaugural segment of the Gold Line, is taking a more vigilant approach to likely concerns that will arise when the light rail is extended to Montclair.
At a special joint meeting of the City Council and the city’s Transportation Commission on Thursday night, officials conferred with attorneys about the possible negative impacts to South Pasadena once 24 miles are added to the rail system.
The Metro Gold Line, which opened in July 2003, now runs 13.7 miles through Pasadena, South Pasadena and Los Angeles.
The proposed extension through the San Gabriel Valley to Montclair could be finished by 2014; another six-mile leg of the Gold Line, from L.A. to East Los Angeles, will be complete by 2009.
“We had very little leverage in phase one,” City Attorney Steve Pfahler said, referring to city oversight during the years the Los Angeles-to-Pasadena segment was being studied and planned.
In the past year, as the Gold Line began testing and service, South Pasadena officials have worked to find remedies to problems of noise, vibration and loss of privacy associated with the light rail’s 200 daily trains.
In May, the City Council hired special legal counsel to review the draft environmental impact report on the Montclair extension. Attorney Barry Groveman, from the Los Angeles law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, submitted a detailed 145-page response to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. “The proposed (extension) will have significant impacts on South Pasadena,” Groveman wrote in the response. The draft environmental impact report “is flawed by a series of correctable errors, omissions and missed opportunities,” he added.
The chief areas of concern include the Construction Authority’s expectation, in its draft EIR, that the Gold Line will increase the number and length of its trains once the system is fully built to Montclair.
Currently, the Gold Line runs two-car trains. In each direction, a Gold Line train arrives every eight to 12 minutes during peak commute times, and every 20 minutes during off-peak hours. That frequency could increase to every five minutes once the Montclair extension opens, Groveman wrote, citing the EIR.
Further, the Construction Authority plans to install additional “traction power substations” which provide more electricity to power the line so that the Gold Line can pull longer three-car trains. Groveman argued that heavier trains will mean added noise and vibrations along the route, which in South Pasadena travels mostly through residential neighborhoods.
Los Angeles Times August 27, 2004
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board called contractors to return to work on the Orange Line across the San Fernando Valley on Thursday even as lawsuits over the east-west busway’s environmental impact report continued.
Lack of action by a state appellate court prompted the agency to restart the $330-million project, which has been stalled about four weeks. Opposing sides will appear in Los Angeles County Superior Court today as the citizens group battling the agency seeks an emergency restraining order in response to the MTA’s decision to restart work.
Five years in the planning, the 14-mile dedicated bus corridor from the Metro Red Line subway station in North Hollywood to Warner Center in Woodland Hills is being built on an existing railroad right of way.
Two years ago, a Valley group called Citizens Organized for Smart Transit sued the MTA, alleging that the environmental document violated the California Environmental Quality Act. On July 19, a state appellate court nullified the county transportation agency’s environmental impact document and shortly thereafter put a temporary stop to construction.
The temporary stay “essentially dissolved” when the court’s jurisdiction in the case expired Aug. 18, 30 days after the initial ruling, said Daniel Potter, assistant court administrator of the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles.
Because stays are “not usually” lifted in this manner, Potter said, “there was some confusion on the part of the parties about the stay order, how long it remained effective.”
When Aug. 18 passed without any further orders from the court, MTA officials sent a letter seeking clarification. The clerk alerted the agency’s lawyers late Wednesday that the court’s authority in the case had lapsed and it could make no further rulings, including a decision on a long-term injunction, MTA and court officials said.
Although the clerk did not specifically say that construction could resume, MTA officials “felt comfortable” interpreting the clerk’s call to mean work could resume, said the agency’s chief counsel, Steve Carnevale. Thursday morning, MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble announced at a board meeting that construction would restart. “It’s unusual the court didn’t rule on the petition,” Carnevale said. “They could have said the petition is denied, but they did nothing, which left everybody confused.”
MTA construction chief Rick Thorpe said he started calling contractors Thursday morning, asking them to round up workers. He said he hoped that by early next week, workers could return to finish traffic lights and repave trenches. Priorities will be intersections near Pierce College and the intersection of Woodley Avenue and Oxnard Street.
The citizen group’s lawyer called the return to construction “a bad idea.”
“The Court of Appeal clearly wants [the MTA] to reconsider the Rapid bus alternative, and the court of appeal stayed them from continuing to work on the busway,” said John Henning. “I don’t know what interpretation the MTA has made.”
The group will appear today in Superior Court to ask for a temporary restraining order. A Superior Court judge had been ordered in July by the appellate court to write an official decision nullifying the environmental document and approval for the busway project. Also today, the MTA plans to ask the state Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s ruling in the case. Some residents and employees at businesses along the Orange Line route said they were glad to hear the MTA would resume work.
“You can’t make a left [turn] either way, so it’s hard to get into the shopping center,” said Chris Hughes, who works at International Golf, near the intersection of De Soto Avenue and Victory Boulevard. “The sooner they finish, the better.”
For the last few months, Ellen Madison, 46, has had to make three extra turns to get out of her house on Bullock Street and onto White Oak Avenue. Madison is worried about the noise of buses that may soon rumble behind her house, but said the state of limbo was frustrating. “I wish it was done,” she said with a sigh.
The Star (Sheffield) August 27, 2004
TRANSPORT bosses in South Yorkshire will next week approve plans to extend Supertram out to the Royal Hallamshire Hospital and from Meadowhall to Rotherham.
The move comes as Supertram unveiled record passenger figures — the biggest increase of any light rail system in the country.
A report to go before next week’s South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority meeting is recommending approval of the loop system from Glossop Road, along Western Bank and Whitham Road, turning into Newbould Lane and down Glossop Road to rejoin the present line.
A second extension from Meadowhall out to Rotherham Parkgate has also been given the green light.
The approval means transport bosses in the county can now go to the Government to formally request the cash to underwrite the scheme.
Roy Wicks, director general of the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, said: “We believe that the major benefits that this scheme will bring to Rotherham, Sheffield and South Yorkshire make this a robust and realistic proposal. “There has been much discussion with our colleagues in the district councils in recent months and further public consultation, and I am pleased with the support for the extensions so far.” He added he hoped the Government would give its final approval to the plan next Spring.
Coun Jan Wilson, Leader of Sheffield Council, today said she was pleased Sheffield and Rotherham “are working in partnership to develop new Supertram links”. She added: “Extending Supertram will bring economic and regeneration benefits to South Yorkshire but will obviously be particularly beneficial to the people of Sheffield and Rotherham.”
Public consultation in Sheffield and Rotherham over the past year revealed the two routes to be the most popular among passengers.
Hopes to extend the system past the Botanical Gardens and out to Dore Station were scuppered after a poor reaction from the public. New figures released today show that Supertram recorded a seven per cent rise in use over the past 12 months and now carries 12.3 million passenger journeys a year.
Transport bosses in Sheffield have welcomed the latest Supertram figures. “A 4.9 per cent increase throughout the country is of course encouraging, but for us to have exceeded that with an increase of seven per cent clearly demonstrates how successful the system has been in Sheffield,” said Mr Wicks.
But despite the increase Supertram still carries significantly fewer passengers than any other network in the country.
Supertram was originally conceived as carrying around 17 million passenger journeys a year but in its first year of service failed even to hit half that with only 7.8 million journeys. It has since improved, but remains short of original hopes.
The new figures follow criticism of light rail systems made by Government spending watchdog body the National Audit Office (NAO) in April this year. The NAO said the various systems were not attracting as many passengers as originally thought and were not delivering as many benefits as hoped.
THE JOURNAL (Newcastle, UK) August 27, 2004
Government ministers will insist on steps to discourage car use before they pay for a multi-million pound North-East transport system, it was warned yesterday.
The 700m upgrade of bus and Metro services will not be supported unless it is matched by efforts to push people onto public transport, Nexus director general Mike Parker said.
The ‘carrot and stick’ approach was advised as councillors voted to back the business case for Mr Parker’s Project Orpheus proposals. It includes a 500m bid for upgrading the Metro, plans to spend 200m improving bus services and a pledge to examine in 10 years’ time whether trams could be introduced along the busiest bus routes.
Mr Parker said: “The word is coming from Government that unless the region or sub-region has a coherent demand restraint policy, it is unlikely to get public funds for a transport system. “The Government quite rightly is saying we have to balance demand and the only way is through a bit of demand restraint.
“The Mayor of London has already suggested what can be done. I’m not saying there are the same circumstances here, but that’s an example of significant demand restraint which has not only increased public transport use, but has also reduced congestion.”
Nexus recognises voters would not yet support congestion charges on Tyneside, but with car use predicted to grow by a quarter in 10 years, a charging scheme could be viable by then. Other measures, such as increasing car park fees and banning cars from more sections of road, will be considered.
But business leaders warned against schemes which could keep people out of city centres.
CBI North director Steve Rankin said: “For the main arterial routes through the city, to constrain traffic would have a considerable detrimental effect on freight and people moving through the region. When it comes to urban areas, we can’t say this is something we should not engage in, but one would have to look at specific proposals very closely.”
And North-East Chamber of Commerce policy director Andrew Sugden said: “If, genuinely, public transport is not able to grow without these kind of proposals, it’s something we would have to look seriously at. What makes North-East businesses nervous is where it is seen as punitive, where measures are introduced because a city has been successful at attracting people.”
Nexus’s case for Project Orpheus was boosted yesterday by statistics showing the Metro system is well on course to hit targets for increasing passenger use.
The Government wants all light rail systems to step up passenger numbers by 12pc between 2000 and 2010, and the Metro’s figures have already risen by more than 16pc since the start of that period.
But a spokesman for Nexus cautioned: “It’s much more important to have a cast-iron business case. “Metro’s success won’t hurt, but it won’t be the reason we’re awarded any money.”