News | Swindler | Articles

Le Mans to join French tram club

Railway Gazette International March 2004 MARCH 15 is the closing date for tenders to built a 15km light rail network in the French city of Le Mans, at an estimated cost of €290m. Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier and Stadler have already prequalified, and a group led by Semaly and Thales has been selected as project managers. Public enquiries for the Declaration of Public Utility are due to be concluded at the end of April, and advanced works could begin as early as June. Project Manager Christian Coulombier from the local authority’s light rail project office expects full construction to get underway in January 2005, with the first section of line opening in early 2007. The main line will run from the university district in the northwest via a private hospital complex, the city centre and the main SNCF station, which is to be remodelled as a multimodal interchange for bus, LRT and TER services at a cost of €45m. It would then continue south to Glonni�res, Guetteloup and Antar�s, adjacent to the race track. There will also be short branch to serve the eastern suburb of Sablons. February 7 saw the conclusion of the public enquiry for an 11�2km light rail line in Ile-de-France, linking Villejuif, Rungis, Orly Airport and Athis Mons to the south of Paris. Included in the regional plan for 2000-06, the line would have 18 stations serving a corridor where over 300 000 people are employed. Traffic is estimated at around 36 000 passengers a day. RATP expects to start work on the project in 2006 and open the line in 2009. Construction costs are estimated at €229m, excluding the planned fleet of 19 LRVs. Ile-de-France would fund 42�5% and the national government 25�5%, Val-de-Marne council 15% and RATP 17%. On December 15 RATP began revenue operation on its 2�9km extension of route T1 from Bobigny to Noisy-le-Sec, adding five stations and an interchange with RER Line E at the new terminus.

Norfolk Southern moves to abandon possible light-rail line

The Virginian-Pilot March 20, 2004 NORFOLK — Norfolk Southern Railway Co. has taken the first formal step toward abandoning the 13.7-mile rail line that runs from near downtown Norfolk to Birdneck Road in Virginia Beach parallel to Interstate 264. The eventual abandonment of the line could clear the way for the development of light rail in Norfolk and possibly in Virginia Beach. Hampton Roads Transit has been negotiating with the Norfolk-based railroad to acquire a four-mile stretch of the line in Norfolk for its proposed light-rail system. “This is not a surprising development,” said Michael Townes, HRT’s president and chief executive officer. “We’ve been expecting it.” Norfolk Southern is publishing a legal notice in The Virginian-Pilot stating that it anticipates filing an application with the federal Surface Transportation Board within three years to formally abandon the line. The notice is the first step in a long, involved process for abandoning little-used or under used rail lines. Any abandonment of a rail line must be approved by federal rail regulators, who examine the economic and environmental impacts. The process could take as long as a year after the filing. If the abandonment is approved, Norfolk Southern would have another year to decide what it wants to do with the line. It could sell the right of way to HRT and the cities for possible light rail or it could sell to another railroad. It could even decide to keep the line and resume service. “We’re intent upon selling this line,” said Susan Terpay, a Norfolk Southern spokeswoman. “We’ve had discussions with HRT and, in those discussions, we’ve said we’re intent upon receiving a commercially fair price for it.” The railroad is willing to sell the line whole or in pieces, she said. Townes declined to comment on the talks. HRT is attempting to purchase four miles of the right of way in Norfolk for its proposed “starter” light-rail system from downtown Norfolk to Newtown Road, Townes said. The city of Norfolk and Norfolk State University also are involved in those discussions. The Virginia Beach City Council made it a priority last year to acquire the remaining nine-mile stretch of the line in Virginia Beach, rekindling the possibility of extending light rail to the Oceanfront four years after voters in the city rejected the idea. Even if the city ultimately opts not to pursue light rail, the right of way could be converted to a multi-use trail for bikes and pedestrians or even an express route for buses, officials said. After Beach voters rejected light rail in 1999, HRT and Norfolk decided to pursue development of an eight-mile light-rail line from the medical complex near downtown Norfolk through downtown to a park-and-ride station on Newtown Road. The line is estimated to cost $198.5 million. Funding for any light-rail system remains a challenge. Norfolk would have to raise about 25 percent of the money, and the rest would have to come from federal and state sources. Federal rail transit money is scarce and in high demand. The rail line itself first opened on July 17, 1883, Terpay said, and was electrified for trolley service to the Oceanfront in 1904. The railroad later carried stone, construction material, newsprint and other goods to serve the businesses that cropped up along the line. But no train has moved on the tracks since the fall of 2002, Terpay said. The last remaining customer along the tracks is a building materials firm that now takes deliveries by truck, she said. Reach Christopher Dinsmore at

LAS VEGAS MONORAIL: Testing delays opening

Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada) March 20, 2004 Testing will keep the Las Vegas Monorail from opening to the public until sometime this summer, but that’s OK with project officials who’d rather find glitches before passengers do. ‘We’ll open it when we’re ready to open, when it’s right and when it’s done,’ said Jim Gibson, chairman and CEO of monorail manager Transit Systems Management, on Friday. ‘When you pay $650 million for a system, you want it to be a first-class system.’ A more precise timeframe for opening the system has not been determined. ‘We’ve probably been a little picky. … This is not all that forgiving a venue. Shoot, the (UNLV) Rebels have to win more than 20 games a season to pack the house,’ said Gibson, also the mayor of Henderson. ‘This is probably the toughest venue when you’re opening something new.’ Monorail officials had at first been working toward an opening on or around March 1 before aiming to open before the end of this month. Gibson said a floating opening date can be expected when building a high-tech rapid transit system from scratch. ‘We’re confident that we’ve made a lot of progress,’ Gibson said of the four-mile line that will run from Sahara Avenue south to Tropicana Avenue just east of the Strip. It will be Las Vegas’ first rapid transit line. The lack of a firm opening date doesn’t concern the Regional Transportation Commission, which has been monitoring progress on the independently run monorail system. ‘This is a first-of-its-kind project. We would certainly want to see it opened when the system is ready, rather than trying to push a deadline,’ said spokeswoman Ingrid Reisman. Current testing involves what Gibson calls ‘stressing’ the system. That includes everything from adjusting doors, gauging ride quality and fine-tuning suspension systems to buying 1,000 monorail tickets electronically via credit cards. And most tweaks that result require modifications of the computer system that guides the driverless trains. ‘When you get into testing that kind of a system, your hope and expectation is that you’ll discover any weakness or any work that needs to be done, and not discover it after you open,’ said Gibson. The highest-profile glitch to date has been a Jan. 5 accident in which a drive shaft fell from one of the monorail cars. No one was hurt, but the accident shut down testing for three days. Nonetheless, Gibson said ‘there are no show-stoppers’ that imperil the project. ‘There are some who would be discouraged because we’ve found issues,’ Gibson said. ‘The way we look at it, we’re excited that the testing is going well enough where we’re finding these things.’ Gibson expects trains to run up to 20 hours a day in the immediate future. ‘We’ll actually be running it around the clock within the next month or so,’ he said. Gibson said that testing is helping drive expectations, since the tests are within view of scores of passers-by. ‘We’ve had people say, ‘I know it’s open, but how do you get on it?’ That’s because they see it passing all the time,’ he said. On the funding front, Gibson is confident the system will meet its goal to pay for itself. The monorail expects up to 20 million riders in its first year of operation, with around 15 million needed to break even on project costs. ‘Anytime you do anything in Las Vegas that’s new, it’s a crapshoot,’ Gibson said. ‘We’re expecting we’re going to meet that ridership.’ Gibson said he expects to nearly sell out advertising sponsorships of train cars, and he noted that two station sponsorships have been sold to date. Officials still hope to break ground on a $450 million northward extension before the end of this year, with completion expected in 2007. It will take longer to extend the line south to McCarran International Airport. ‘We’re looking at a four- or five-year horizon (to start work). It might be a little longer than that,’ Gibson said. ‘There’s a lot of demand for an extension to the airport, but there’s a lot of issues, too’ regarding right-of-way and planning, among other things. Once the monorail begins operations, fares are expected to be $3 for one-way trips, $5.50 for round-trips and $10 for all-day passes. Operating hours probably will be 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., though at first hours may be closer to 8 a.m. to midnight.

SEPTA Cancels Railcar Deal; It pulled out of the quarter-billion-dollar pact for 104 Regional Rail cars to end a lawsuit that alleged the deal was rigged.

Philadelphia Inquirer March 20, 2004 SEPTA abruptly canceled its quarter-billion-dollar purchase of new Regional Rail cars yesterday in order to end a lawsuit that accused the transit agency of rigging the bid to favor a South Korean firm. In a written statement released yesterday, SEPTA board chairman Pasquale “Pat” Deon said the potential legal costs prompted him to end the suit and put the contract out to bid again. SEPTA expects quickly to invite new bids for the contract to build 104 new cars for the Regional Rail system, the statement said. Deon and agency manager Faye Moore signed the legal document to rebid the contract on Thursday. It was filed in court yesterday, ending SEPTA’s effort to hire United Transit Systems to build the new cars. The settlement stunned some SEPTA board members who learned of it from a reporter. Executives for Kawasaki Rail Car, which brought the suit, were jubilant. Kawasaki attorney Richard A. Sprague suggested the prospect that SEPTA officials, employees and others would be questioned prompted the agency to end the litigation. “There are a lot of people who didn’t want to be deposed,” Sprague said. An SEPTA lawyer called Sprague’s comment unfair. Kawasaki filed suit four weeks ago, alleging that SEPTA had improperly relaxed specifications requiring the winning bidder to have experience building stainless steel cars to American regulations. SEPTA said the change was merely a clarification. United Transit, the South Korean firm, submitted the low bid of $236 million, but its proposal was rated last of four bidders by SEPTA’s technical staff, in part because of its limited domestic experience. Kawasaki, the second-lowest bidder at $250 million, received the highest technical rating. It has built about 1,200 cars for the New York City transit system. Deon and other officials said that the agency needed to save money and that United Transit’s zeal to enter the American market would compensate for its inexperience with stiff Federal Railroad Administration guidelines. It was not mandatory for SEPTA to hire the low bidder. “ SEPTA is already in a severe budget crisis, and a protracted legal challenge would cost precious money and time,” Deon said in the statement. United Transit had launched an intensive campaign that included hiring Alan Novak, the Pennsylvania Republican chairman, as a lobbyist for $10,000 a month. Albert Mezzaroba, president of the Convention Center and a fishing partner of Deon’s, was on Novak’s team. Board members learning of the settlement from reporters barraged Moore with angry calls, according to sources at the agency. “It’s a little embarrassing to have a reporter call me and tell me this,” Michael O’Donoughue, one of 15 board members, said yesterday. “I don’t know about democracy. It is a little strange.” Kawasaki marketing director Tomar Jitendra said the court action was “a matter of principle.” “SEPTA should have followed the [request for proposals] process based on merit. All we ever wanted was a level playing field.” United Transit said in a written statement that, like Kawasaki, it would again bid for the work and said it “remains confident that it will be awarded the contract because it manufactures superior products at a better price.” Had Kawasaki’s lawsuit continued, Sprague was scheduled to depose 23 people. He would not disclose that list, but Kawasaki said it included Deon and Novak, as well as key SEPTA engineers and professionals. Kawasaki has alleged that at least one key technical official knew nothing of the specification change until after it had occurred. SEPTA attorney Mark Gottlieb said the agency had “agreed on the deposition schedule long before this decision was made” and called Sprague’s contention that the agency was avoiding the depositions an “unwarranted inference.” Another Kawasaki attorney, William H. Lamb, said that for SEPTA to end the litigation at such an early stage was “very unusual, highly unusual.” Don Nigro, president of the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers, said”Kawasaki had a great case. SEPTA had a losing battle ahead of them. “Quite frankly, Kawasaki is very experienced with U.S. standards. [United Transit’s] experience meeting Federal Railroad Administration requirements for these type of vehicles is zero.” The technical specifications were first issued in 2002, when SEPTA required that the winning bidder have previous experience making stainless steel railcars “which comply” with federal technical and safety rules. SEPTA also wanted the winning bidder to have experience making stainless steel cars with the same “methods, techniques and facilities” as would be used for the new purchase. In May 2003, SEPTA changed the specifications to mandate “prior experience” with federal requirements generally, rather than experience specifically with stainless steel cars. Also, SEPTA dropped a requirement that the winning bidder have experience manufacturing cars with the production methods that would be used for SEPTA’s order. Rather, SEPTA said such experience was “preferable.” United Transit does not have any experience making stainless steel commuter cars for the U.S. market. Its only other experience in meeting federal regulations came in the late 1980s, when it manufactured eight cars for the Alaska state railroad out of nonstainless steel.

Light-rail bill up $100 mil; Opening pushed back to 2008

The Arizona Republic March 20, 2004 The final cost estimate for the Valley’s light-rail will be $100 million more than expected, according to a report that will be presented to transportation officials and the Phoenix City Council next week. And it will open in December 2008. Previous plans called for a phased opening beginning in December 2006. “What we had before was an interim cost estimate,” said Richard Simonetta, chief executive officer of the rail authority. “It’s going to take a little longer and it is going to cost a little more, but we only have one chance to build this and get it done right.” The increase brings the total cost of the 20-mile project to $1.3 billion. The line, which is expected to be used by about 27,000 riders a day, will run from northwest Phoenix, through the downtown area, to Tempe and downtown Mesa. Tax dollars from the three cities and federal money are paying for the line. Officials at the city and at Valley Metro Rail downplayed the delay and the price hike. Many of the changes, they said, were the result of community suggestions and input. Opponents, however, seized on the newly released budget, saying it proves that the project is flawed and that officials have not been truthful about anticipated costs. “Here we go again,” said House Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce, one of the leading legislative voices against light-rail. “It just seems like we low-ball things to get the public support every time; we’re not honest with them.” Phoenix resident Phil Duane, who would rather see money spent on more city buses, agreed: “I knew darn good and well that the trolley thing was going to cost more than what they were telling us.” No one misled Ed Zuercher, Phoenix’s public transit director, said no one has misled the public. “What we had before were the cost estimates based on the best knowledge at the time,” Zuercher said. “With 95 percent of the project’s design complete, we can now say that this is the budget for doing this project.” Residents eager to see light-rail in the Valley say they know the construction phase will be difficult and costly. But many, like M.J. Fineberg, also believe that it will end up benefiting the area. “Let’s do this right; let’s make it look nice,” said Fineberg, an optometrist whose office is near 15th Avenue and Camelback Road. Construction is scheduled to begin in midsummer. According to Valley Metro Rail, changes that have driven up the cost of the project include: - Adding five new stations in Phoenix and Tempe. - Increasing the number of park-and-ride spaces by almost 1,000. - Increasing the number of traffic lanes on 19th Avenue and Camelback Road to improve traffic flow. - Shifting the alignment through Arizona State University to protect research facilities. - Adding 50 new traffic signals to provide better automobile access to businesses along the corridor. - Increasing amenities such as shade canopies and landscaping. - Changing the location of a station in east Phoenix to better serve Sky Harbor Airport. The revised budget also takes into account right-of-way acquisition costs and almost half of the estimated $42 million cost of moving utility lines along the light-rail route, said Daina Mann, spokeswoman for Valley Metro Rail. The city is negotiating with the utilities to have them pay $24 million of the cost of moving the lines through their franchise agreements with local municipalities. However, no agreement has been reached, Zuercher said.

Editorial: PLAYING CATCHUP; Metro faces increasing competition for federal funds

Houston Chronicle March 20, 2004 Last year U.S. Rep. John Culberson tried to persuade the Metropolitan Transit Authority to postpone its November referendum on a long-range mobility plan. Culberson, R-Houston, said it would be unfair to hold the referendum on a day when many minority voters and transit patrons might be expected to turn out. Metro officials responded that a delay would leave Houston out of the running in the intense competition for federal transit funds over the next six-year appropriations cycle. Culberson said not to worry: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had reserved Houston’s share of transit funds until a vote was held. In November, voters in Metro’s service area narrowly approved a plan to expand bus service and extend light rail beyond the Main Street corridor. Metro subsequently asked for $75 million in federal funds for new starts. In a letter to Metro Chairman David Wolff, Culberson says Metro cannot receive funds this year for two reasons: the Federal Transit Administration hasn’t recommended funds for Houston, and the House Transportation Appropriations Committee has a rule against funding preliminary work. What happened to the money DeLay was holding for Houston? If Metro cannot afford the initial studies, it can’t apply for funding in the later stages. Because Metro paid for all of its initial light-rail line, unlike other cities, it deserves generous federal support for line extensions. Culberson and DeLay had the power to thwart federal funding for Houston rail, while directing federal transit funds to other cities such as Dallas. Now Culberson says he hasn’t the influence to get Houston the help it needs and deserves. The extensive damage he and DeLay have done to Houston’s interests is clear. Metro may yet receive rail funds via the U.S. Senate, where Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans, have promised Houstonians vigorous representation. Culberson promises to help where he can, and so can be expected not to oppose a large appropriation given to Houston in conference committee.

SUBWAY SANDWICH; OUR FIRST SUBWAY OPENED 50 YEARS AGO

The Toronto Sun March 21, 2004 Later this month, Torontonians will celebrate the Golden Anniversary of the opening of Canada’s first subway. It was at precisely 11:50 a.m., Tuesday, March 30, 1954, that the first train went into service on the TTC’s new 7.4 km. (4.6 mile) long, 12-station Yonge line. Jam-packed with VIPs and invited guests (the general public had to wait until 1:30 p.m. to give the line a try), the eight-car train “rocketed” non-stop from Eglinton (the north terminal) to Union (the south end of the line) in just a dozen minutes. The event was the culmination of numerous attempts over the decades to ease the traffic chaos that had enveloped the city’s main street, an untenable situation strangling the downtown core. Several of the earlier proposals to construct a “tube” (as subways were called in the early 1900s; a “subway” being a vehicle underpass under railway tracks) here in Toronto have been described in detail in previous columns. However, I recently came across a proposal I had never seen before and it proves to be much earlier than any of the others. In fact, the 20th century was only nine years old when James Hales, a little-known city alderman representing Ward 2, requested that the city engineer of the day, Charles Rust, prepare a report on the feasibility and costs associated with the construction of not one, but of a trio of “underground railways” (another term from the past denoting the present word “subway”). The routes would be under Yonge, from Front St. to the railway tracks (at the former CPR North Toronto railway station, now LCBO store near Summerhill Ave.), under Queen from Roncesvalles Ave. to the city’s east limits (approximately Balsam Ave. in the Beach area) and under King also from Roncesvalles on the west to the Don River. Rust was very thorough when compiling his report and based his figures on recently completed projects in New York City, Philadelphia and Boston. He concluded that the cost of constructing the 15.5 miles of “tubes” under the three major city thoroughfares, Yonge, Queen and King as suggested by Ald. Hales would cost the city approximately $23 million, or almost $1.5 million per mile. (For comparison purposes, the construction-only cost of the original 4.6-mile Yonge subway was $14.5 million per mile while the four-mile Sheppard subway, that opened in late 2002, was close to $250 million a mile.) Rust went on to say in his report that with a city population of only 300,000, the taxpayer could not afford such a massive expenditure. He recommended the idea be revisited when the population reached a million, something that didn’t happen until Toronto joined with the surrounding communities to form Metropolitan Toronto. And that happened exactly three months before the Yonge line opened 50 years ago next week. BIRTH OF A SUBWAY - March 5, 1945: TTC makes the proposals for a subway public for the first time. - April 30, 1946: City council approves extension of tunnel from Front St. to Bloor St., instead of just Carlton St. - July 9, 1946: Construction start delayed because of shortages in structural steel, lumber and concrete. - Nov. 30, 1948: City council approves expropriation of 18 blocks along Yonge St. from Alexander to Eglinton Ave. - Sept. 6, 1949: First bricks ripped out of Yonge St. as work begins. - Sept. 8, 1949: Lt. Gov. Ray Lawson drives first pile for official inauguration of the project. - July 25, 1950: Sewer line burst at Adelaide St. fills subway tunnel with raw sewage. - May 28, 1952: Seven men hurt as four underground explosions rock the Yonge-Walton area. - Sept. 21, 1953: First train moves along the rails. - Dec. 31, 1953: Third rail energized giving power to the system. - March 30, 1954: Subway opens. - A CHRONOLOGY - Yonge subway: 1954 - University subway: 1963 - Bloor-Danforth subway (Keele to Woodbine): 1966 - Bloor-Danforth subway extensions to Islington and Warden: 1968 - Yonge subway extension to York Mills: 1973 - Yonge subway extension to Finch: 1974 - Spadina subway: 1978 - Bloor-Danforth subway extensions to Kipling and Keneedy: 1980 - Scarborough Light Rail Transit: 1987 - Harbourfront LRT: 1990 - Spadina extension to Downsview: 1996 - Sheppard subway: 2002

PLANNERS GET MORE SPECIFIC ON POTENTIAL SOUTHERN ROUTES/ METROLINK EXPANSION

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) March 22, 2004 MetroLink planners now have a general idea where trains would go within the three options they are studying for the expansion of the system to south St. Louis County. They are working on the next extension of MetroLink after the segment now under construction from Forest Park to Shrewsbury. Trains generally would go either along the River Des Peres or Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to Interstate 55. Both alternatives would end at Interstate 55 and Butler Hill Road. The third option would go a short distance to a station across Watson Road from the Kenrick Plaza shopping center. Planners hope to recommend a route to directors of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council by July. After directors approve a route the council would ask the federal government for money. In the alternative along the River Des Peres, the route would cross over Lansdowne Avenue to run between River Des Peres Boulevard and the river until a spot between St. Marcus Cemetery and Willmore Park north of Gravois Avenue. There the route would cross to the north side of the river. Then it would cross over Gravois to a transit transfer center where a Steak ‘n Shake now is situated. It would continue eastward on Germania Street next to the river and cross Morganford Road at street level toward a station east of Morganford. It would go to Interstate 55, where it would cross the river on the east side of the expressway. The route would eliminate a transit center at the nearby Hampton Loop and two lanes of Germania to reduce the street to three or two lanes, depending on the location. MetroLink generally would stay on the east side of Interstate 55 to Butler Hill Road. The exception is near Lindbergh Boulevard where a station would be near the Union Road side of South County Center. In the alternative along the Burlington Northern railroad tracks, MetroLink would cross the railroad right of way to go to the west side almost immediately after leaving Lansdowne and stay on the west side to Interstate 55. The railroad insists that planners separate MetroLink from its train tracks both horizontally and vertically. The vertical clearance Burlington Northern seeks could be as much as 15 feet and force planners to elevate the route. Depending on the design, trains would run on a structure 12 feet above the ground or on dirt 12 feet high inside retaining walls. A short third route would go along the River Des Peres over Chippewa Street to its south side and run along it to a station across from Trianon Parkway. The route would go over Creighton Drive and under Mackenzie Road and along Resurrection Cemetery. Neither federal money nor local funds to match it are available for that project. If money became available relatively soon, a south St. Louis County segment could open by 2014, Justin Carney, deputy project manager for the planners, said on Thursday. Metro would build and operate the line. If its current financial situation continues, the agency would be unable to finance the southern extension for about 29 years because it has committed sales tax money to retire bonds for the extension from Forest Park to Shrewsbury. Carney said planners dropped two options along the River Des Peres after hearing the views of nearby residents at a meeting at the Windsor Community Center on March 7. They also consulted St. Louis officials. One option was the same as the one selected, except it would cross the River Des Peres near Sharp Avenue and run along Tesson Court to Interstate 55. The third would have kept MetroLink south of the River Des Peres to Interstate 55. It would have run next to the river and would have required the relocation of four lanes of Carondelet Boulevard and affected houses along it. Carney said planners had not completed cost estimates for their proposals. Planners said the selected option would displace the fewest houses and would generate potential redevelopment along Gravois.

Mishandling maglev

The Baltimore Sun March 22, 2004 THE NOTION THAT soon there will be sleek, high-tech trains hurtling along at 300 miles per hour on a cushion of air, shuttling commuters between Baltimore and Washington, has long been a beguiling image. Magnetic levitation technology, or maglev, has also been accompanied by serious reservations. Is it feasible? Cost-effective? Safe? But those questions have never provided a reason to reject the maglev project. Rather, they are the reason why it must be studied further. Lawmakers need to find out as much as possible about its potential rewards and its risks. And then, when all the available information is gathered, to make an informed decision about whether to build a maglev system here. That’s why it would be fundamentally wrong for the General Assembly to ban the Maryland Department of Transportation from spending federal funds on maglev right now. Transportation officials say the restriction, added by a Senate committee to the proposed state budget, would prevent them from completing an environmental impact statement. The federal government has set aside $1 million to finalize the study, but officials claim they wouldn’t be able to spend the federal appropriation because of the potential restriction. The Assembly adopted similar budget language last year to prevent state money from being used on a maglev study. That was inconvenient, but this decision might prove fatal — particularly if the federal government goes forward with its decade-old plan to build a prototype maglev line. The Baltimore-Washington route is one of two finalists for the prototype. The other is a route between downtown Pittsburgh and that city’s airport. Imagine maglev’s benefits — a 20-minute connection between the cities, less traffic and air pollution in the corridor, a potential for $2.5 billion or more in federal spending for the region, and the possibility of becoming the birthplace of a new transportation technology. That shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand by a few senators along the possible maglev route with parochial concerns. Fortunately, the Senate’s counterparts in the House of Delegates so far have rejected the prohibition on maglev spending in their version of the budget. We can only hope that the House view will prevail; it’s foolish to kill maglev now. By refusing to be fully informed on the subject, the Senate is demonstrating a new way to run a railroad: Kill it now, answer questions never.

POLLS SAY YOU LIKE LIGHT RAIL: WHAT SAY YOU

The Oregonian March 22, 2004 The scene in the OMSI parking lot last Thursday would’ve turned the stomachs of light-rail opponents: a busload of politicians, bureaucrats and neighborhood leaders celebrating their efforts to raise the Portland-Milwaukie line from the political ash heap. During the trip through Southeast Portland along the proposed route to Milwaukie, I didn’t hear any debates on the pros and cons of light rail. There was barely a whisper about how it might be financed. These were the believers. Clackamas County Commissioner Bill Kennemer and Portland City Commissioner Jim Francesconi joked about merging the two jurisdictions. Ron Wyden, Oregon’s Democratic senator, talked about Portland continuing to be a national showcase for transportation options and quality of life. I assume that if you love light rail, you, too, are celebrating the proposed lines into Clackamas County, one along Interstate 205 to Clackamas, the other to Milwaukie. Leaders are confident funding — anchored by federal dollars and local urban renewal money — will fall into place for the I-205 line. But the Milwaukie line will require your approval. It seems like only yesterday that voters, in 1996 and 1998, turned down money measures that would’ve helped bring light rail to the county. The 1996 measure won a narrow majority everywhere but Clackamas County. Regional planners say it’s difficult to conclude whether voters were opposed to light rail or to the financing methods. And they say their polling consistently shows — just as it did in the late 1990s — that people across the region and in Clackamas County still favor light rail. But the gap between polling and voting results in recent years makes it clear that light rail probably will be awarded money by Clackamas voters only as part of an overall transportation package that includes regional highway improvements, with upgrades to I-205. Like it or not, the way the funding is likely to be set up, you’ll have to vote for the Milwaukie line to get some major road improvements. In Milwaukie, where the political fallout from light rail was perhaps greatest, voters in 1997 recalled three city councilors who supported the light-rail line. But Jim Bernard, Milwaukie mayor and county commissioner candidate, along with Carlotta Collette, Ardenwald-Johnson Creek neighborhood leader, were among those along for the bus tour. Unlike the late-1990s effort to bring light rail to Milwaukie, this process, Collette said, was very inclusive. Metro leaders agree, saying they’ve done an excellent job of working with neighborhood leaders and business owners not only in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie but also in the Clackamas area. And, they say, they’ve found broad-based support for light rail in those areas. But some voters seem irritated that regardless of how the economy is going or how jammed roads get, light rail keeps barreling along. Kennemer points out that the federal light-rail money is earmarked for light rail: It can’t be used for roads. If we don’t get the money for our light-rail system, some other city will. And he admits that he, like some voters, is frustrated by that. If he had it his way, he’d concentrate resources on adding some lanes to I-205 and building the Sunrise Highway to Damascus. But since federal dollars are available for light rail, he says, it makes sense to grab them. All of that leaves regional leaders focusing on building a package of highway and transit improvements — including the Portland-Milwaukie line — that could be put before voters in 2006. Regardless of your opinion, one thing was clear last week: When it comes to light rail in Clackamas County, the train is already pulling out of the station. The thinking is, most of you will go along for the ride, even if only because you understand it’s the price you have to pay for major road improvements. If the past is any measure, we won’t know until the 2006 vote whether that’s actually the case. Andy Parker’s columns appear Mondays and Wednesdays. Contact him at 503-294-5945 or at daparker@news.oregonian.com. His columns and those of other local columnists of The Oregonian can be found online at www.oregonlive.com/columnists

Backers say Marin rail project is viable

Marin Independent Journal (Marin, CA) March 23, 2004 Plan is not part of proposed Nov. 2 transit sales tax Last of three parts PIE IN THE SKY. Growth inducing. The train to nowhere. A lot of mud has been slung at proposals to start commuter rail service in the North Bay, but backers say a rail project is very much alive, and a critical part of plans to address Marin and the region’s transportation problems. While not a part of a likely Nov. 2 Marin transportation sales tax, backers say the plan is still a go. “The highways will only get more clogged,” said San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, a member of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District board of directors. “Things will only get worse by car, but a train will always travel at the speed it does now and in the future.” The idea of sleek trains whisking commuters up and down a 68-mile corridor between Cloverdale and San Rafael is more than a romantic notion, it is real and made possible by unique access to a publicly owned railroad right of way, officials say. The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District managed to buy and take control of the existing Northwestern Pacific Railroad right of way beginning in the 1970s. Those groups are in the process of turning over the right of way to SMART to run the rail line. “We will have the right of way,” said Lillian Hames, SMART’s project director. “Any service in the country would kill to own a right of way. We have it.” The right of way saves SMART millions of dollars it would have otherwise needed to buy property for the rail line. But the system still has a $200 million price tag to get it up and running, and would require an additional $9 million a year to operate. And officials say the price tag is likely to go higher as a detailed analyses are done. SMART likely will go to voters in Sonoma and Marin to ask for a sales tax, possibly a quarter cent. SMART has tinkered with asking voters for a tax as early as this November, but likely will defer to Marin County’s efforts for its sales tax measure. There is confidence on the SMART board that trains will once again ride the rails in Marin. “It will happen,” said Peter Breen, San Anselmo’s vice mayor and member of the SMART board. However, there is a stumbling block. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed killing much of the Transportation Congestion Relief Program as part of his proposed budget. The program includes more than $7.7 million for SMART, money needed to complete an environmental impact report on the proposed plan. That key report would spell out, in detail, how a train would work. SMART officials promised the public the report would be done before it went to the ballot. But that is not stopping planners. They have already picked out a palette of colors for the system: maroon, green, creme, brown and burnt orange, all with historical railroad significance. There is also a black and white plan. The SMART plan calls for about a dozen stations between Cloverdale and San Rafael. Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Petaluma would have stations. In Marin the stations would be in Novato north and south, at the Civic Center, San Rafael and possibly an extension to Larkspur or even San Quentin if ferry service is ever established at the site. Bicycle access and pedestrian facilities along the corridor also are part of the mix. Early and late service The train would run on one set of tracks with 12 to 16 trips a day. Startup service would see three or four trips in the morning and three or four trips north in the evening. Existing track would need to be upgraded with signals and crossing gates. Estimates have put ridership at between 3,000 and 5,000 people a day when the system is at full strength. Initially, each train would have three cars, carrying a maximum of 300 people. An average trip from Santa Rosa to San Rafael during the morning commute takes up to 80 minutes, while a train would make the same trip in 55 minutes, according to SMART officials. Backers say the leisurely trip down is one of the train’s selling points. “You can work on your laptop, you can get sleep,” Hames said. “Where there are wireless networks some employers will let you start your work day on the train.” The cost will likely be based on distance, with an early estimate at $3 to $5 one way. Train backers believe a rail system holds promise for thousands of Sonoma and Marin residents commuting to jobs in Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, Novato and San Rafael. More than 20,000 people commute daily between the two counties, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s transportation planning agency. “We have that right of way and if we build a rail line it will truly have an impact on traffic,” Boro said. And it all could come together within months. If voters give their OK, trains could be rolling within 24 to 36 months. Stations are not even needed initially as basic concrete platforms could do the job. “Even if we had money to work on widening the Novato Narrows, you will not get that done in two to three years,” Boro said. Hames said rail is not a cure-all for traffic, but it is part of the answer for larger transportation issues that face the region. “It will not work for every Highway 101 trip, but it will give residents an alternative to sitting in their cars,” Hames said. “This is not the train versus the bus and what’s better; we need a complete system, and rail is part of that.” Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission are cautious about rail. “The concern with rail is that you need a lot of riders to make it work, and that raises questions about growth,” said Randy Rentschler, the agency’s legislation and public affairs manager. “Can areas like Marin and Sonoma support the operation of a train?” But there could be potential, he said. “A limited-service train, with trips only in the morning and evening, might work. But you have to have the right circumstances, like terrible traffic, to make people want to get on the train.” Growth inducing? Some critics worry a rail system will act as a catalyst for growth, as developers try to build for those who want to live near a train station for easy transit access. But Boro said Marin’s growth has been held in check for years. “We have controlled growth, there is no room to expand in Marin,” he said. “The train is really about moving people. It’s about reducing congestion.” The concern about growth was such an issue that when the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District was being created, specific language was included in the charter to exclude a station in areas that could be developed, such as the controversial St. Vincent’s/Silveira site east of Marinwood. The district can introduce sales tax measures and condemn land and buildings as part of an effort to establish a rail line, but cannot put stations north of San Rafael in unincorporated areas — land outside cities’ limits. Environmentalists — members of the Marin Conservation League in particular — pushed for the language, fearing a rail line could spawn growth in bayland areas, including St. Vincent’s/Silveira, Gnoss Field and San Antonio Creek. “It is an issue,” said Don Wilhelm, chairman of the conservation league’s transportation committee. “We are also concerned about the rail line going through wetlands between Novato and Petaluma.” Hames said the line would not spur growth in Marin. “Every station is within a designated urban area, Hames said. “There won’t be a station at St. Vincent’s/Silveira. It’s only in city center locations.” Hames envisions stations where shuttles, bikes and pedestrians would link to transit. SMART would pay for shuttle service and use existing Golden Gate Transit service. “We have not grown in Marin, but you can’t keep the cars out. People go through Marin to get to work,” Boro said. Train to nowhere For years a North Bay rail line has been slammed as a “train to nowhere” because it ends in San Rafael, without connecting to a ferry terminal or large transit center to take people into San Francisco. “It is logical to connect to a ferry terminal,” Hames said. The recently approved Regional Measure 2 could make that happen. It provides $35 million for an extension of the line to ferry service at Larkspur or San Quentin. San Quentin has been eyed as a ferry stop because of its deep water, but the state would have to end or scale back prison operations at the site before that would happen. Even if the extension is never built, backers say the rail plan makes sense if it only serves the two North Bay counties. “A lot of it is based on historical thinking; when trains were in Marin there was a connection to San Francisco. We think there is market to get it running between Cloverdale and San Rafael,” Boro said. “How big is the demand to San Francisco? People think it should be at a ferry station, but things have changed. We need to study it.” What critics say Nancy McCarthy, president of the Marin United Taxpayers Association, said her group opposes rail. “Rail is a bottomless pit,” she said. “Light rail never pays for itself.” Others say the $200 million price tag is too low. They say the number doesn’t include the cost of parking lots at all the stations, including downtown San Rafael. There are also capital costs of providing bus shuttles to and from the stations to get commuters to their jobs that have not been addressed. “Their cost analyses exclude the costs of parking lots, bus shuttles, and the cost of closing and moving Larkspur Ferry terminal from Larkspur to San Quentin, if San Quentin is ever closed,” said opponent Mike Arnold, co-chairman of Marin Citizens for Effective Transportation, a small, loose-knit group of transportation watchdogs. “If it includes the costs of closing the Larkspur Ferry terminal the total cost will easily exceed $500 million.” Hames counters the $200 million is SMART’s best analysis, but acknowledges the cost will likely go higher as the more in-depth EIR comes back. She said feeder bus service will be part of a final cost, but any ferry terminal work will be left up to other agencies. Arnold predicts any rail sales tax is doomed in Marin. “Marin voters won’t approve a sales tax measure to fund a train that few Marin residents will use or benefit from,” he said. What the future holds A sales tax will be needed to make the rail work. With Marin County likely to try for its own sales tax in November, rail backers will likely hold off, although there are no guarantees. Marin reps say it is key to meet with Sonoma officials to work out details “It wouldn’t be productive to have both measures going at the same time,” Boro said. “There are still a lot of pieces out there we need to figure out.” SMART plans to poll residents to see what support there is for rail and a sales tax. “There is a need to do something that is understandable and that we can be accountable to,” Boro said. Rail backers say rail is ready to blossom. Boro said he can envision a train playing a key role in the downtown of his city. “At the Corporate Center there are plans for upwards of 1,300 jobs and people could walk over to a train and to buildings downtown,” he said. “We have an asset in the corridor and we need to find a way to use it.” San Anselmo’s Breen said rail is about the future. “People still expect public services. It would be irresponsible to do nothing. This will happen, rail is the way to go.” THE SERIES The IJ Sunday launched a series, “Taxing Traffic: Marin’s Transit Future,” that examines Marin’s traffic woes and arguments surrounding a transportation sales tax planned for the November ballot. The series starts with this three-day package and will continue through the year with monthly installments updating the process and exploring related issues. Sunday: Local officials are once again planning a transportation sales tax measure. A look at the effort and the obstacles. Yesterday: Local, local, local: That’s where transportation planners want to keep money for improvements — and that’s what they say voters want. Today: There’s another money measure coming down the tracks. Proponents are moving forward with an often-criticized regional rail plan.

Phoenix offers $27 million to pave light rail track

Tucson Citizen March 22, 2004 PHOENIX — The city of Phoenix has decided to pony up $27 million to pave the entire length of light rail track that will run through the city’s limits. The unexpected decision comes after City Council members were inundated with complaints from business owners who didn’t like the idea of a gravel-lined track but thought it was unfair that they were being asked to help pay for a concrete upgrade. Dan Abrams, chairman of the Camelback Road Coalition, a group of property owners, says using concrete instead of gravel means the roads won’t look like an industrial area. Carol McElroy, part owner of Durant’s restaurant — a Central Avenue landmark — also applauded the council. “This embedded track is really the best for Phoenix,” she said. “I think it’s a wise investment.” However, business owners didn’t get everything they requested. For safety reasons, drivers won’t be able to turn left and cross the tracks in between major intersections. Construction of the 20-mile light rail start line is set to begin this summer. The line, which is expected to be used by 27,000 riders a day, will run from northwest Phoenix to downtown Mesa. The system will cost $100 million more than expected and will open in 2008 rather than in 2006, according to a new report. Councilman Tom Simplot, whose district includes much of the light rail route, said the decision is the right thing to do. “It is like building the foundation of a house. If you build it right, everything that follows will be a stronger construction,” Simplot said.

Gold Line sibling planned for 2009; Work could start this summer on East L.A.-downtown project

Pasadena Star-News March 22, 2004 While a light rail through the San Gabriel Valley is at least a decade off, in half that time a new Gold Line will be shuttling passengers between downtown Los Angeles and East L.A. When complete in 2009, the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension will connect to the first phase of the Gold Line, which opened last July between Los Angeles and Pasadena. Both legs of the light rail will have their hub at Union Station. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority hopes to break ground this summer on the Eastside Extension, an $880 million project that will rely heavily on federal funding. In the past few months, MTA officials have reviewed bids from construction companies hoping to build all or part of the six-mile route, said Ray Sosa, MTA’s deputy planning project manager for the Eastside line. Already, the agency has been acquiring property and relocating utilities to make room for the train, which will travel over bridges, through a 1.8-mile-long tunnel, and down the middle of streets in Los Angeles, Boyle Heights and East L.A. First conceived as a subway link to the Metro Red Line, the East L.A. route was shelved six years ago by the MTA. But transportation advocates persisted, and after a battery of public meetings, MTA redrew the project as a street-level, electric-powered light rail — the same type as the Long Beach Blue Line, the Pasadena Gold Line, and the Metro Green Line. MTA officials were chagrined by the tepid response from the construction industry to the call for bids, which went out last June. “It’s very busy (and) competitive, which unfortunately led to higher contracts,” Sosa said. By the close of bidding in December, a partnership of Missouri and Illinois companies was the only bidder on the contract to build the twin tunnels for east- and westbound Gold Line trains. “Their bid came in at $232.6 million,” Sosa said. Two firms submitted bids for another aspect of the Eastside project: to design and build a rail maintenance yard and all eight of the new Gold Line stations, to install the track, and various other aspects of the job. Those companies — partnerships that call themselves Eastside LRT Constructors and East L.A. Rail Constructors — bid that contract at $447.2 million and $491.6 million, respectively, Sosa said. Meanwhile, MTA received a pair of proposals to build the entire Gold Line project, including the tunnels. Eastside LRT Constructors bid $644.4 million, while another team, Kiewit Pacific/McNally Joint Venture, submitted a $712 million bid, Sosa said. Kiewit Pacific Co. is an Omaha, Neb., firm that paired with another company to build most of the Pasadena Gold Line, and McNally is a tunneling specialist, Sosa said. MTA’s policy is to award contracts to the “lowest responsible bidder,” Sosa noted. “They did come in higher than the budget anticipated,” he said. The agency has applied for $490 million in funding from the federal transportation budget to pay for much of the Eastside Extension. It has yet to reach Congress and the Federal Transportation Administration for approval. “We’re one of the projects on the top of the list,” Sosa said. The state Department of Transportation, meanwhile, will pay for and oversee another segment of the Gold Line: a new bridge as the light rail departs Union Station on a brief southerly jog. The span will cross over the Hollywood (101) Freeway and come down near Temple Street, paralleling Alameda Street, Sosa said. Shortly thereafter, the Gold Line will reach its first stop, between Temple and First streets, just east of Alameda, in Little Tokyo. The old Pacific Electric streetcars once ran along that same path, Sosa said. One of the Eastside Extension’s more scenic spots likely will be as the trains pass over the old First Street Viaduct, a bridge that spans the Los Angeles River. Sosa said MTA will widen the historic bridge, adding lanes to make room for the railroad tracks that will be installed down the center of the First Street span. “They’re just �chopping off’ the northern side, and then building the new portion,” Sosa said. That job will be undertaken under the watchful eye of preservationists to assure that the historic integrity of the bridge — built in 1929 — is retained, he said. Meanwhile, technology used in the construction of the “Chunnel” — the train tunnel between England and France under the English Channel — will be employed on the Gold Line. “Earth pressure balance machines,” often called EPBs, will bore 25-foot-diameter tunnels under the Boyle Heights portion of the route. The EPBs drill with a technique that turns soil “into the consistency of toothpaste,” according to the Eastside Extension’s environmental impact report.

RTD, State Officials Settle Differences Over Light Rail Plans

CBS 4 Denver Mar 22, 2004 State highway officials and Denver-area transit planners have reached a tentative agreement settling their differences over a $4.7 billion passenger rail expansion plan. Colorado Department of Transportation officials had said the Regional Transportation District’s rail plan, called FasTracks, could interfere with highway and bridge plans. Negotiators for the two agencies reached an agreement Friday calling for shared responsibility for four transportation corridors and assigning lead responsibility to RTD on two others and to CDOT on a seventh. The state Transportation Commission and the RTD board of directors must approve the deal. The agencies would work jointly on improvements along U.S. 36 to Boulder, I-70 east to Denver International Airport, I-225 from Parker Road to I-70 and I-25 north through Adams County. RTD would to take the lead on separate light-rail lines to Golden and Arvada. CDOT would lead improvements along C-470, including the extension of the southwest light-rail line to Highlands Ranch from Littleton. Officials on both sides praised the agreement. “We’re clearly partnering as agencies,” said RTD board chairman Bill Elfenbein. FasTracks still needs the approval of a sales-tax increase by Denver-area voters. RTD wants to build at least six new electric-powered light-rail and diesel-powered commuter rail lines in the Denver area.

Delays in opening of monorail could be costly

LAS VEGAS SUN March 22, 2004 Officials say they don’t know how much the latest postponement of the long-awaited Las Vegas monorail opening will cost. Executives with the company contracted to run the monorail announced Friday that the monorail probably won’t start carrying passengers until late June at the earliest. The system had initially been slated to open in January, but it still has bugs that need to be worked out before it will run smoothly for the millions of visitors that are expected to ride the monorail, officials said. “We’re still in the testing and commissioning phase,” said Jim Gibson, chairman of Transit Systems Management, the private partner and manager of the monorail system for the nonprofit Las Vegas Monorail Co. “There’s fine tuning of the ride quality. There’s fine tuning of the noise issues.” And the work continues on software that controls the 3.9-mile, $650 million system. “The most important point of all is the automated train control system,” said Gibson, who also is mayor of Henderson. One aspect of the delays could impact at least the monorail company and bondholders — primarily the eight hotels that the system connects, said Srinivas Pulugurtha, assistant director of the Transportation Research Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. More than 1.5 million visitors a month were expected to ride the system, and those tickets now cannot be sold. Another potential financial impact could be on the consortium of companies, including Montreal-based Bombardier Transportation, building the system. Gibson said the potential “liquidated damages” for failure to open the system on time are $85,000 a day. The contract for the system specified a Jan. 20 opening day, but Gibson emphasized that the deadline did not take into account design-change orders or other factors that could affect the liquidated damages. The final penalties, if any, would be determined after negotiating with the construction partners, he said. “Those are the things that you work on last,” Gibson said. Helene Gagnon, a spokeswoman for Bombardier, said the company is not now focused on the prospect of damages. “Our focus is really on opening the system,” she said. “We’re not concerned with other outstanding issues. “If there are outstanding issues, we will deal with that later,” she said. Mary Riddel, associate director of UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research, said the monorail will appeal to visitors but the short- term economic impact would be limited. “The economic impact is not going to be large,” she said. “Really, it’s more about shifting dollars than creating dollars.” The impact might be bigger, in a negative way, if the system did not work well and tourists were disappointed with their experience, Riddel said. Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who also serves as chairman of the board of the Regional Transportation Commission, said the frustration of some people to get the system into service is natural. The RTC is a partner with the Las Vegas Monorail Co., and plans to extend the system to downtown Las Vegas within a few years.

Pinch at the Pump

New York Times March 22, 2004 The cost of gasoline is rising again. The average price reached $1.72 a gallon last week, just a couple pennies below the all-time record. Without a turnaround in the price of oil, which has roared to a one-year high of $38 a barrel, or a magical increase in refining capacity, prices are likely to rise higher still. This means discomfort for motorists and real pain for truckers and airlines. It also means, this being an election year, a certain amount of political grandstanding. If the Senate’s initial response is any guide, Washington will choose short-term fixes over the tougher long-term solutions required. The Senate’s response to inflation at the pump was an unenthusiastic vote — 52 to 43 — to divert millions of barrels of oil earmarked for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for sale on the open market. The House has yet to concur while the administration opposes the idea, arguing that it is more important to fulfill President Bush’s post-9/11 pledge to fill the reserve to its 700 million-barrel capacity. There’s nothing inherently wrong with using the reserve to help relieve market pressures on a temporary basis — President Clinton tapped the reserve for about 30 million barrels in 2000 to ease a shortage of home heating oil in the Northeast. But it should be done sparingly. The main purpose of the reserve, after all, is to provide backup supply in a genuine national emergency, and a price spike is not a national emergency. If we did, for some reason, decide to use the reserve to drive down prices, it would only work at the margins and for a short time. The reserves are no match for the pricing power of oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia. The Persian Gulf nations alone produce 900 million barrels a year, half again of what lies in the salt domes of Texas and Louisiana. A much better way to strengthen America’s leverage, as this page has suggested before, is for the United States to limit its own consumption of energy. There are many ways to do that, but the most straightforward is to raise fuel economy standards by significant amounts. This is exactly what the country did after the oil shocks of the 1970’s, resulting in huge savings in imported oil. Unfortunately, memories are short in the United States Congress. The energy bills that have passed the House and await action in the Senate not only ignore fuel economy. They also encourage the unhealthy fiction that a country that uses about one-quarter of the world’s oil but owns just over 2 percent of the world’s reserves can somehow drill its way out of dependency. It can’t be done. Until the nation faces up to that fact, it will remain dependent on a few important producers, and its economic and strategic vulnerability will continue.

TRAMWAY EXPANSION GOES BEFORE INQUIRY

Birmingham Post March 22, 2004 Plans to extend the Midland Metro between Wednesbury and Brierley Hill face the final legal hurdle tomorrow with the opening of a public inquiry. Public transport body Centro is seeking the powers to build and operate the tramway route, an extension of the existing Line One, from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill via Dudley. The metro would use an existing heavy rail track bed. Objectors to the new line claim this will rule out the use of the section for heavy rail passenger services and the development of further freight routes into the West Midlands. The inquiry is expected to last several weeks. The Government will announce its decision later in the year. Construction of the line is planned to start in 2005 with the first trams running in 2008. The inspector will hear Centro’s case for the pounds 125 million project and that of 15 objectors. Rob Donald, Centro director general, said: ‘Extending the Midland Metro between Wednesbury and Brierley Hill is a crucial step in providing the high quality public transport worthy of a major region and this public inquiry moves us ever closer to that reality. Modern trams have proved immensely popular elsewhere because they get people close to the destination in comfort. They are reliable, emission-free and fully accessible. Once this system is running in a few years time, moving around the Black Country will be so much easier for everyone.’ However, Alan Bevan, from the Midland branch of rail pressure group Railfuture, said: ‘The metro plans will severely restrict capacity for much-needed train services.’ Centro said 20 objections had already been withdrawn and the bulk of the submissions concerned technical matters, many of which it expected would be resolved before the hearing starts. Chris Crean, from West Midlands Friends of the Earth, said: ‘We should be reopening our rail lines for trains not trams. The place for light rail is on our roads thereby adding to the public transport offer within the region. ‘This would see trams operating in conjunction with existing bus and rail services as well as reopening this important strategic heavy rail line from Worcester through the Black Country to Stafford and Burton. This would bring regional rail services back to Dudley, Walsall, Brownhills as well as expanding service offer from Stourbridge, Dudley Port and Lichfield.’ The Wednesbury to Brierley Hill route will have 13 stops, with four park and ride sites serving shopping and business areas in Great Bridge, Dudley Port, Dudley town centre, the Waterfront and Merry Hill before terminating near High Street, Brierley Hill. Trams would cover the distance in 23 minutes, Centro added. The line would extend the current Birmingham -Wolverhampton line but preceded the five new lines Centro announced last week. The pounds 1 billion second phase of metro routes is envisaged to be completed by 2016.

Motorists’ champion rips out humps and bus lanes

The Times (London) March 22, 2004 Road humps and bus and cycle lanes are being ripped out by a self-proclaimed motorists’ champion who has dared to challenge Ken Livingstone’s policy of discouraging cars in London. Drivers are even being allowed to park on the pavement in the London Borough of Barnet, the inspiration for a growing band of authorities that are turning back the tide of anti-car measures engulfing Britain’s towns and cities. Traffic is now flowing uninterrupted on roads where drivers once had to negotiate a dozen humps. Cars that had to funnel into a single file to avoid a bus lane are now cruising again on two lanes in each direction. Cycle lanes that always appeared empty to the drivers queuing beside them have been obliterated. But Brian Coleman, the author of the changes as Barnet’s executive member for the environment, is facing a ferocious backlash from the combined forces of the Mayor of London and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa). Mr Livingstone fears that the approach in the Conservative-controlled borough will spread across the capital and wreck his policy of pushing motorists out of their cars and on to buses. The neighbouring borough of Enfield is already following Barnet by removing humps and Kensington and Chelsea is removing bus lanes. The Mayor has accused Mr Coleman of endangering children’s lives by cutting funding for cycle proficiency schemes and bulldozing measures designed to reduce traffic speed. He has instructed officials at Transport for London to challenge Barnet and try to block the £8 million that it gives to the borough each year. Mr Livingstone has even contributed an article to the local newspaper denouncing Mr Coleman. He wrote: “The transport agenda being driven through in Barnet is recklessly anti-public transport, antipedestrian and anti-cycling. “Barnet has become a laboratory experiment for some very ill thought-out policies that, in the case of cycling training for kids, must surely be dangerous. Councillor Coleman and Barnet should urgently go back to the drawing board.” Rospa has produced a special report condemning Mr Coleman’s flagship scheme at a notorious bottleneck on Finchley Road at Temple Fortune. The report says that the scheme, which involves removing humps and narrowing the pavement to create extra lanes for traffic, will result in a “major safety disbenefit” and should be scrapped. Mr Coleman insists that the scheme is supported by most residents, who are fed up with having to queue on the road. “My whole approach is to get traffic moving on the borough’s principal roads and then no one rat-runs down the side streets,” he said. “The traffic engineers who promote road humps are like the local-authority architects of the 1960s who thought high-rise flats were the answer to our housing problems.” Mr Coleman admits he has cut spending on cycling proficiency, but says: “How could I justify £20,000 on cycle training when we have had to shut two libraries and an old people’s day centre?”

Consumer Group Sues for Auto Data

New York Times March 23, 2004 WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) — A national consumer group asserted on Monday that the Bush administration had wrongly blocked public access to important auto safety data, including information about warranty claims and consumer complaints. In a lawsuit filed in federal court, the consumer group Public Citizen challenged a 2003 Transportation Department regulation that restricts Freedom of Information Act requests for some auto industry documents held by the government. As part of auto safety legislation prompted by the Firestone tire incident, Congress ordered the industry in 2000 to regularly turn over safety data to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Lawmakers did not require the information be kept confidential. The disclosure order is intended to give regulators, who did not pick up on the Firestone tire and rollover problems until they became the subject of lawsuits and media reports, a much better chance of identifying defect trends early. The Transportation Department approved a rule last July permitting it to withhold data on warranty claims, child restraint systems, some consumer complaints, tires and auto dealer reports. The agency said confidentiality was necessary to prevent competitive harm to manufacturers. But Public Citizen said the government did not prove that releasing the data would hurt the industry.

City orders 1st light-rail trains; Council approves $52.5 million for 16 cars

Charlotte Observer Mar. 23, 2004 The Charlotte City Council ordered its first batch of light-rail trains Monday night, authorizing $52.5 million for 16 cars. Council members pitched their 10-1 vote as a decision that will limit future congestion and provide a much-needed alternative to automobiles. “This is an investment for a generation,” said GOP council member Pat Mumford, who chairs the council’s transportation committee. “And we need to prepare today because it will never be a better time than today.” The light-rail cars will be built by Siemens Transportation Systems. Service along the South Corridor is expected to start in October 2006. That corridor, the first of five, will go from uptown to Interstate 485, along a rail line running parallel to South Boulevard. The council also approved a $2.25 million contract with Parsons Transportation Group to provide technical support. Several critics speaking to the council opposed the overall five-corridor transit plan, which is slated to cost $6 billion in capital and operating expenses. Mike Castano, a former Republican City Council member, said Charlotte lacks the density or money to afford light rail. “It’s a big-time loser for riders and taxpayers,” said Castano, speaking on behalf of a new group called Citizens For Affordable and Sensible Transit. Republican member Don Lochman cast the only vote against the purchase. He criticized the council’s lack of detailed, sustained attention to the transit program as well as the lack of clarity about the benefits. “I just hope I can draw in some small way some attention to this massive project, in hopes we can re-evaluate where we are,” he said. But Mayor Pat McCrory and other council members emphasized the plan’s benefits, including improving land use and minimizing future growth in traffic. Democrat Malcolm Graham said the city and state cannot just keep widening roads. “We cannot build our way out of our traffic congestion…,” he said.

Pounds 1bn East London Tube link is put back until 2010

The Evening Standard (London) March 23, 2004 A £1 BILLION scheme to extend the Tube in south and east London was today hit by further delays. The Government admitted that the East London line extension, once planned to be up and running by 2006, would not be ready until 2010. Insiders raised fears that the setback could bring knock-on problems if planning permission lapses for a key section of the route. Labour promised the East London line extension in its 2001 manifesto. Stephen Byers, then transport secretary, gave the go-ahead in October 2001 with a promise of “better integration of public transport services, improved rail access and quicker journeys for many people”. More than £100 million has been spent on preparing the ground. After earlier setbacks the launch date had been put back to 2008. One key problem has been surmounted. The Bishopsgate Goods Yard, which campaigners backed by Prince Charles and English Heritage fought to save, has been reduced to rubble in preparation. However, the hunt for private funding is said to have run into difficulties. Insiders at the Mayor’s Transport for London agency have warned that a London Olympics in 2012 could “grind to a halt” without the new line in place. It would run under the Thames along the route of the existing East London line, then south along the existing national rail network as far as Crystal Palace and West Croydon. A separate spur running through inner south London to Clapham Junction would rely on the construction of new track with a new station at Surrey Canal Road. Heading north from Whitechapel, new track would pass through four new stations — Shoreditch High Street, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston Junction — before connecting with the Victoria line at Highbury and Islington. Condemning the delay, Lib-Dem mayoral candidate Simon Hughes said: “After so much hard work by so many people to get this project off the ground, ministers must rethink any possible delay to the project.” Tory mayoral candidate Steve Norris said: “This will come as a huge disappointment to Londoners.” However, doubts over the project were dismissed by Tony McNulty, the junior transport minister, who told a conference of rail leaders in London today he was “fully aware of the importance of the project”. Mr McNulty promised that a decision-would be made “soon” — expected to be in May or June. Bob Kiley, London’s transport commissioner, today launched Ken Livingstone’s bid to government for control of the London end of mainline commuter rail services. The bid to take charge of the routes extends far beyond the limit of the Greater London Authority. Under the Mayor’s plans he would control suburban rail networks in an area bordered by Sevenoaks to the south east, Stansted to the east, Wendover to the north and Guildford to the south-west. Mr Kiley said today that the Mayor wanted to take over the “poisoned chalice” because it was evident that the railways are in “a state of chaos”.

VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN SUCCESS

Birmingham Post March 23, 2004 Alstom is rapidly depleting the reserves it needs to win new contracts, forcing the French Government to look at new ways to rescue the firm including a possible sale to Siemens, sources claim. As part of a government-led rescue package unveiled in September, the company’s banks agreed to provide 3.5 billion euros (pounds 2.91 billion) in contract guarantees that are crucial for companies like Alstom when seeking new business. This amount was expected to provide the maker of high-speed trains, gas turbines and cruise ships with a 12-18 month breathing space to secure new contracts and win back the confidence of investors. But industry and banking sources say it now finds itself a victim of its recent success. Alstom has won over seven billion euros (pounds 4.7 billion) in new contracts since October, leaving it with only two to three months worth of guarantees and forcing it to go back to the banks which reluctantly backed its first bailout only six months ago. ‘When the rescue plan was sealed in September, the sum provided by the banks was expected to cover the company’s needs for a year to 18 months,’ an industry source told Reuters. ‘But the group has won so many contracts that it will only be covered until the beginning of the autumn. Talks with the banks must resume again in the summer.’ The problem is that Alstom’s bankers are balking at committing new funds to a company that has developed a reputation for defective products and faulty execution. Its plant at Washwood Heath, Birmingham, at the centre of the alleged defective products row, is set to shed 1,000 workers by July or August when orders for the Pendolino tilting train have been met for Virgin. Most of the trains have now been built. Alstom also revealed earlier this month it was cutting profitability forecasts because of new charges linked to its handling of a boiler power plant contract. In recent years, problems with its heavy-duty gas turbines, admissions of financial irregularities in the US and cost overruns on train contracts have battered confidence in the firm and pushed its stock down 90 per cent from 2001 peaks. ‘The question is how Alstom can bring the banks back this summer, knowing that its shareholder equity is nil,’ said a senior banker at one of the company’s leading lenders. Fearful of providing more funds, sources say Alstom’s banks are pressing the government to find alternative solutions for the company. The government, keen to avoid the collapse of a company that employs 90,000 people worldwide and about 30,000 in France, has been studying the issue closely in recent weeks. One option under consideration has been an outright sale of Alstom to state-owned French nuclear energy service firm Areva. But Areva, which agreed to acquire Alstom’s electricity transmission and distribution unit for 930 million euros (pounds 628 million) late last year, is actively resisting a merger which would probably derail its plans to sell its own shares on the market. As a result, sources say the French government is now studying the sale of part or all of Alstom to German rival Siemens — a solution it has resisted in the past. ‘The Siemens solution is the least unlikely of the two options,’ an official source said. Bankers say Siemens is believed to be actively lobbying regulators in Brussels to force Alstom to sell to the German firm certain assets including its train business and large gas turbine activities. The European Commission is currently examining the controversial 3.2 billion euro (pounds 2.1 billion) bailout plan agreed by Alstom, the French government and the company’s banks in September and is expected to rule on it in the spring. Publicly, Alstom chairman Patrick Kron has said the company’s recovery remains on track. He has stated that Alstom has no plans to sell any of its big divisions and sources close to the firm say Mr Kron wants a year to prove Alstom can go it alone. Siemens declined to comment on the matter. However, the company’s chief executive Heinrich von Pierer has said in recent interviews that Siemens is on the lookout for large acquisitions.

Light rail: Add $28 million; Cost estimate rises 7%, now totals $398.7 million

Charlotte Observer Mar. 24, 2004 The cost of building Charlotte’s first light-rail line has jumped to $398.7 million, a 7 percent increase from two years ago. The extra $28 million chiefly represents a new bridge over Archdale Drive and higher-than-expected land costs for tracks and parking lots. A preliminary study in 1998 estimated the line could be built for $227 million. But when engineers began drawing up plans, they said in 2000 the cost would be $331 million. It rose to $371 million in 2002 and now to $398.7 million. That estimate now goes to the Federal Transit Administration. “This is the number we intend to live within,” Charlotte Area Transit System chief Ron Tober said in an interview Tuesday. The estimate is still within the FTA’s cost efficiency guidelines. Even though the price has gone up, CATS still expects to have enough money to pay for it with the existing half-cent sales tax, plus state and federal money. The 9.6-mile, double-track line will run from uptown to Interstate 485 north of Pineville. It will follow the existing freight track that parallels South Boulevard. If construction starts this fall, passengers could be riding in October 2006. Tober will publicly announce the new cost estimate at tonight’s meeting of the Metropolitan Transit Commission. He told each member of the Charlotte City Council individually about the higher price on Monday night before they voted to buy 16 light-rail cars. The $52.5 million price for those vehicles is included in the new total. That price helped reduce the total slightly because it was about $460,000 less than expected. Mayor Pat McCrory said the increases reminded him of the obstacles Charlotte encounters in many of its road-building projects. “As in any large construction (project), whether it be roads or transit, I anticipate changes both up and down,” he said. CATS reduced the size of its station platforms from 300 feet to 200 feet to cut $6 million from the $398.7 million total. Tober said he reluctantly reduced the platforms to save money. That shorter length means stations can be served only by trains with one or two cars. Trains up to three cars long would have been used with the longer platforms. A redesign of the power system saved $6.4 million. FTA administrator Jenna Dorn told the Observer last week that she expects her office will agree to pay half the line’s cost, which would amount to about $199 million. The state and CATS will each pay one-quarter; CATS’ share will come from the half-cent transit sales tax approved by Mecklenburg voters in 1998. The new estimate is based on engineering plans that are now 65 percent complete. Tober says the price could change slightly once FTA begins analyzing CATS’ proposal in the next few weeks. His biggest concern is whether steel prices will rise. The plan has a $26 million contingency, about 7 percent of the total. Among the latest changes to the south Charlotte light rail line: - An $8 million bridge that will carry trains over Archdale. Charlotte Department of Transportation was worried about traffic backups on Archdale where trains could be passing as frequently as every 7.5 minutes. - $3 million to hire a consultant to supervise other consultants, a move aimed at reducing cost overruns. - $1.5 million more for escalators in the Charlotte Convention Center. The escalators will carry visitors over the light-rail tunnel that now runs through the Convention Center. - $500,000 for a derailment detection system for the freight line.

Troubled by monorail’s fast-track pace, coalition seeks details

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER March 24, 2004 The Seattle Monorail Project is forging ahead so fast that neither the City Council nor citizens have had a chance to understand the impact of the 14-mile line, said a group that yesterday appealed the monorail’s environmental impact statement. “We don’t know what stations will look like. We don’t know where the columns will be placed or how big they will be,” said Don Wise, co-chair of OnTrack, a coalition of about 55 individuals and groups, represented by the Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson law firm. Wise said the monorail went about the environmental process backward, issuing a “concept EIS” before the project has been designed. But monorail attorney Ross Macfarlane said if the agency had done more design with specific alternatives, it would have been accused of “getting out ahead of the environmental review.” Wise said the group isn’t asking for exhaustive detail, just “rudimentary details.” A group of downtown property owners and managers on Second Avenue, represented by attorney James Tupper, also filed an appeal yesterday. More could be filed today, the deadline for appeals. The appeals aren’t surprising, Macfarlane said, adding, “It’s totally common on a project of this size and controversy.” OnTrack group members include former Mayor Norm Rice, former City Councilman Paul Kraabel, retired University of Washington Dean Hubert Locke, longtime political campaign manager Ruth Woo, former Port of Seattle Commissioner Henry Aronson and developer Martin Selig. Others are Aurora Avenue business leader Faye Garneau, Second Avenue property owner Howard Anderson, West Seattle property owner Joan Jeffery and Ballard property owner Charles Harlow. “We believe the EIS does not fully disclose what the impacts are or discuss how they might be mitigated,” said Wise. A second concern, he said, is that the monorail EIS is “dismissive of impacts that are perhaps more significant than it suggests.” Wise said OnTrack is concerned the monorail’s 30 percent revenue shortfall combined with the speed it’s moving at will lead to serious problems. The board made key decisions before the EIS was finished, he said. But Macfarlane said the monorail is proud of its EIS and of the public input, adding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had no objections to the EIS and praised the monorail project. “It’s a good process and a really high quality document,” he said. The monorail has hired Greg Smith, a hearing examiner for the City of Spokane, to hear the appeals. Hearings are likely before the end of July. His decisions can be appealed to King County Superior Court.

S.F. transit authority fails audit; Controller finds it can’t balance books

The San Francisco Chronicle MARCH 24, 2004 The staff of a San Francisco agency responsible for annually administering $316 million for transportation projects can’t balance its checkbook, misrecorded $67 million in program grants and lost out on $178,000 in interest because of poor accounting practices and cash-management decisions, an audit by city Controller Ed Harrington found. “The numbers they were giving us were just wrong, and they were wrong by millions of dollars,” Harrington said Tuesday after releasing his department’s audit of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “Their primary reason to exist is to get money and distribute it to city agencies, and they couldn’t account for the money.” Harrington is not required to audit the authority but said he had done so when questions arose this fall over the numbers the agency was providing to be included in the controller’s annual citywide financial report. The authority was created after San Francisco voters in November 1989 approved Proposition B, imposing a new half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects. The tax was reauthorized last November with the approval of Proposition K. Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the agency, said the audit and the controller’s complaints needed to be put into perspective. “The public needs to understand that there’s no money missing, there’s no wrongdoing — this is all about doing a better job of following accounting standards,” he said. “There’s 20 pages of findings, but it doesn’t equate to 20 pages of problems.” However, Harrington said the point of his findings was that accounting practices were so poor at the authority that its management wouldn’t necessarily even be able to detect theft or misspent money if it were occurring. “I don’t believe they misplaced money, but I can’t prove that one way or another,” he said. “The door was open — aren’t we lucky no one walked in? And should we depend on that sort of luck?” Harrington said he was disturbed by Moscovich’s response, which, to him, suggests the authority’s executive director doesn’t accept or grasp the gravity of the problems found in the audit. In written comments, the controller said, “The executive director continues to demonstrate his lack of understanding of basic financial management practices. … (He) apparently refuses to recognize or acknowledge that the authority’s poor financial management practices significantly increases the risk of errors, fraud and abuse.” Since its inception, the authority has funded more than $713 million in projects, including purchasing new buses and rail cars for the Municipal Railway, funding public transit service for people with disabilities who are unable to use city buses and trains, resurfacing streets, installing new traffic signals and repairing sidewalks. The criticism comes as the authority’s governing board — made up of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors — is considering incurring the agency’s first significant debt by selling up to $200 million in commercial paper to fund Muni’s Third Street Light Rail Project. Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval said he intended to take a hard look at the audit and expected his board colleagues to do the same. “I think where there’s smoke, there’s got to be some fire,” he said. “I’m sure the (supervisors’) audits committee is going to want to take a look.” Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, the newly appointed chairman of the authority’s governing board, said he planned to spend his first year in that position making sure the agency’s staff implemented the controller’s recommendations. Among the audit’s findings, Harrington said, was that the authority couldn’t reconcile its bank statements and ended up paying $411 in overdraft fees to commercial banks. Moscovich, while not disputing that finding, said the funds in the bank accounts in which the overdrafts occurred represented just 1 percent of funds the authority handles. The audit said the authority shouldn’t be using more than one commercial bank account and should be putting the bulk of its money into the city treasury, where it would draw significantly more interest. Moscovich, however, was skeptical of the controller’s calculation of potential interest, put at $178,000 for the fiscal year that ended last June 30. In addition, the audit found, authority officials failed to record $67 million in program grants for the fiscal year. Harrington said the audit revealed the most financially incompetent agency he had seen since 1980, when he began performing audits. “This is not esoteric, big-business accounting,” he said. “Any normal person at home would know better. There were very large numbers at stake, and they were wrong.” Harrington also concluded that the independent auditor the authority has used since 1996 — Vargas and Co. of San Jose — was incompetent, and he planned to file a complaint against the company with the state Board of Accountancy. Rudolph Vargas, who conducted the Transportation Authority’s independent audit, said simply, “He’s entitled to his opinion. What can I say?” The Web site for the state board listed no complaints against Vargas’ firm. Moscovich said he was already making changes to improve the authority’s performance. Among the moves, he said, are the hiring of a new director of administration and finance and the creation of a position for an additional accountant. The authority is looking for a new independent auditing firm and plans to hire a certified public accountant to do a “sweeping review of internal controls.” “We are going to address all of these issues,” Moscovich said. “When it comes to improving our accounting standards, we’re all for it.” Said Harrington, “I think those are really good first steps, but I also think that a cultural change is needed there. Unless they accept the fact that there are accounting rules they have to abide by, it isn’t going to change with just new people.” San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Created: After the November 1989 passage of Proposition B, which authorized a new half-cent sales tax for transportation projects. Proposition K, approved in November, reauthorized the tax. - Budget: $316 million; operational expenses $4 million. - Employees: 16 positions; 12 are filled. - The board: The authority is governed by a board that is made up of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors; Jake McGoldrick is chair, Michela Alioto-Pier, vice chair

Siemens to Supply 16 S70 Light-Rail Vehicles to Charlotte; Charlotte Becomes Tenth U.S. City to Select Siemens LRVs

PR Newswire March 24, 2004 The Charlotte, N.C. City Council approved the purchase of sixteen S70 light-rail vehicles (LRVs) from Siemens Transportation Systems, Inc. The purchase will be made by Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) for use on the South Corridor Light Rail Project. The contract is valued at $52.5 million for the 16 vehicles. The South Corridor Light Rail Project is an approximately 10-mile line running from Uptown Charlotte to Interstate 485. The system will include 15 stations and is expected to open in fall of 2006. Delivery of the first S70 LRV is projected for January 2006. Siemens is currently bidding to provide the electrification and signaling infrastructure for the rail line. “We are excited that CATS has selected Siemens to build its new rail vehicles. Charlotte will be the tenth U.S. city with Siemens LRVs and the third with the innovative S70 vehicle,” stated Oliver Hauck, president and CEO of Siemens Transportation Systems, Inc. “We are proud to play a role in increasing mobility for the people of Charlotte and expanding economic development in the region.” Each S70 vehicle boasts enhanced safety, comfort and speed. The vehicles have a 70 percent low-floor section that eases accessibility for all passengers, particularly those with mobility issues. The vehicles are capable of speeds up to 65 miles per hour and feature room for 236 passengers. The car shells are constructed of low-alloy, high-tensile (LAHT) steel with a composite fiberglass covering. This modern construction method produces a higher structural efficiency and reduces energy consumption during operation. Siemens’ Sacramento, Calif. manufacturing facility will construct the car shell and complete the final vehicle assembly. The S70 LRV is currently in use in Houston, Texas, and cars are being manufactured for San Diego, Calif.

Driver who hit Metro train ticketed for bypassing gate

Houston Chronicle March 25, 2004, A Houston woman was ticketed after she disregarded railroad crossing arms and struck a MetroRail train near the Texas Medical Center today, authorities said. No one was injured when the accident happened about 9 a.m. on Greenbriar near Braeswood, Metro officials said. Kimberly Pounds was driving north on Greenbriar when she proceeded past the railroad crossing arms as they were lowering, said Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton. After driving underneath the crossing arms, she stopped for a northbound train that was passing by, Connaughton said. Pounds then proceeded and hit a second train that was heading south, he said. Pounds was ticketed for disregarding the crossing arm, Metro officials said. The trains continued on their normal routes after the collision. It was the 29th traffic accident recorded for the city’s light rail system.

Light rail construction plows ahead in Sodo

Daily Journal of Commerce 25 March 2004] Construction of Sound Transit’s Central Link light rail line is moving ahead in the Sodo neighborhood of South Seattle. This week contractor Kiewit Pacific of Vancouver started drilling the 8-to- 10-foot-diameter shafts that will support elevated tracks along South Forest Street between Airport Way and the Fifth Avenue South busway. Each of the 29 shafts will be sunk about 90 feet into the ground. Kiewit Pacific will build 1.75 miles of track in Sodo, a rail station at Lander Street and a maintenance facility, at a cost of $95 million. Subcontractor Hayward Baker of Odington, Md., started doing soil stabilizing work there last week. “Soils in the area are poor at best,” said Doug Grohs, deputy project manager for Kiewit Pacific. “There’s a lot of liquefied soils there.” Contractors are injecting compaction grouting 40 to 50 feet underground. The concrete grout fills spaces in the porous, earthquake-sensitive soil. Much of the area is a reclaimed tidal mud flat. In other locations, Sound Transit contractors have used tall cranes to inject and vibrate gravel deep underground to create ground- strengthening stone columns. Seattle City Light power lines along the busway prevent the use of tall cranes there, so Kiewit is using the compaction grouting technique instead. In April, contractors will begin mixing the top 12 inches of soil with a concrete grout to stabilize and strengthen it. The project runs through the largely industrial Sodo district and butts up against Franz Family Bakeries’ main Seattle bakery. The bakery, also known as Gai’s, has been on that site for 52 years. At a community meeting on the Sodo project yesterday, Dan Wingle of the bakery expressed concern about potential construction impacts to trucks using the loading dock. Sound Transit officials said there will be a 14.5-foot-tall, 42-foot-wide opening in the construction scaffolding, enough to let trucks use the bakery’s loading dock. “They’ve been very helpful and very open,” Wingle said of Sound Transit’s efforts to accommodate his business. “I don’t foresee any major problems.” Another Sodo neighbor’s reaction to the project might be summed up as, “Pile drive carefully, Sound Transit. The job you save could be your own.” Robert Stack of Pacific Investments, which owns a truck terminal and other property alongside the construction site, said he thinks the project is being overbuilt. The longtime project critic pointed to ballast walls and 90- foot pile depths as unnecessary luxuries, since other recent buildings in the vicinity didn’t use them. Joe Gildner of Sound Transit said the site is hemmed in on both sides. “These walls we’re building allow us to do the necessary work without having to excavate beyond the limits of our project,” he said. “We want to minimize adverse impacts to the busway to the west and to the foundations and structures to the east.” Gildner said pile depths are based on geotechnical assessments. Before full-scale pile production begins, crews will do test piles to see whether they reach solid load-bearing rock without going so deep. Kiewit Pacific has already changed its piledriving plans because of the skyrocketing cost and decreasing availability of steel. “The price of steel has gone nuts,” said Grohs. “It’s increased 80 to 90 percent since this job bid. To mitigate those cost concerns, we’re looking at using concrete pile.” Such a change could save eardrums as well as greenbacks. “Concrete pile driving is not as noisy as steel pile driving because you have a cushion head on top of the pile to avoid crushing the concrete,” said Grohs. The potential switch to concrete has put pile driving a few weeks behind schedule, but Sound Transit’s Roger Pence said it is not expected to affect the project’s overall schedule. Trains will run at ground level along the busway through Sodo, then head up into the air as they turn east to go under Beacon Hill. Construction of the Beacon Hill tunnel is to begin this summer.

Guest Column: Government takes a shine to alternative bids. Agencies are looking past the low-bid process in favor of best value procurement and other alternative bidding methods.

Washington public entities have used the standard sealed bidding process for nearly a century, but current legislation and court decisions regarding alternative procurement methods are significantly changing the way these entities do business. Beginning in 1992, with the state Legislature’s enabling legislation authorizing regional transit authorities to use negotiated procurements and, more recently, with similar legislation related to the monorail, alternative procurement methods are becoming increasingly common. Federal and state law Since at least World War II, the federal government has allowed alternative methods of public procurement, recognizing that the standard competitive bidding process is unsatisfactory for more complex projects where the technical expertise and experience of a contractor is considered just as, if not more, important than price. The “best value” procurement is one such method. Under a best value procurement, award of the contract is based upon a combination of price and qualitative considerations such as technical design, technical approach, past performance, quality of proposed personnel, and/or management plan. Federal courts have afforded broad discretion to federal agencies using a best value procurement, particularly in the area of technical expertise and experience. Under Washington’s standard competitive bidding laws (RCW 39.04), public entities receive sealed price proposals from bidders in response to an invitation for bids (IFB). The public entity is required to award the contract to the bidder who submits the lowest responsible bid with little, if any, concern for the actual technical expertise and experience of the successful bidder. With its enactment of RCW 39.10 in 1994, the state Legislature expressly recognized that, under certain circumstances, the public interest may be better served by alternative contracting procedures based on “objective and equitable criteria” rather than simply awarding contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. In 1992, the state Legislature specifically authorized regional transit authorities, such as Sound Transit, to use an alternative method such as the best value procurement (RCW 81.112.070). The best value procurement is also authorized by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which is providing partial funding on Sound Transit projects. Under its own Resolution 78-1, Sound Transit recognized the broad discretion granted to it by the Legislature and authorized the use of best value procurements. The use of a best value procurement allows Sound Transit to consider factors related to the qualifications of the proposal team, past performance, technical components, and work approach for purposes of selecting the proposal that represents the best value to Sound Transit and to the taxpayers. Best value procurement Under a best value procurement, a public entity may first seek to pre- qualify contractors with its issuance of a request for qualifications (RFQ). Based upon the proposals submitted in response to the RFQ, the public entity will deem certain contractors qualified to submit proposals in response to a request for proposals (RFP). Following pre-qualification of the proposers, the public entity will issue an RFP. The primary difference between an RFP and an IFB issued in a standard competitive bidding process is that the RFP contains factors other than price upon which the submitted proposals will be evaluated. The RFP may also require that the price proposal be submitted separate from the technical proposal so that each can be independently evaluated. Because a best value procurement involves a relatively subjective evaluation process compared to sealed bidding, the RFP may also describe the proposal evaluation process in detail to lessen concerns of the public and disappointed proposers. Once proposals are received, the public entity will evaluate them and determine which proposal, in light of price and other factors, is most advantageous and of greatest value. The actual evaluation process will vary depending on the public agency. An agency may simply award the contract based upon the proposals submitted. Prior to awarding the contract, the agency may communicate with one or more proposers solely for purposes of clarifying or verifying their proposals. An agency may also choose to request from the proposers a best and final offer (BAFO), which may involve additional discussions with all of the proposers. At the conclusion of such discussions, each proposer may submit its BAFO for consideration by the public entity. Recent litigation A disappointed proposer recently attempted to attack Sound Transit’s contract award for a segment of the Central Link Light Rail Project under a best value procurement process. The disappointed proposer argued that Sound Transit’s award of the contract did not abide by Washington’s longstanding competitive bidding laws. The King County Superior Court and Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals recognized Sound Transit’s discretionary authority to use a best value procurement and denied the disappointed proposer’s request to enjoin Sound Transit’s award of the contract to the contractor that had submitted the proposal determined to present the best value. According to the disappointed proposer, the mandatory project labor agreement (PLA) requirement provided for in the RFP was removed after Sound Transit received proposals in response to the RFP. The disappointed proposer, relying solely on case law related to Washington’s standard competitive bidding laws, argued that removal of the PLA requirement resulted in a material change in the contract which gave the successful proposer an unfair advantage over other proposers. Although the RFP required the use of a PLA, the RFP also incorporated by reference certain FTA-mandated terms, including compliance with Executive Orders 13202 and 13208 executed by President Bush in 2001 that prohibited requiring a contractor on a federally-funded project to execute a PLA without an exemption from the FTA. The executive orders also allow a contractor to voluntarily enter into a PLA. Sound Transit applied for an exemption from the FTA after it made its best value determination and before it awarded the contract. The FTA denied the request. The trial court specifically held that the best value procurement used by Sound Transit was a relatively new legislative creature and that sealed bidding case law was generally not applicable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed with the disappointed proposer and concluded that removal of the mandated PLA did not result in a material change in the contract. Both courts reviewed Sound Transit’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard and concluded that the cost to the taxpayers that would result from a possible six- to eight-month delay in the project related to the bid protest far outweighed the additional costs allegedly associated with the PLA. Significantly, both courts recognized Sound Transit’s authority to use a best value procurement that allows evaluation of the submitted proposals in categories other than price. Based on these recent decisions in support of alternative procurement methods already authorized by the state Legislature, it is anticipated that such methods will be used more and more by public entities to obtain the overall best value for the taxpayers.

Business groups try to keep University Av. rail idea on track

Minneapolis Star Tribune March 25, 2004 Twin Cities business groups lit a flare Wednesday to warn against a possible setback for connecting downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul via a University Avenue light-rail line. To keep planning for the unfunded idea on track, the Legislature this year should approve $5.25 million in bonding authority for more preliminary engineering, company executives and officials from several chambers of commerce said at a news conference in St. Paul. Light rail in the central corridor is still a dream. But without a bonding appropriation this year, business leaders said, plans to link the two downtowns with improved mass transit could be sidelined for at least a year or two while federal transportation money goes to other projects across the country. “It’s bad business to take yourself out of line,” said Bob Senkler, chief executive officer of Minnesota Life, based in St. Paul. “This is a critical time to keep us in the queue.” At this year’s Legislature, possible light-rail transit between Minneapolis and St. Paul is immensely overshadowed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s proposal for $37.5 million in bonding money for the proposed North Star commuter rail line between Big Lake and Minneapolis. While Pawlenty’s spokeswoman, Leslie Kupchella, said Wednesday that the governor has not taken a stand on University Avenue mass transit, neither the governor nor the House Transportation Finance Committee currently includes it among their bonding priorities. In addition, Rep. Phil Krinkie, chairman of the House Capital Investment Committee, is strongly against the initiative. The bonding bill goes through Krinkie’s committee. “People’s requests [for mass-transit money] have been sort of endless,” said Krinkie, R-Shoreview. “Maybe we should be thinking about getting the buses running, then we can worry about building more trains.” Ramsey County Commissioner Sue Haigh and Rep. Alice Hausman of St. Paul said business backing gives them hope that the needed bonding money for University Avenue mass transit could be won this year despite obvious hurdles. If the effort fails this year, the next state bonding bill is two years away. Hausman said the Senate bonding bill is likely to include the $5.25 million request, and she said there is still a chance support will come from House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon. “I truly believe this can happen,” said Hausman, a DFLer whose district lies in the central corridor. “The business community role is essential.” Senkler and others at Wednesday’s news conference said the state bonding money, if approved, would be matched by $5.25 million in federal money to cover engineering studies needed once the Met Council decides later this year whether to pursue light-rail transit or express-bus service for the central corridor. Seventy percent of the corridor lies in St. Paul. Senkler and Rick Beeson, chief executive officer of St. Anthony Park Bank, said improved regional mass transit has become a top business priority in Minnesota. Not only would light-rail or express-bus service bring more housing and shoppers to the central corridor, but it would benefit all Minnesotans by relieving traffic congestion on adjacent Interstate Hwy. 94, they said. “Ten years ago business didn’t have transit on its radar,” said Larry Dowell, president of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce. “Today, transportation is one of our top issues.” Krinkie said claims that mass transit relieves freeway congestion are “nonsense.” He and other House Republicans will be lobbied by the Central Corridor Partnership, which formed in January as a private-public coalition of various chambers of commerce in the Twin Cities; organized labor; the University of Minnesota; Ramsey and Hennepin counties, and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. At Wednesday’s Central Corridor Partnership news conference, Senkler and Dowell said the group doesn’t have a funding solution for regional mass transit. But by this fall, they said, they hope to identify possible revenue streams. Senkler said the discussion is likely to include talk of a metrowide sales tax or increase in the gas tax.

Caltrain electrification seems back on track

The Daily Review (Hayward, CA) March 25, 2004 Caltrain’s electrification project appeared as if it might be derailed only a short time ago, but officials are cautiously optimistic that it may finally be on track. There are still considerable hurdles for the $601 million upgrade, but officials have new hope, because it appears funds that were once in question may be available for the project, and planning has reached a crucial stage. “I think it stands in a lot better position now than a few weeks ago,” said John McLemore, a Caltrain director. “I see the moon and the stars all aligning for the transportation plan.” Caltrain has finished the environmental review for the project, and the document has received approval from the Federal Transportation Administration. Caltrain plans to make it public in late April or early May. One of the major issues for electrification is that it must be funded by the three counties Caltrain serves, and it has often been difficult to get each county to give the project the same priority. But Caltrain also received good news on that front recently. In November, San Francisco voters approved $21 million in funding for electrification as part of Proposition K, a transportation measure. San Mateo County has also made electrification a priority as it plans to renew Measure A, the county’s half-cent transportation sales tax. The tax is slated to go before voters in November. But perhaps the best news has come from the South Bay. The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority recently made the project a top priority as it draws up the project list for an extension of its own Measure A. The project had initially been listed as a low priority that would not be funded until the mid-2020s, but political pressure from McLemore and South Bay cities forced the VTA to reevaluate its stand. Santa Clara County’s Measure A, still under development, and San Mateo County’s Measure A must still go through long processes before they reach voters for approval. Margaret Okuzumi, executive director of BayRail Alliance, said the Santa Clara County plan could encounter problems when it goes before the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for approval. “A larger question to keep an eye is whether MTC is going to accept [Santa Clara County] plan,” Okuzumi said. The sales tax funding is also dependent on the state of the economy, so full funding for electrification may or may not materialize. Along with the “baby bullet” express trains, electrification is one of the centerpieces of Caltrain’s improvement plans. Electric trains would be quieter and cleaner than the current diesel models. They would also allow Caltrain to get closer to its goal of running roughly 130 trains a day, because electric trains can run closer together. Caltrans currently runs 76 trains a day. Construction is slated to break ground in 2006 and finish up in 2012. The project has been controversial, because some local politicians have raised objections to the overhead wire towers that will be needed for powering the trains.

Streetcar to spread joy down the line; Riverfront fare to drop $0.25

Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA) March 26, 2004 When streetcars make their long-awaited return to Canal Street in three weeks, public transit customers will get an unexpected benefit: a 25-cent reduction in the fare on the riverfront streetcar line. The rollback from $1.50 to $1.25 is an unprecedented move for the Regional Transit Authority, which has run New Orleans’ bus and streetcar system for the past 20 years. The last fare reduction came courtesy of New Orleans Public Service Inc., or NOPSI, which turned over transit operations to the RTA in 1983. A year before, NOPSI reduced the fare on the Algiers bus line from 75 cents to 60 cents. The fare adjustment on the riverfront line will go into effect on the morning of April 18, the day RTA officials have chosen to resume Canal Street streetcar service between the Mississippi River and City Park Avenue. NOPSI ended Canal Street service in 1964. The RTA will simultaneously debut a 1-mile streetcar spur along North Carrollton Avenue linking Canal Street to the City Park entrance, a component of the $161 million project that the agency originally planned to phase in months later. Since its inception in 1988, the 1.5-mile riverfront streetcar line between Esplanade Avenue and Julia Street has been designated as an “express” route for which riders pay an additional 25 cents. The fare on all regular RTA bus and streetcar lines is $1.25. But beginning next month, the riverfront route effectively will become part of the new Canal Street line. Streetcars traveling along Canal Street and Carrollton Avenue will turn left at the Mississippi River and head to the riverfront line’s downtown terminus at Esplanade before making return trips. During the RTA board’s monthly meeting Thursday, top staffers said imposing different fares on the riverfront and Canal Street lines likely would result in a logistical as well as a public relations nightmare. “There would be a lot of potential for confusion and problems,” said Gerald Robichaux, the RTA’s deputy general manager, who asked the board to lower the riverfront line’s fare. “It’s not very often we can talk about fare reductions.” After a brief discussion, the board voted unanimously to reduce the fare. The action also needs approval from the New Orleans City Council, but that is considered a formality. About 70 percent of the riverfront line’s ridership is tourists. But RTA officials expect local ridership to increase because the riverfront line for the first time will offer the option of making connections with other transit routes. If more riders use the option and buy 25-cent transfers, the agency hopes to offset the revenue loss resulting from the 25-cent fare reduction. The lower fare will go into effect when service begins on the riverfront route around 7 a.m. on April 18, a Sunday. The Canal Street line is scheduled to launch on the same day around 3 a.m., which is when shifts change for drivers under the RTA’s union contract. The RTA has not decided how it will commemorate the historic event. May celebration An elaborate celebration is being planned for the Memorial Day weekend, May 29 and 30, to mark the 40-year anniversary of the last trip by a streetcar along the length of Canal Street. Although details are sketchy, RTA officials said the agency plans to sponsor a morning ceremony May 29 at Canal and Baronne streets that will feature music and speeches. Later, a streetcar carrying VIPs and visiting dignitaries will travel the route, where event planners say they hope to enlist local restaurateurs, merchants and community groups to host block parties. Among the ideas being discussed are discounted meals, sales and free samples. After the pomp and circumstance, customers will be allowed to ride streetcars free of charge throughout the weekend. The offer will be good only on the riverfront and Canal Street routes and not on the St. Charles Avenue line. Beginning Sunday, many of the 24 apple-red cars that will run along Canal will be rolled out as training commences in earnest for the dozens of drivers who will operate them. RTA officials are urging motorists to be wary of the streetcars, especially along Carrollton Avenue where they will travel in the traffic lanes on opposite sides of the neutral ground. Changes to design In other action Thursday, the RTA board approved a $1.2 million increase in the Canal Street project’s budget to cover the costs of correcting design and construction deficiencies along the route that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Despite the emergency appropriation to Boh Bros. Construction Co., the lead contractor on the streetcar line, RTA officials said the project remains under budget because some aspects included in the original design have been scaled back. The design problems, discovered recently by a consultant specializing in ADA compliance, involve aspects of construction that likely wouldn’t be noticed by the average transit customer, including the slope and texture of curb ramps near streetcar stops and the width of drainage grates. RTA officials said the work was done incorrectly in some instances and not done at all in others. While the design flaws might seem inconsequential to most people, the ADA review determined that they could cause problems for riders who are visually impaired or use wheelchairs. While the RTA has agreed to pay for the extra work, board Chairman James Reiss said his staff is continuing to review the matter to determine “which parties may be financially responsible.” Reiss said he hopes to recoup some of the costs. ADA regulations, which the federal government mandates but does not specifically earmark money for, are complex and can be subject to interpretation, RTA officials said. In fact, the RTA is trying to determine whether some requirements cited in the review were suspended during a 10-year period that ended in July 2001. While construction on the Canal line was begun in January 2001, the project’s final design was completed about two years before. In addition to Boh Bros., oversight of the Canal Street project has been shared by the RTA’s capital improvements staff; Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc., a New York engineering firm with a New Orleans office that heads the design team; and the project manager, Gannett-Fleming Inc., a Pennsylvania company

LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION STUDIED IN TACOMA; LINE WOULD RUN TO PROPOSED PUYALLUP TRIBE CASINO

THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER March 26, 2004 With Tacoma’s light rail line barely out of the gate, an effort already has begun to extend the 1.6-mile line. Under study is a proposal to extend the line east and south about 1.5 miles from the Tacoma Dome station to a $200 million casino resort planned by the Puyallup Tribe on the other side of Interstate 5. The tribe paid Sound Transit $41,000 to study the cost and feasibility of potential routes. Sound Transit staff presented the results to its boa