Light rail slogs ahead

Pioneer Press Mar. 27, 2004 Shakedown work on Metro Transit light-rail trains continues, despite the fact that 60 operators and maintenance workers have been walking picket lines for three weeks rather than toiling to open the line. Metro Transit once planned to open the Hiawatha line next Saturday. But it suspended the system’s launch in February, after workers voted overwhelmingly to give union leaders the power to call a strike. At the time, the two sides sparred over whether the trains would have been ready for the scheduled start. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005 leaders and rail workers contended they were blamed unfairly for a delay that would have been likely anyway. Rail managers insisted trains would have been ready to roll, although the labor upheaval made planning impossible. Maintenance records and correspondence requested by the Pioneer Press for the sole train Metro Transit owned in February contain no smoking gun that indicates the line would not have opened in time. But they do document a range of errors that renew the debate — from hard- to-turn key switches to wiring problems that would kill the train’s power at times. Joe Marie, Metro Transit assistant general manager for rail operations, said none of the 49 problems logged from Dec. 2 to Feb. 7 was serious enough to threaten the line’s April 3 opening. In fact, Marie said, the type and frequency of reported problems were typical for a new light-rail system. “It’s standard routine as you’re going through the burn-in period,” he said. That may be so, union vice president Michelle Sommers countered, but the records support concerns she’s heard from Hiawatha workers — that trains were being “cannibalized” to keep a few running. Metro Transit planned to have 14 trains on the tracks before the Hiawatha line opened. Sommers said she doubted more than six would have been ready. “And that’s 24 hours a day of working on them to get them ready and to get the operators certified,” she said. “There’s no way they would have been able to do it, the way that it was scheduled to run,” Sommers said. The records reviewed by the Pioneer Press are for the first train, numbered 101, that Metro Transit received from builder Bombardier Transportation. Sommers pointed to a line in the records that showed the horn from train 105 was taken and installed in train 101. She said a swap like that could throw off the line’s schedule if it happened after it opened. If 14 trains are needed to keep service as scheduled, any one of those would need to be immediately replaced if a maintenance problem appeared as it was headed out on the tracks, Sommers said. “The train’s got to work at the time it’s supposed to pull out,” she said. “Even though it may seem minor, those are real issues.” Bombardier workers and Metro Transit managers not involved in the walkout have continued working on another seven trains since the strike began. Bombardier turns the trains over to Metro Transit once they run at least 1,000 miles without a major malfunction. Marie said the fixes done on train 101 have been incorporated in the design of the other vehicles, making each one successively better. For example, Marie said a problem with 101’s wiring design at times led to shorts, which in turn caused safety systems to shut down the train’s propulsion system. Over time, “we isolated that problem and we made changes” incorporated in later trains, with no further errors reported, he said. The records also show trouble with the first train’s heating and cooling system. As a result, the second train — 102 — was sent to a Canadian laboratory where it was subjected to temperature extremes ranging from 16 below zero to 135 degrees. The heating and cooling system kept the interior temperature between 62 and 68, Marie said. The Metro Transit strike began March 4 and stems from deep disagreement over proposed changes to health-care coverage for current and retired bus workers. Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell, whose agency operates Metro Transit, has said officials will be able to announce the opening of the light- rail line within two weeks after the strike ends. The opening itself would be later in the year. Marie said Metro Transit would need eight weeks from the day strikers return to work before the system would be ready for paying customers.

Viewpoints ‘Mule car’ memories

Houston Chronicle March 27, 2004 John J. McGeough was mistaken when he wrote (“Rail: It’s location, stupid,” Viewpoints, March 21) that the Metro train “goes down the middle of a road designed for cars and pedestrians.” The downtown streets of Houston, where much of Metro’s rail system operates, were designed for horses and wagons and remained that way until the 1860s, when “mule cars” on railroad tracks first appeared in Houston. By the 1880s, mule-hauled streetcars traveled up and down Main Street, and by the 1890s, the streetcars were electrically powered. Automobiles were a rich man’s toy before 1900 and did not show up in significant numbers for another 10 years or so. Robert Terhune, Houston

Americans Support Public Transportation Growth and Investment

APTA News Releases March 27, 2004 This brief highlights key findings from a study conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide February 20-23, 2004. The study interviewed 1,000 adults 18 years of age and older living in the Continental United States. Interviews were stratified and weighted by gender, region, ethnicity, and education to reflect population characteristics. The findings are projectable to the nationwide population within + 3.1 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Key findings follow: Most Americans (80%) see quality of life benefits from increased investment in public transportation. Almost every American (92%) wants transportation legislation passed immediately. Americans support public funding for the expansion and improvement of public transportation at a rate of 76% versus 22% that oppose. Two-thirds of the country support pro-public transportation Congressional candidates. A majority of Americans believe transportation investment is preferable over tax cuts to stimulate the economy. These findings hold true across all geographies — urban, suburban, small town and rural residents. Americans see quality of life benefits from increased investment in public transportation Increased public investment in public transportation would strengthen the economy, create jobs, reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, and reduce energy consumption.

He has an ear for subways

The Toronto Star March 27, 2004 For most of the past 50 years, Toronto subway riders were treated to a high-pitched sound as the doors of the subway cars opened and closed. When a train was leaving the station, the operator would blow his whistle twice — first to signal that the doors would soon close, again when they were actually closing. That familiar sound, replaced a decade ago by chimes, remains one of former TTC archivist Ted Wickson’s fondest subway memories. Wickson, 59, who has had a life-long passion for the trains, recalls his first subway ride — Easter, 1954, just after it opened — like it was yesterday. He was 10, and his family, visiting from Montreal, took the subway to visit his grandmother. “As a kid it was exciting,” he recalls. “You think: ‘This is progress.’” When his family moved to Wentworth County, he would hitchhike to Toronto or Hamilton to take photos of railway trains, particularly steam engines. Wickson joined the TTC as a 19-year-old junior clerk in the advertising department. Within a year he was put in charge of the TTC’s glass plate negative collection, a series of Alfred Pearson streetscapes during the Depression and World War II now considered “the jewel” of the city’s archives. Over the years, he was also editor of the employee newspaper The Coupler, the TTC photographer and, in 1989, lobbied successfully to set up a TTC archive. In 1990, he was put in charge of organizing the TTC’s documents, files and pictures, which are housed at the City of Toronto Archives on Spadina Ave. near Casa Loma. Wickson has ridden on many of the world’s subway and light rapid transit systems and ranks Toronto’s as one of the best. Another favourite is the London Underground. “It was one of the first in the world,” he said. “It was originally steam operated and then they electrified it in the late 19th century.” The London Underground “is so vast and the cars are unique in shape because they have to conform to the early tunnels built in Victorian times,” he says, adding that the tunnels served as shelters in wartime. Other systems don’t fare so well. Wickson dislikes Montreal’s Metro because of its rubber-tire technology. And he is particularly disdainful of Washington, D.C.’s modern system. “There’s no history to it. They spent a lot of money, even wasted money, on air-conditioning stations which aren’t sealed up.” He has nothing but good to say about Toronto’s underground, though. He loves the simple architecture, its cars, the stations — even the unique sound made by the old cars when the trains started up. Wickson also loves its idiosyncrasies, such as the ghost stations at Bay and Queen stations. “At Bay, the lower level has a ghost station,” Wickson explains. “It was actually used for six months in 1966 when the Bloor-Danforth line was opened. At that time, every second train on the east-west line turned at University and went up Yonge.” The experiment was halted six months later because it was causing delays. Nowadays, it is often set up to look like a New York City subway stop for film shoots, Wickson says. At Queen, the ghost station, complete with high ceilings for trolley poles, was built for a streetcar subway line that was supposed to run just north of Queen from Trinity Bellwoods Park to Logan Ave. The line was never built. Wickson retired in 1997 after 30 years with the TTC, but his interest in transit remains vibrant. His passion now is a book he’s writing about Canadian transit development over the past century.

Notes from the underground

The Toronto Star March 27, 2004 Jan. 1, 1946 TTC rapid transit plan approved Sept. 8, 1949 Construction of Canada’s first subway begins March 30, 1954 First day of service 3,000 Jobs created during construction 1.7 million Number of cubic yards of earth excavated 250,000 Riders on the first day 863,000 Current riders per day 7.4 km Length of subway track on opening day 61.9 km Current length of track 10 cents Cash fare in 1954 $2.25 Cash fare today 4 Principal speakers at opening ceremonies (Premier Leslie Frost, Metro Chairman Fred Gardiner, Mayor Alan Lamport and TTC chair William C. McBrien) 1965 Opening of the Greenwood Yard, principal subway car storage and repair facility 134 Number of steel-bodied cars created for the original Yonge subway $11.5 million Cost of original 140 subway cars $2.6 million Cost of one subway car today 6 Number of aluminum-bodied cars created for the original Yonge subway 684 Number of subway cars currently in the system $67 million Cost of original subway from Union Station to Eglinton. $933.9 million Cost of Sheppard line, which opened Nov. 22, 2003 1.4 million Bags of cement used to build original line 5,000 Number of ceramic tiles used in murals at the North York Centre station on the Yonge St. line 1.5 million Number of porcelain tiles used in the mosaic “Immersion Land” at the Sheppard-Yonge station 1966 Opening of the Bloor-Danforth line 1970 Last year that farebox revenues met TTC operating expenses 1975 Exact cash fares introduced 62 Seating capacity of an original subway car 66 Seating capacity of modern car 12 Original stations — Eglinton, Davisville, St. Clair, Summerhill, Rosedale, Bloor, Wellesley, College, Dundas, Queen, King, Union 69 Current number of subway and Scarborough Rapid Transit stations 12 Original number of escalators 296 Escalators currently in the system 12 Minutes between Eglinton and Yonge stations on the first day of service 81 Percentage of operating costs currently paid by passengers, the highest in North America 88 Percentage of Toronto residents who have used the subway (2002) 174,806 Daily passengers who use Bloor station, the system’s busiest 1,851 Daily passengers who use Bessarion station on the Sheppard line, the system’s least used 30.2 km Length of Yonge-University-Spadina subway line 26.2 km Length of Bloor-Danforth line 5.5 km Length of Sheppard line 6.4 km Length of Scarborough RT 77.5 million Number of kilometres subway trains travelled last year 900 Estimated number of motor vehicles a six-car subway train replaces during the morning rush 53,000 Number of cars per hour the subway takes off the road 27 Number of highway lanes one subway line replaces 12,887 Number of commuter parking spaces on the subway/rapid transit system 405 million TTC riders last year 25 billion The number of riders the TTC will have carried by next summer

YONGE SUBWAY TURNS 50; TORONTO’S CHANGING TRAFFIC PATTERNS

The Toronto Sun March 28, 2004 This coming Tuesday marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Yonge St. subway. It was a few minutes short of 11 on the morning of March 30, 1954 (coincidentally, also a Tuesday) that Ontario premier Leslie Frost, along with Toronto mayor Allan Lamport, together pushed a shiny stainless steel switch that in turn activated a green trackside signal. Within seconds, the gleaming red train consisting of eight modern English-built subway cars slipped out of the Davisville station, headed north to the terminus at Eglinton. Another minute or so passed, drivers switched ends, the switches were set, another green light lit up and off went the train, southbound on its non-stop (except for a brief pause at the Davisville station to retrieve the photographers who had recorded the historic send-off) 7.4 km (4.6 mile) trip to Union Station. The historic “top to bottom” run of Canada’s first subway took 12 minutes, interestingly the same number of years that would pass before the first section of the nation’s second subway, Montreal’s Metro, would open to the public. Several hours later (1:30 p.m. to be exact), the general public was invited to ride the new line. With that, the streetcars on Yonge St. were removed, thereby ending a 93-year tradition of “riding the rails” on Toronto’s main street. Here are a few more Toronto subway trivia facts. It took exactly 3,010 days from the time 90% of the eligible voters approved the TTC’s “Rapid Transit” proposal that was a part of the January 1, 1946, municipal election ballot to the day the first trains entered revenue service. In addition, had the TTC adhered to the specific wording of the Rapid Transit question that appeared on the Jan. 1, 1946, ballot, there would have been no subway. Why? Because proceeding with the project was predicated on the Dominion Government assuming one-fifth of the project cost. No such funding was received. Sound familiar? Another interesting feature of that Jan. 1, 1946, vote of approval: There were actually two components of the Rapid Transit project approved by the electorate. First, of course, was the Yonge route, while the second was described as a “subway and open-cut transit route” on Queen St. from Trinity Park on the west to the Don River on the east. The Queen line would use regular surface-running streetcars except for the stretch between McCaul and George Sts. In this section, the electric vehicles would operate swiftly and silently through a tunnel, away from the confusion and mayhem often brought on by the cars, trucks and buses above. However, even as the Yonge line was being built, traffic patterns changed and soon it was deemed that a subway along the Bloor-Danforth corridor would make more sense. The first section of this line opened in early 1966.

A Redbird Reclaimed; A train buff rescues car 9565 to showcase metro transit history

Newsday (New York) March 28, 2004 Some New Yorkers who migrated to the suburbs couldn’t wait to leave the noise of the city behind. Not Bob Cava. When his family left the Bronx for East Northport in 1960, the 6-year-old found he couldn’t fall asleep without the reassuring screech and clatter of the elevated subway trains that passed by his old apartment on Gun Hill Road. “I loved that sound — it was like a lullaby,” said Cava, 49, a railroad enthusiast since childhood. Now a West Babylon attorney, Cava hit on a novel way to bring his beloved subway to his adopted town. With the help of Babylon and the New York City Transit Authority, he’s turning a retired subway car from the No. 7 line into a museum honoring August Belmont II, the Babylon financier who built the first subway line in Manhattan 100 years ago. The Interborough Rapid Transit Co. line, known as the IRT, was followed later by the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co., which in 1923 became the Brooklyn Manhattan Transit Co., known as the BMT. In 1932, the city created the Independent Transit Railroad, known as the IND. All lines are now under the transit authority. Cava became interested in Belmont and the Redbird while riding his bike through Belmont Lake State Park, which occupies a portion of the magnate’s former 1,100-acre estate in Babylon Town. Then, Cava read that New York City Transit was sinking old subway cars off the Atlantic coast to create artificial reefs. The TA decided to sink the cars because they contain asbestos, which can pose health problems when airborne, and putting them on the ocean floor to attract marine life was cheaper than having the trains scrapped on land. “I said, ‘What a shame,’” Cava said. “Since Belmont built the subway, and he owned all the property around here,” he reasoned, why not use an old car as a museum to teach about local and transit history? The idea wasn’t a hard sell for town officials. If New York State parks czar Robert Moses was Babylon’s most prominent citizen of the last century, then Belmont, who also built Belmont Park racetrack in Elmont, “is our number two,” Babylon Councilman Wayne Horsley said. The town plans to put the 51- foot car up on tracks in a municipal parking lot on Little East Neck Road in North Babylon, where officials hope the attraction will draw visitors to the area. Horsley estimated that transporting the car and laying the foundation would cost the town no more than about $5,000; local railroad enthusiasts have volunteered to staff the museum and handle additional refurbishing. Officials hope to get things up and running in time for the 100th anniversary of the subway system in October. A yearlong celebration kicked off last Oct. 7 with a party on the Times Square shuttle platform. The celebration, which will include exhibits and special events, will culminate on Oct. 27, exactly one hundred years to the day when then-New York Mayor George McClellan steered the inaugural train from City Hall to 145th Street and Broadway. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has indicated a willingness to re-enact the event. Some historic trains also will operate that day, and a gala will mark the historic occasion. Fleet of Redbirds New York City Transit donated a subway car to the Babylon museum project from its fleet of Redbirds — crimson-painted cars with hand straps — that have run on the numbered lines since the ‘60s. Transit officials said they will supply the museum with artifacts and information about the cars’ history. The museum is a fitting project for a man who has been fascinated with trains as long as he can remember. Growing up in the shadow of the elevated tracks, Cava sported engineer caps and played with Lionel trains. As he grew, so did his obsession — he even told his high school guidance counselor that “the only thing I want to do is drive a train.” The guidance counselor scoffed at the idea, and Cava went to college and law school, but his dreams remained. As an adult, Cava folded railway tourism into his business travels, making pilgrimages to train buff meccas such as the Seashore Trolley Museum in Kennebunkport, Maine. He belongs to the Long Island Garden Railroad Society, a group that sets up miniature trains that run on outdoor tracks. “It’s kind of like a Walter Mitty thing,” he said. “You can build the world how you would like the world to be.” Grand Concourse yards On March 5, Cava finally stepped into that world. He and Horsley traveled to the Bronx to pick out a subway car at the Grand Concourse yards, a massive train storage facility near Yankee Stadium. “They were like kids in a candy store,” said Michael Zacchea, City Transit’s assistant chief operations officer for asset recovery, who guided the pair as they inspected each car. They had about 10 to choose from. Most of the approximately 1,360 Redbirds retired from the fleet were already underwater. None of the Redbirds is currently in a musem, although one was included in a folklife exhibit by the Smithsonian last year. Currently, the Seashore Trolley Museum in Kennebunkport, Maine, and the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, Ill., plan to take cars, and the Queensborough president’s office wants one for a visitor’s center. ‘64 World’s Fair debut The car destined for Babylon — No. 9565 from the 7 line, manufactured in 1963 — has a full set of working exterior lights, panels that flip to indicate the train’s destination and a mileage speedometer, Horsley said. Transit officials estimated the car traveled 1.6 million track miles between Times Square and Flushing. Robin’s egg blue and cream on delivery, the car was introduced just before the 1964 World’s Fair. These were among the first to have picture windows, Zacchea said. “So if you were on your way out to the World’s Fair, you got a great vista.” The cars were painted red in the 1980s to fight graffiti. The view on the 40-mile trip from the Bronx to Babylon may be less inspiring than the No. 7 train’s majestic chug through Queens and history. The town will pay a hauling company to transport the nearly 80,000- pound hunk of metal via the Long Island Expressway to its final stop on Little East Neck Road.

Turned from a prince to a pauper

The Toronto Star March 29, 2004 It seems as though the TTC has been cash-starved for as long as anyone can remember, but it hasn’t always been that way. From the early 1970s — when the Bill Davis Tories made a commitment to fund 75 per cent of capital spending and half of operating costs — until the early 1990s, times were good at the TTC. It had an unprecedented expansion, was well maintained and earned a reputation as the best transit system in North America. But circumstances and events conspired to work against it, including a lengthy recession in the early ‘90s, a fatal subway crash in 1995, several large fare increases, a strike and annual budget cuts that ended the era of expansion, reduced service and eroded its ability to properly maintain the system. By the end of 1998, provincial subsidies to the TTC operating budget had been slashed over six years by $96 million, or 39 per cent. By 2000, the province had withdrawn entirely from transit funding, other than continuing to pay its share of the $844 million Sheppard subway. The NDP, who were in power from 1990 to 1995, had committed to expanding the subways in several directions: New lines along Sheppard and Eglinton Aves., expanding the Bloor-Danforth line into Mississauga and further into Scarborough and lengthening the Spadina line up to Steeles Ave. But with the economy in steep recession for much of the NDP’s term, it was never clear how it would have found the $4 billion or more needed at the time to do the job. If there’s a moment when the TTC’s financial woes solidified, those close to the system say it was the 1995 election of a provincial government that wanted out of its obligation to fund public transit. “The defining moment is the day Mike Harris got elected,” says TTC chair Howard Moscoe, a city councillor who has been a member of the commission for 14 years. “Am I biased?” asked Moscoe, a well-known member of the NDP. . “Of course I am. But it’s the truth. They are the guys who cut off the cash, and it’s never been the same.” Councillor Brian Ashton, a former TTC chair who’s been a commission member for nine years, offered an almost identical answer. “It was when Mike Harris was elected,” that the TTC went into serious financial decline. Even TTC general manager Rick Ducharme points a finger at the former government. But like any good bureaucrat, he’s less direct about it. Describing the province’s decision in the late 1990s to entirely withdraw from public transit funding as a “dramatic move by the Tory government,” Ducharme stressed that, “to me, it was not thought out, a very poor decision that people are still trying to recover from now.” The TTC relies on the fare box for a far bigger percentage of its operating funds than any other North American system, with riders paying 80 per cent or more of operating costs, while the city pays the rest. Most comparable systems receive 50 per cent or less of their operating funds from fares. This makes the TTC far more susceptible to cost increases and declines in ridership. Expansion, essential to reducing gridlock and the long-term growth planning, is currently out of the question. Queen’s Park and Ottawa don’t want to help pay for it. As a result, the TTC is preparing for another fare hike, considering more cuts to service, begging the city for extra money to maintain the system and planning to scale back already modest plans to increase the number of riders. While the federal budget contained no details about transit funding, Ducharme says he expects Ottawa to make an announcement next week, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Yonge subway, that it will fund a one-third share of $ billion recently promised to the TTC over a five-year period. Queen’s Park says it will come through with its one-third share, with the city expected to come up with the rest. Plans for the massive expansion of the subway system the NDP envisioned ground to a halt after the Tories took over. Expansion plans for the Bloor-Danforth and Spadina lines were cancelled and the tunnelling work already in progress on the new Eglinton line was capped, after $91 million had been spent. Only the Sheppard line was completed. The Harris government said was too far along to cancel. Ducharme explained how the TTC became the gold standard for North American transit systems, then went into decline. “If you go back to 1970, ridership on the TTC was about 275 million,” he said. “By 1989, it was 465 million. Almost 200 million rides were added to the system.” Ducharme attributes the huge growth over that period to expansion. The Yonge subway line was extended to York Mills in 1973 and on to Finch Ave. a year later. By 1978, the Spadina line had been built up to Allen Rd. Later, it would be extended to Downsview. Both ends of the Bloor-Danforth line were extended in 1980. The Scarborough rapid transit line was completed in 1985 and the Harbourfront LRT in 1990. “So we move into the 1990s and the economy goes for a dive,” Ducharme said. “Then from the early ‘90s to the mid-’90s, we lost 90 million rides a year,” he said. “We think half of it was because of the economy, and the other half due to major fare increases and service cuts. “If you look at where the economy is now, it’s back to what it was in 1990. Yet our (annual) ridership is at 410 million, which is 55 million less than it was in 1989. So the TTC hasn’t recovered. We have 200 to 300 fewer buses on the street today than we did in 1989, and 40 fewer streetcars. We have not been able to restore service to what it was. Two times in three years, we increased fares by 20 per cent. “That will kill your ridership, no matter what else you do.” But the Tories may not be the only culprit. David Gunn, who was the TTC’s general manager from 1994 through 1999, said the NDP should shoulder part of the blame. Gunn, now president of Amtrak, the U.S. rail system, said that while the Tories cancelled a lot of new subways and eventually withdrew from transit funding, they kept their commitment to provide $915 million in state-of-good-repair funding through the end of 1999. “The NDP were cutting us on the operating side before the Tories,” said Gunn, pointing out that the system had to reduce its budget in each year of the NDP government, and committed to subway expansion without a long-term plan to pay for it. “There is enough blame to go around on the funding issue. It’s not so black-and-white. Nobody can claim virtue on this.”

Big split on transit, road tax Potential backers feel buses and light rail get short shrift

Sacramento Bee March 29, 2004 Sacramento County transportation planners know that persuading two-thirds of voters this fall to OK a 30-year, half-cent sales tax extension for road and transit improvements will be a tough sell. Last week, the task got tougher. Several groups counted on to back the measure are upset that more than half the expected $4.7 billion is earmarked for roads. Environmentalists, public transit officials, seniors, housing advocates, bicyclists and advocates for disabled people all challenged the plan. Some argued more roads mean more congestion, pollution and sprawl. Others argued the measure doesn’t adequately serve elderly and disabled people who don’t drive cars. “An abomination,” David Mogavero of the Environmental Council of Sacramento said of the tentative project list unveiled Thursday. It doesn’t do enough to get people out of their cars, Mogavero complained. The project list was drawn up by staff and consultants with the Sacramento Transportation Authority, which is made up of elected officials from Sacramento County and its cities. The list includes money to work on two dozen streets and freeway interchanges across the county, from Antelope Road in the north to Grant Line Road in the south. STA officials countered there are plenty of non-car projects mixed in. The plan sets aside $30 million to maintain the American River Parkway and its trail, as well as money to build and run new light-rail lines to the airport and Cosumnes River College. Millions of dollars also would go to synchronize traffic lights, add shoulders on rural roads, make sidewalks accessible for people in wheelchairs, add carpool lanes to freeways and get rid of diesel engines in government vehicle fleets. But a spokesman for Regional Transit, which runs buses and light rail in Sacramento, also expressed dissatisfaction with the plan’s “inadequate” funding for public transit. RT’s Mike Wiley said the expenditure list promises projects — such as a light-rail line from downtown to the airport — that simply cannot be built with the amount of money allocated. “It’s questionable we will have enough money (under this plan) to operate what we have today,” Wiley said. Building industry representative Dennis Rogers, however, called the list a good start and encouraged its authors to recognize that people drive cars and need roadwork. Sarah Dalske of the California Alliance for Jobs argued “commuters into downtown are looking for alternative routes, not alternative transit.” STA leaders call the financing measure, planned for the November ballot, the biggest local transportation issue in years, especially as the region grows, congestion mounts and state transportation funds shrink. The measure’s final wording and project list must be ready by June to qualify for the November ballot, STA Executive Director Brian Williams said. He said his agency is planning several hearings before then to try to mold a measure that will win consensus support. The measure is billed as an extension of an existing half-cent transportation sales tax, approved by voters as Measure A in 1988, which will end in early 2009. Conceived as a supplemental source, the Measure A sales tax has become vital for some agencies, notably Regional Transit, which has increasingly been using the money to run basic services. STA director Williams estimates the new measure would account for 20 percent of all county transportation revenues in the next three decades and would provide local leverage money to win federal transportation grants. He said STA is trying to be politically realistic about what projects voters will accept. “We need 67 percent of the vote,” he said. “That’s not easy. If we don’t get this passed, our transportation system will hit a crisis mode. Not just roadways, but (public) transit.” Williams said he will ask consultants to talk with Mogavero and other environmentalists about “what is actually doable,” in hopes that they will support STA’s direction. Williams expressed more concern over RT’s misgivings. “If the maintenance and operations money in (the ballot measure) is not sufficient to handle new (RT) projects, we need to find out what those amounts are and work with them on that,” he said. But, he added, RT “will need to justify the numbers they come up with.” One of the controversial elements in last week’s project list is a planned expansion of Grant Line and White Rock roads to serve as a bypass route around the metropolitan area from Elk Grove to El Dorado Hills. Some planners and environmentalists argue the road will create more suburban sprawl in areas now designated as open space. Williams said his board probably will discuss whether it wants to write some restrictions into the measure to prohibit sprawl along fringe areas. Meanwhile, some transportation officials, including leaders at RT, contend a half-cent sales tax is not enough. STA political consultant Jeff Raimundo, however, said polling shows voters will reject a measure that seeks to boost the existing measure’s half-cent level. Raimundo is advising the agency to go to the ballot this November so that if voters reject the measure there will be time to rewrite it and try again before Measure A sunsets in 2009. STA board member Roger Dickinson suggests the county could try two measures, spaced over a few years. The goal, he argues, is to search out ways to “move more people in fewer vehicles” and get more money to public transit, but without pushing too far. “We have to maintain a balanced approach in order to have a politically viable plan,” he said. Proposed uses of transit tax proceeds The Sacramento Transportation Authority s preliminary list of projects to be funded over the next 30 years from an anticipated November ballot measure asking voters to extend an existing half-cent transportation sales tax. - 30%: Maintenance of roads — including pothole filling and repaving - 27.25%: Public transit operations and maintenance — including future light-rail lines and bus routes, discount fares for students and seniors - 12.25%: Congestion relief — including bus and carpool ramps and lanes on local highways, expansion or improvements to freeway interchanges - 9%: Expand public transit facilities — including express bus service, lightrail extensions to the airport and to Cosumnes River College, more feeder bus service to light-rail stations, a new transit center in downtown railyards, additional Capitol Corridor commuter trains. - 7%: Improvements to certain existing roads, for cars, bikes and pedestrians, and widening of certain roads* - 5%: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, landscaping and streetside safety — including maintenance of the American River Parkway and bike trail, sidewalk improvements for disabled people, bike and pedestrian routes near schools, smart growth objectives and transit-oriented development. - 4%: Paratransit bus service for seniors and disabled people - 3%: Safety measures — including synchronizing traffic signals, signal pre- emption for fire and ambulances, roadway reflectors, shoulders on rural roads, audible pedestrian signals, changeable roadside message boards - 1.5%: Transportation-related air quality programs — including air quality monitoring, public information, replacement of diesel engines - 1%: Administrative overhead of the Sacramento Transportation Authority — including a taxpayers oversight committee and expenditure audits
  • including sections of Antelope Road, Arden Way, Bradshaw Road, Bruceville Road, Cosumnes River Boulevard, Elk Grove Boulevard, Folsom Boulevard, replacement road for closed Folsom Dam Road, Grant Line Road, Greenback Lane, Hazel Avenue, Madison Avenue, South Watt Avenue, Sheldon Road, Sunrise Boulevard, Watt Avenue, White Rock Road
Source: Bee research

Train operator caught by surprise

The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand) March 29, 2004 TRANZ RAIL wants roading authority Transit NZ to give it notice before advising motorists to take the train after being inundated by more than 250 extra passengers last Thursday. Tranz Rail said it managed to cope with a significant increase in passengers on the Kapiti-to-Wellington run last week despite not being warned in advance by Transit. Spokeswoman Helen Keyes says Tranz Metro was disappointed Transit failed to tell it it had published a public notice in a Kapiti Coast newspaper advising motorists to leave their vehicles at home to avoid delays on State Highway 1 at Mana because of roadworks. As a result, patronage on peak- hour trips from Kapiti to Wellington increased by 25 per cent. Ms Keyes said luckily someone had alerted Tranz Metro to the public notice about 24 hours before and two extra carriages were added to the 7am and 7.18am trips from Kapiti on Thursday. “We would have appreciated it if Transit had warned us so we could have prepared for the extra influx of passengers instead of having to organise four extra carriages at the last minute. “Our rosters are made up on a fortnightly basis — we were quite worried, but managed to cope quite well with more than 250 extra passengers north of Plimmerton,” she said. Ms Keyes said no extra carriages were needed for the evening peak- hour trips as schoolchildren came home earlier and homebound trips spanned a longer time frame. The same extra services ran on Friday while Transit completed work on relaying a cable along Mana Esplanade. Transit spokeswoman Michelle Williams said Tranz Rail was aware of the public notice because it contacted Transit on Tuesday, but in future Transit would officially notify the rail company in advance. Miss Williams said Transit did not expect such a good response from the public. “We didn’t know how many commuters would respond to the public notice and radio advertising — it’s great that so many people responded,” she said. “The reduction in traffic on State Highway 1 meant traffic was clear at Mana by 8.15am.” Greater Wellington regional council passenger transport committee chairman Chris Turver said Tranz Rail had to be congratulated on an outstanding performance. “The incident showed how stretched the Wellington region is for commuter rolling stock and how vulnerable the region is to even the slightest change in commuter patterns.”

Kyushu bullet train fires blanks

The Japan Times March 28, 2004 The campaign billboard outside JR Kumamoto Station exhorted, “Make our dreams come true — a shinkansen for Kyushu.” After years of planning, the 126-km-long section of the new line between Kagoshima and Yatsushiro cities began running March 13. But for many local residents, asserts author Manabu Tateyama in Shukan Kinyobi, the two-week-old Kyushu Shinkansen is already turning out to be a noisy, debt-ridden nightmare. The original Tokaido Shinkansen, linking Tokyo and Osaka, initiated a new era of high-speed rail service in October 1964. Safe, efficient and profitable, its success became synonymous with Japan’s emergence as an economic giant. It’s only natural for Kyushu to desire a more modern rail service too. Conventional expresses from Hakata and Kagoshima now take three hours and 40 minutes. The new line, when completed in 2012, will cut the 300-km journey to two hours and 10 minutes. But on second thought, does rural, agrarian Kyushu really require such speed? Or the noise that comes with it? Yatsushiro City salaryman Takeo Shiroyama doesn’t think so. His home is situated just 4.38 meters below the elevated trestle. Above which, 64 times a day, expresses traveling at speeds of up to 260 kph will almost certainly exceed the permissible noise standard of 70 decibels — despite initial pledges to keep the noise level as low as possible. Yet Shiroyama may consider himself fortunate. The homes of other individuals near Minamata City are situated as little as 60 cm from the new line, a situation that prompted Hosei University professor Harutoshi Funabashi to write in his September 2001 report on rail pollution: “Despite it being a ‘21st-century shinkansen,’ the measures for dealing with noise pollution have regressed to the way things were in the 1960s. … It is extremely regrettable for such serious pollution to occur so extensively.” Even more dismal than noise pollution, perhaps, is the new line’s economic prospects, as the public-private consortium carries a whopping Yen 1.43 trillion price tag. While some of the funding comes from the national treasury, an editorial in the Kumamoto Nichinichi Shimbun pointed out the cost to the prefecture’s residents (not including building new roads, etc., serving the stations) will reach Yen 112 billion. Socialist assembly member Tadashi Iwanaka has estimated that the new railway will cost as much as Yen 620,000 for every man, woman and child in Kumamoto. It would have made far more sense, notes Shukan Kinyobi, to adopt the “mini shinkansen” approach, with a smaller, narrow-gauge train that could utilize the existing rail line — like the type currently operating between Tokyo and Akita/Yamagata. Whose adoption would have saved Yen 7.9 billion for each minute of travel time on the new line. So, then, what’s the explanation for this costly project? The usual pork-barrel politics. Between 1995 and 2001, construction companies made more than Yen 1 billion in contributions to at least eight influential politicians and the LDP party machine in Kumamoto. The construction firms also sweetened the pot through the amakudari system, providing cushy postretirement jobs for least a dozen former bureaucrats. “My research left me convinced,” concludes Tateyama, “that the Kyushu shinkansen affords zero advantages to the locals, either in terms of travel convenience or economic stimulation. It is, in fact, nothing more than a rail line aimed at serving vested interests.”

Southland Debates the Merits of Magnetic Levitation

Los Angeles Times March 30, 2004 High-speed technology for trains is a temptation for transit planners, but the cost and other issues make for plenty of detractors too. The vision is too tempting for many transportation planners to resist: sleek, high-tech trains slipping silently across the landscape at 200 mph. Governments in Maryland, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have debated for years whether trains that use “magnetic levitation” are the answer to their transportation problems. In California, the technology has been considered for various high-speed rail projects — most recently a proposed line that would whisk travelers from Los Angeles to Ontario International Airport. Gliding inches above their tracks, so-called maglev trains move quickly and quietly. Many transit planners say the trains would be attractive enough to draw Southern Californians out of their cars at a time when traffic congestion threatens to overwhelm the region. But skeptics wonder why the idea keeps coming up. Like supersonic passenger airline service, it’s a form of transit that has been technologically feasible for decades but has yet to become economically viable. Maglev rail lines could cost $80 million a mile to build and have yet to be tested on a large scale. Tom Rubin, a transportation consultant and former chief financial officer for the Southern California Rapid Transit District, compares maglev rail to the recently abandoned Concorde supersonic jetliner, which “just did not make commercial sense — and there were too many other problems with it.” “That’s an unbelievable quantity of money that would never be justified,” said another skeptic, Michael McNally, a civil engineering professor at UC Irvine. Zahi Faranesh, who studies transportation as the maglev program manager for the Southern California Assn. of Governments, disagrees, arguing that the speed and comfort of magnetic levitation would lure passengers who might not consider conventional trains. “You have to look to the future,” Faranesh said. “This is what you’re going to see in all the big urban areas.” Maglev trains run on tracks, called guideways, lined with metal coils. The coils create a magnetic field that pulls the train along at speeds as high as 300 mph. If the trains were ever brought to Southern California, they would probably run between 100 and 200 mph. The magnetic field causes the train to levitate above the track anywhere between half an inch and nearly four inches, depending on the type of guideway. The train moves almost silently because there is little friction and no conventional engine aboard. The maglev train was developed in the 1960s by Transrapid International, a joint venture of three German companies. Several test tracks and trains, some that carried passengers, were built in the 1970s. By 1990, more than 220,000 visitors had paid to ride the trains. But ridership wasn’t high enough to persuade German companies to develop the technology for commercial use. Japan built a test track in the 1960s, and engineers there continue to improve on the technology. With passengers on board, a Japanese maglev train reached 360 mph in December. The first attempt at commercial use of maglev technology was an 18-mile test track a German company, under Chinese government contract, built from Shanghai to Pudong International Airport, beginning in 2001. After three years of construction and testing, commercial passenger service began at the beginning of this year, but ended just two weeks later. Chinese officials, citing low ridership, the high cost of expansion and problems integrating the system with conventional rail, decided to abandon the project. In the United States, maglev trains have been proposed in Maryland since the early 1990s as part of a plan to serve commuters between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Pittsburgh is also considering a maglev rail line to run throughout the city. Future extensions would go to Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Maglev trains have been considered several times in California — for high-speed lines running from Southern to Northern California, from Orange County to Las Vegas and, most recently, from Los Angeles to Ontario International Airport as a way to relieve congestion at LAX. Surveys suggest that Southern California’s population will grow by more than 6 million by 2030, and that will only mean more traffic. Los Angeles International Airport is already overcrowded and, says Faranesh, the way we use transportation must change. Metrolink, the region’s conventional commuter rail system, “is not getting people out of their cars” in sufficient numbers, Faranesh said. That’s where maglev comes in. “You want to attract people with the speed, because time is money,” he said. “That’s one of the benefits of maglev: You can go fast. It has less noise and less pollution.” The Southern California Assn. of Governments says the initial system, running from West Los Angeles to Ontario Airport with stops at L.A.’s Union Station and in West Covina, would cost an estimated $5 billion, to be raised from private investors, and open by 2018. Future extensions could reach LAX, Palmdale and Orange County. But critics say a maglev train line doesn’t make sense over such a relatively short distance. “If you want to have high speeds, you have to have a very low number of stops,” Rubin said. “And if you have a low number of stops, that means you don’t have that many people who are close by who can just walk or easily get to a place where they can catch it. You look at the total travel time and the advantages start falling apart.” Brian Taylor, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA, agrees that maglev is not a cost-effective solution for Southern California. He said the situation is different in the Northeast Corridor, where hundreds of trains travel from Boston to Washington every day to serve the millions of people living in the region. “Certain high-tech solutions have kind of an allure, and some of them can be practical in certain situations,” Taylor said. But — at least in the case of Southern California — maglev may not be one of them. “Maglev is a solution in search of a problem,” Taylor said. “Does it fit the particular problem that we’ve identified?”

THE NEXT MONORAIL STOP: CITY COUNCIL BOARD OKS 14-MILE ROUTE THAT INCLUDES PATH THROUGH SEATTLE CENTER

THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER March 30, 2004 Seattle’s new monorail moved closer to becoming a reality yesterday after its development agency approved a long-discussed 14-mile corridor that included a controversial turn through the Seattle Center. The project, narrowly approved by city voters in 2002, now must clear the City Council and pass perhaps the ultimate test: finding out whether it can be built for the more conservative cost of $1.6 billion. “Two more steps,” said Seattle Monorail Project board chairman Tom Weeks. “This is a moment to celebrate.” The corridor is largely the one discussed for the past two years, extending from Crown Hill south through Ballard, Interbay, Queen Anne, downtown and across the Duwamish River to West Seattle. It would cross the Seattle Center campus despite objections from some residents and from producers of major festivals that the 100-foot-long trains would destroy the Center atmosphere and use of space now devoted to events such as Folklife and Bumbershoot. The old Monorail, built for the 1962 World’s Fair, would be removed. The crossing was discussed at length two years ago but was left out of a ballot measure approved by voters, largely at the urging of Mayor Greg Nickels, who Weeks said wanted more buy-off from Center neighbors. Geof Logan, a member of an opposing group Save Seattle Center, called the move “dishonest” and “avoiding public debate” during comments before last night’s decision. Board members rejected a request by Second Avenue business owners to locate the track farther from their buildings to provide 14 feet of clearance. Instead, the board approved 9 feet of clearance, saying that moving it farther out would have resulted in several years of tearing up the street and $32 million in utility-relocation costs. They also changed the corridor to include a hard right turn from Third Avenue west along Lander Street, replacing a gentler diagonal turn that would have required taking out at least one business. They also agreed to move part of the route on Avalon Way to the east side of the street, as requested for safety reasons by nearby businesses. They approved a key West Seattle station near the Nucor Steel plant, as they said most community residents had asked. Next stop for the new line is the City Council, which also must approve the alignment as well as conditions it may want to attach. Nickels’ administration expects to submit a package of conditions to the council by mid-April. Key issues include how well the monorail will connect with Metro bus routes and to Sound Transit’s light rail system, said Ethan Malone, the city’s monorail program manager. The city also may set conditions for monorail construction work, which will require closing streets as the work progresses. A larger question centers on costs. Bids are due June 15 from two teams of monorail builders who will complete the final design details, build the system and operate it and maintain it once it’s complete. The monorail agency wants to award bids for the system and even start construction late this year. It is shooting to have the first segment of the system, between Interbay and Stewart Street, operating by December 2007. It hopes to have the remaining segments open and operating by 2009. But a 30 percent shortfall in revenue from a special motor vehicle excise tax has forced changes in the original design concept and has many people worried that the project isn’t feasible. From an original estimate of $1.75 billion, staffers have more recently worked toward a system costing $1.6 billion. Ends of the altered system will use single rails instead of the two-rail setup called for in the original plan. That will require the slowing of trains and switching them to the side as they approach each other on single-rail segments. That has led some critics to say the system isn’t the one voters approved in 2002. One group, calling itself Monorail Recall, is considering a petition drive to conduct a revote on the system. Monorail officials such as board member Cleve Stockmeyer said, considering the seven-year effort that got the monorail approved by voters and brought this far along, “we haven’t been rushing into anything.”

Toronto marks subway’s 50th birthday with $1 billion gift, cake and crowds

The Canadian Press (CP March 30, 2004 TORONTO (CP) _ A $1-billion gift, balloons and a giant cake for thousands of well-wishers that included Prime Minister Paul Martin were among the festivities Tuesday as Canada’s largest city celebrated the 50th birthday of the country’s first subway train. It was an unabashed small-town-style party that included a train ride commemorating the opening of a system that Martin said had become critical to both the health of the city and of its residents. “Having a subway like Toronto’s is vital,’’ Martin told scores of Toronto Transit Commission staff and politicians gathered at a downtown bus-maintenance facility. “It keeps the heart of Toronto’s economic, cultural and social life alive and throbbing.’’ Martin and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty arrived with a gift of sorts for the TTC — a promise of their share of $70 million a year over five years to keep the subway, buses and streetcars running. The money, to be paid equally by Ottawa, Ontario and Toronto, is the largest federal-provincial investment ever in municipal transit but still falls millions of dollars short of what the system needs. In fact, riders who now pay $2.25 for a single cash fare could still be hit with another quarter increase to help make ends meet. Still, the announcement clearly delighted those on hand, including the commission’s chairman, Howard Moscoe, who has frequently criticized upper levels of government for the lack of support for the transit system. “This is a warm, fuzzy group-hug day,’’ gushed Moscoe, while Mayor David Miller called it a “historic day’’ and McGuinty said it was “revolutionary’’ that senior levels of government had recognized that cities are “where it’s at.’’ The Canadian Urban Transit Association called the new partnership between the three levels of government “great news for the future of transit in Canada’’ but warned it was just a first step. The money will go toward the purchase of new equipment, including environmentally friendly buses, and to other improvements. It’s a concrete sign of his promised “new deal’’ for cities, not part of a pre-election spending spree, said Martin, who was repeatedly applauded by the assembled employees. In lieu of loot bags, Martin and McGuinty were both presented with red TTC ties. After Martin left, McGuinty, Miller and a host of other dignitaries boarded a subway train decked out with festive rosettes for a 12-stop ride from what was once the end of the line _ but is now just a mid-town stop _ to historic Union Station. There, thousands of people jammed the cavernous main hall decked with balloons and ribbons to listen to speeches, get a sneak preview of a new subway-themed 49-cent stamp and eat some birthday cake. There was also a minute’s silence for those who lost their lives building the subway system. Today, the city’s transit system moves an average of 1.3 million people a day on equipment in perennial need of repair and upgrade. After touring the facility, with its giant diesel motors, spare parts and buses on hoists, McGuinty commended the transit workers who “nurse these older machines along far past their expected life expectancy.’’

TTC’s birthday envelope too thin

The Toronto Star March 31, 2004 The great crowd of people took the great little transit system yesterday to the great hall at great Union Station for the great 50th birthday party of the great Yonge St. subway, and one couldn’t help but think how we’d ever find the words to describe our world if we had the money to sustain this greatness. But the mayor and Premier and pipe bands and smartly dressed artsy kids and transit veterans and trolley huggers and a mass of transit lovers had congregated to celebrate, not cast aspersions. So, just the facts on this “unprecedented,” “new spirit of co-operation” announcement of $1 billion in funding for the maintenance and construction budget of the Toronto Transit Commission: One: PM Paul Martin, Premier Dalton McGuinty and Mayor David Miller yesterday pledged $350 million each to the TTC over five years, or $70 million each per year for five years. Compare this to 2001, when then premier Mike Harris and former mayor Mel Lastman agreed to $100 million a year for 10 years and asked Ottawa to join. Ottawa has finally responded and the amount is one-third of what was expected — and committed for five years only. Two: The TTC’s maintenance needs amount to almost $400 million a year for 10 years (or $4 billion). Yesterday’s announcement totals $210 million per year for five years (or about $1 billion). Three: Actually, the TTC won’t be getting all of the $1 billion. One condition of the grants is that $140 million will go toward an “integrated ticketing system” that allows transit users across the GTA to swipe a card as they glide through a detector on to transit vehicles. This spending is not a priority for the TTC, but “the province was adamant about keeping it in,” city sources say. Four: About 80 per cent of the money announced will go toward the TTC’s top priority projects, essentially keeping the system up and running. The rest will go toward projects the other governments insisted on. Five: The money may not come as quickly as anticipated. Officials with the three governments are haggling this minute about how soon the funds will be released. For example, current federal government rules would see only about $20 million of the $70 million get to the TTC this year. Six: One condition placed on the release of funds calls for the TTC to purchase cleaner-burning hybrid buses (diesel and electric). There are not enough of these in production to fill the TTC’s order. No hybrid purchase, no money — unless the rules are relaxed. Seven: Almost $400 million of the money announced is to fund three items: the hybrid buses, and two expansion projects not on the TTC’s priority list: bus rapid transit exclusive lanes along Yonge St. from Finch to Steeles Aves; and the same from Downsview station to York University. Eight: It could have been worse. Earlier conditions placed on the funding agreement went as far as to identify pet projects the governments wanted, such as, inexplicably, a bus lane along Dufferin St. Saner heads prevailed. Nine: Not a penny of the announcement goes toward the annual operating budget of the TTC. The city is the only government contributing to it — at 17 per cent of the costs. Commuters will be hit with a 10-cent fare hike next month. Ten: On top of its maintenance costs, the TTC estimates it would cost another $4 billion to build the needed expansions out to York University and the Scarborough Town Centre, subway projects that would see the city’s subway map approach the greatness liberally tossed around yesterday. Of course, no funding was announced for these projects. Great city. Great transit. Great golden anniversary party in Union Station’s Great Hall. So-so announcement. But this was no day to quibble. Still, I couldn’t eat any of the birthday cake. Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email rjames @ thestar

Holding SMP feet to the fire

Queen Anne News March 31, 2004 OnTrack, a citywide group of Seattle citizens and businesspeople concerned about accountability on the monorail, recently filed an appeal of the Monorail Project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the grounds that it inadequately describes and addresses the impacts of the Green Line on Seattle’s neighborhoods. In addition to spotlighting inadequacies in the analysis, OnTrack’s appeal cites haste in Monorail decision-making process that has prevented the EIS from serving the purpose intended under state law. The project already is suffering a 30-percent shortfall in revenue. OnTrack is concerned that haste and an inadequate environmental analysis could lead to other similar or more far-reaching problems. “We are using the appeals process set up by the Monorail Authority because it is important to have an impact statement that decision-makers like the city council can use to make sound decisions,” said Don Wise, co- chair of OnTrack. “The current EIS has very serious shortcomings and can’t serve this purpose. While it is obvious that a lot of time and effort went into the EIS, it still sidesteps many of the difficult issues.” According to Wise, critical issues lacking sufficient analysis include parking in the neighborhoods, station design as well as the impact of the monorail on Metro and Metro bus riders. There are no plans for parking lots or garages around stations, he added, meaning that monorail riders choosing to drive to Ballard or West Seattle will have to park on congested residential streets. Wise said that the organization also is concerned that station design is left entirely up to contractors and there is no requirement for promised neighborhood input. There is also no agreement with Metro on fares or feeder bus service, he added, which could take service away from other neighborhoods. “The EIS is more than a formality,” Wise said. “It’s a crucial document that should help protect Seattle citizens and businesses from harmful impacts. Or if they are unavoidable, it should tell how the monorail will pay for them. If the monorail doesn’t pay the costs, Seattle taxpayers will have to pay.” In addition to holding the Seattle Monorail Project accountable, the EIS is intended to guide the city as it considers the monorail’s right-of-way. The city council soon will take up this issue and has pledged to ensure that the monorail has enough money to be built and to pay for the full costs of the project. The Monorail’s EIS is insufficient to provide this guidance, making further environmental analysis essential before decisions are finally made, OnTrack’s appeal states. OnTrack’s appeal also identifies what OnTrack sees as serious flaws in the decision-making process. “The Monorail staff made their final recommendations on route and stations before they even had the final EIS and could consider all the impacts,” Wise said. “Those of us who wanted to comment on these recom-mendations had our opportunity at a corridor hearing fully a month before we could look at the EIS. Now the Monorail Board is scheduled to approve the project with just over two weeks for the board and the public to look at the six-volume EIS.” If the appeal should succeed, a new environmental impact statement would be required, along with another chance for public comment, Wise said.

Campaign Goes After Rail Safety Violators ; The CHP is cracking down on motorists and pedestrians in Ventura County who behave recklessly near the tracks.

Los Angeles Times March 31, 2004 Seeking to promote rail safety, California Highway Patrol officers joined rail operators Tuesday in a crackdown on motorists and pedestrians in Ventura County who ignore rail-related traffic laws. Using half a dozen patrol cars at several at-grade crossings between Oxnard and Moorpark, officers wrote a dozen citations, gave five verbal warnings and reported an additional 25 traffic violations. The Officer-on-a-Train program, which continues today in Santa Barbara and Thursday in Moorpark, was sponsored by rail operators and Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit national organization founded to promote rail safety and reduce accidents. “This is our first time participating in this program,” said CHP Sgt. Mike Cooper. “The goal is not to just write citations, but to educate.” From 1998 to 2003, three motorists or their passengers died in a total of 20 crashes involving trains and vehicles in Ventura County, according to CHP Officer Steve Reid. Another eight people were injured in those incidents, which do not include train accidents involving pedestrians. The latest accident occurred Monday evening when a female motorist driving through a crossing was struck by a Metrolink commuter train at Sycamore Drive in Simi Valley. So far this year, at least three Ventura County pedestrians have died in train accidents: A 49-year-old Oxnard farm worker was killed Feb. 11 while crossing the tracks at 5th Street; a 43-year-old Simi Valley man was killed Feb. 17 at a Los Angeles Avenue crossing after he was struck by shopping carts being dragged by a freight train; and a 15-year-old Ventura High School student was killed March 13 when she stepped in front of a train at Seaward Avenue. Officials said their intent was to alert pedestrians and motorists to the dangers of rail crossings and to make them act with more caution. “Please understand that to be anywhere on or near the tracks is illegal. It’s dangerous and it’s illegal,” Metrolink spokeswoman Sharon Gavin said before a morning news conference to introduce the program. “You can pay with a fine, or you can pay with your life.” During Tuesday’s exercise, a Dallas truck driver was given a $275 citation after failing to allow enough time for her 18-wheeler to get through the crossing at Rice Avenue in Oxnard. The arms of the intersection’s crossing gates bumped the rear of her trailer and two patrol cars pulled the rig over within minutes. Authorities said they wanted to encourage safety throughout the region. In neighboring Santa Barbara County, there have been five pedestrian-train deaths in recent months, according to Eric Jacobsen, president of California Operation Lifesaver, who is attending this week’s events. Operation Lifesaver officials believe that federal statistics show their method is working. The number of crossing accidents nationwide has dropped by nearly 75% since the organization was formed in Idaho 32 years ago. In 1972 there were approximately 12,000 collisions between trains and motor vehicles; the figure dropped to 3,072 in 2002. In 2002, the most recent year for which national figures are available, California led the nation in train-pedestrian fatalities, with 90 people killed. The state came in second, after Texas, in train-vehicle fatalities, with 30. Operation Lifesaver provides safety tips for motorists and pedestrians on its website, www.operationlifesaver.com. In Moorpark, Mayor Patrick Hunter sees this week’s Officer-on-a-Train event as part of a larger rail-safety education campaign for his city. Moorpark was the scene of four train collisions last year — one fatal — after two years of no such accidents. “The mission is simple: the total elimination of train incidents in the city of Moorpark,” Hunter said. The mayor and senior city staffers met with Metrolink officials last month to discuss ways to raise awareness and reduce accidents. The mayor wants the city’s law enforcement officials to get the safety message out to students. Ventura County Sheriff’s Capt. Richard Diaz, who serves as Moorpark’s police chief, said more attention was being paid to rail-related violations. He said a dozen citations have been issued since Jan. 1. Metrolink has agreed to study whether its trains, which travel up to 70 mph through some sections of Moorpark, should slow down, Hunter said. Jacobsen, who with his wife Bonnie coordinates Operation Lifesaver programs throughout the state, said he wasn’t sure lower speed would reduce accidents. Surprisingly, statistics suggest just the opposite, he said: Higher train speeds seem to result in fewer collisions with vehicles, perhaps because commuters aren’t held up as long at crossings. Nevertheless, Union Pacific spokesman John Bromley said impatient motorists often think they can beat a train, putting themselves and others at risk. “People have a hard time calculating the speed of oncoming trains,” he said. Bromley said the “forgotten victims” in rail deaths, either accidental or those resulting from suicide, were the train’s crew members, who must deal with the emotional trauma. Jacobsen, who retired as a captain for Southern Pacific’s police division after 24 years, said nearly every veteran engineer has witnessed at least one fatality or major injury on the job.

BART abandons daily parking fees

Tri-Valley Herald (Pleasanton, CA) March 31, 2004 In an effort to attract riders, BART has abandoned a failed experiment to charge people to park each day at the new stations on the Peninsula. BART and SamTrans, putting aside their recent differences over debts from operating the extension to San Francisco International Airport, issued a joint statement Tuesday that the fees for unreserved parking will be “suspended indefinitely” next Monday. For the rest of this week only, passengers will pay $1 a day to park at South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae stations. BART will also discontinue on Monday the $20 monthly pass for unreserved slots. A reserved space will continue to cost $30 a month, reflecting the 50 percent reduction that went into effect last November. “We’re hopeful that the free daily parking will provide an added incentive to help reach and attract the new line’s potential market,” said BART General Manager Tom Margro. Currently, 25,500 passengers ride the $1.6 billion line that opened last June, barely more than half the expected number. Only the SFO station has come close to projections. Millbrae Station, which shares platforms with Caltrain, has only attracted a third of the commuters expected to take advantage of the BART’s first cross-platform transfer point. BART has pointed out that it carries as many daily riders after nine months as the decades-old Caltrain line serves. Sparse ridership on BART, though, has been at the heart of a nasty and noisy public fight between BART and SamTrans this month. BART threatened to sue SamTrans to recover the $11 million in operating subsidies BART says it is owed, a move SamTrans officials called a low-point in statesmanship. BART said SamTrans was reneging on a contract, and SamTrans said BART had misled the public about ridership expectations, causing a $22 million annual operating shortfall on the extension. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is mediating the dispute. Meanwhile, Tuesday’s announcement is just the latest adjustment to BART’s parking fee program, one which the elected board created in 2002 with tepid enthusiasm after months of debate. At its last meeting BART authorized Margro to set parking fees as he sees fit. “It was always envisioned as an experimental program to test the market place,” BART Spokesman Mike Healy said.

KORAIL Developing Next-Generation Train

Korea Times March 31, 2004 With the opening of the new high-speed bullet train service to the public on Thursday, a total of 46 train-sets will be introduced in the country to transport hundreds of thousands of passengers daily. Although the first 12 KTX trains were manufactured by Alstom of France, the manufacturer of the renowned TGV train, and imported into the country, the remaining 34 train-sets were assembled locally, based on technology transferred from the French manufacturer. As part of efforts to enable local production of the bullet trains, the Korean National Railroad and related companies sent a total of 1,227 engineers to foreign countries to be trained on the technical transfer, while placing foreign engineers in manufacturing companies for guiding manufacturing and testing processes. As a result, the country is now more than 94 percent self-sufficient in manufacturing the high-speed bullet trains with improved and more refined features. Starting with the KTX No. 13, the first bullet train to be manufactured with Korea’s unique factors taken into account, those high-speed trains manufactured by the country, named G7, are equipped with a propulsion system with an 18,000-horsepower traction force that is 1.5 times stronger than that of the existing French TGV. The Korean-manufactured bullets trains are also built to sustain the harsh operational environment of the country. G7s possess cold resistance that will allow normal operation at temperatures as low as minus 20 degrees Celsius. Also, passenger cars are linked by an articulated bogie system that would prevent trailer cars from getting knocked over by one another or being detached. Local production of the bullet trains has also seen dramatic improvements in its safety features. The local manufacturer of KTX adopted a triple-braking system to ensure a safer stop at any given time or place. The driving watch system or the ‘’sleep watch system’’ put inside the driver’s cabin will automatically stop the vehicle when the driver’s movement is not detected for more than five seconds, which would make it virtually accident-free even when a tired driver may doze off. The honeycomb-shaped shock absorbers installed at the front of the train will also minimize vehicle damage while ensuring maximum passenger safety as it is designed to withstand a shock from a direct crash with a 700-kilogram object at the speed of 300 kilometers per hour. While expanding the safety of passengers for a more comfortable ride, the local production of the high-speed trains has also brought some significant changes that would make its South Korean model more competitive in the international market over that of its original manufacturer. Although a train-set usually comes with a total of 20 carriages consisting two locomotives, two motors cars and 16 passenger trailers, the KTX can have 20, 18 or 16 carriages, depending on passenger demand.

Bullet Train Starts Service Thursday

Korea Times March 31, 2004 The Korea National Railroad on Tuesday held a ceremony to mark the opening of the new high-speed bullet train service. More than 1,800 people and top government officials including Acting President Goh Kun and the Minister of Construction and transportation Kang Dong-suk gathered in front of Seoul Station to celebrate the opening of the Korea Train Express (KTX). ‘’I hope the opening of the Kyongbu high-speed railway will be a moment for the country to move toward a new South Korea and an era of per capital GDP (gross domestic product) of $20,000,’’ Goh said in a congratulatory address. “The high-speed railroad is a symbol of the national competitiveness and economic prosperity we will achieve in the 21st century,’’ Goh said. The train is expected to spur revolutionary changes of speed in the ways South Koreans live and travel, he added. KTX trains will make 128 trips along two routes, the Kyongbu and the Honam lines. The Kyongbu will run from Seoul to Pusan, and the Honam will travel from Seoul to Mokpo. They are projected to transport more than 100,000 daily passengers. The bullet train reduces travel time from Seoul to Pusan from four hours and 10 minutes to two hours and 40 minutes and spans 3,129 kilometers along the peninsula. It is based on the French model “Train a Grande Vitesse” (TGV) and other types of high-speed trains that also have been used by Spain, Germany and Japan to shorten travel over long stretches of terrain and to lessen traffic congestion. Chong Yong-chul, the director general of the high-speed rail project at Korea National Railroad (KORAIL), recently took one of the trial rides in late April. In Korea, the bullet train will irrevocably change people’s domestic traveling habits, he said. ‘’Sixty percent of domestic airline passengers (20,000 people) may be moving to KTX, and there are three reasons for this,’’ Chong said. ‘’We are faster than the airlines, every airport is located in the outskirts of the city, but our station is at the center of Seoul. The third reason is safety. The train is safer than an airplane.’’ A ride from Seoul to Pusan on the bullet train is also cheaper. A one-way ticket to Pusan from Seoul on Asiana Airlines is between 59,000 and 62,000 won. The same trip on the bullet train costs 45,000 won. >From April 20 to 22, though, trial ride tickets were free of charge, and Yoo Seong-eun, a student at the Information and Communication University in Taejon, maximized on the deal. Yoo took the bullet train twice. ‘’I really wanted to experience the high-speed train. The drawing power is different. The traditional train uses oil, and this one uses electrical power,’’ Yoo said, emphasizing that fuel emissions would help preserve the nation’s environment. Officials tout the bullet train as energy efficient, estimating that the train saves the operation of 33,000 cars and 8,000 buses per day and its capacity is comparable to four new expressways constructed between Seoul and Pusan. Authorities also say it will not only reduce fuel emissions; it will also diminish the amount spent on logistics distribution, which KORAIL officials project cost the country 100 trillion won a year, about 16 percent of Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP), according to Kim Se-ho, chief of KORAIL. Forty-six KTX trainsets will go into operation; each will have 20 cars that together will seat up to 935 people. If travelers beeline to KTX as KORAIL officials suggest, the number of train passengers will climb to 500,000 to 600,000 from the present 180,000. Hong Seung-ki, a student who took one of the free trial rides at the end of the month, said he would be among those regularly traveling aboard the bullet train from Seoul to Taejon. For him, a KTX car almost serves as a library. ‘’It is very convenient for studying,’’ Hong said, pulling up the tray table attached to the back of the seat in front of him. ‘’It is much better than the previous trains, where it is much more difficult to write.’’ The subdued atmosphere is a result of KTX’s air suspension system, which KORAIL director Park Kwang-soo says is even better than other TGV models. A computer-controlled air flap maintains the air pressure inside each car, reducing the amount of ear popping passengers may feel as they shuttle through tunnels and over hills. KTX will operate on two lines. The Honam line will start in Seoul and will make five stops before reaching Mokpo in the south, while the Kyongbu line will make four stops before arriving at Pusan. The construction of the bullet train did not come without obstacles. It was delayed by partisan wrangling in 1993 when some politicians pledged to cancel the project and was slowed again after some questioned whether it could maneuver the nation’s tunnels and bridges. After WJE, a U.S.-based safety consultancy, assessed the project, construction resumed in the late 1990s. The second leg of construction of the Kyongbu line is in the works, and officials project travel from Seoul to Pusan will be further reduced to one hour and 56 minutes by 2010. KORAIL’s director Chong also said the company has plans to link up with Trans-China Rail and Trans-Siberia Rail. That is, if South and North Korea are connected again in the future.

Kyushu Shinkansen beats forecast for initial passenger numbers

The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) March 31, 2004 The Kyushu Shinkansen line has been seeing higher-than-expected passenger numbers since it began operation March 13. The new bullet train service runs between Shin-Yatsushiro Station in Yatsushiro, Kumamoto Prefecture, and Kagoshima Chuo Station in Kagoshima. Although it will probably be sometime between fiscal 2010 and 2012 before the line is extended to Hakata in Fukuoka Prefecture, the launch of the new service already has reduced travel time between Hakata and Kagoshima Chuo stations from 220 minutes to 130 minutes with one change of train at Shin-Yatsushiro Station. In the 10 days since the service began, the number of passengers traveling between Kagoshima Chuo and Sendai stations on the Shinkansen totaled 96,000, Kyushu Railway Co. said. That was a 120 percent increase on the number of passengers who traveled the same route using the old express line during the same period last year and far more than the company’s predicted gain of 30 percent. When the Tohoku Shinkansen line between Morioka and Hachinohe in Aomori Prefecture opened in December 2002, passenger numbers rose by 155 percent over the first eight days compared with the number of passengers who used express trains on the same route a year earlier. A year on, passengers numbers have held at the new, higher level and experts predict the same will be true for the new Shinkansen line in Kyushu. “We expect passenger numbers to rise since it’s now the spring vacation,” JR Kyushu President Susumu Ishihara said. Some tourist spots in southern Kyushu are seeing a positive impact from the Shinkansen service. Many hotels in Ibusuki, Kagoshima Prefecture, known for their natural sand baths, are fully booked even on weekdays. “This isn’t a surprise because we’ve more than doubled the number of train services to and from Fukuoka and they’re far quicker than before. We expect the number of travelers to remain at high levels,” an official of Japan Travel Bureau’s Kagoshima Branch said. Others are more pessimistic, however. “It’s wrong to compare the Kyushu Shinkansen with the situation in Hachinohe, which has a direct link to the Tokyo metropolitan area. Passenger numbers will drop from autumn when people lose interest in the new service,” a local business leader said. So far, businesses in smaller towns say the new service does not seem to be luring shoppers to the big cities in the region. However, competition among retailers in the Tenjin entertainment district of Fukuoka is rising after Iwataya, a department store in the Isetan Co. group, opened its new building in the district in early March. Some department stores in Fukuoka have been distributing flyers with newspapers in Kagoshima, assuming that the city is now in their catchment area. “Customers will definitely favor department stores in larger cities. We must raise our competitiveness otherwise our stores will be abandoned by Kagoshima shoppers,” the president of one Kagoshima department store said. Competition among public transport operators also is expected to rise. Seat occupancy for flights between Fukuoka and Kagoshima fell from 71 percent to 49 percent following the launch of the Shinkansen service. On the other hand, sales campaigns luring tourists from the Tokyo metropolitan area to tours in southern Kyushu using the Shinkansen line pushed up passenger numbers on Haneda-Kagoshima flights for budget carrier Skymark Airlines, a favorite among young travelers. Although many problems remain, such as the inadequacy of some tourist facilities and public transport networks in Kyushu, analysts say the Shinkansen should help drive growth in the region. They are confident the new services will combine with the region’s existing attractions to lure travelers. “The recent popularity of pure shochu spirits and kurobuta pork originated in southern Kyushu — the only region that has developed food brands big enough to contribute to the local economy,” an official of the Development Bank of Japan’s southern Kyushu branch said. It is too early to determine the true economic impact of the Shinkansen line in linking cities around the region, or to say whether the increase in tourists will boost the economy or if consumers will concentrate in bigger cities to the detriment of smaller ones. It will be extremely interesting to watch the impact on one of the nation’s most colorful regions.

Monorail Finance Director Jonathan Buchter Answers the Tough Questions

TheStranger.com Vol 13 No. 29, Apr 1 — Apr 7 2004 Three months have passed since Daniel Malarkey — the Seattle Monorail Project employee perhaps most responsible for the agency’s 30 percent tax revenue shortfall — stepped down as finance director. Since then, the SMP has worked to regain its financial credibility under its new finance director, Jonathan Buchter, an attorney who for several decades advised agencies working on public projects, including a $1.5 billion school financing program, in Ohio. Most recently, Buchter was an associate general counsel for the SMP. How have you dealt with the revenue shortfall? Can we afford to pay for this project? [SMP consultant] ECONorthwest did a study that showed we have an annual average growth in the value of our tax base [the value of all the cars in Seattle] over the next 30 years of about 6 percent. So if the value of the base is going to go up, then our revenue is going to go up and we will have more than enough money to pay off the bonds in the later years. Our problem is figuring out ways to solve our [short-term] cash-flow problem and to pay back more of the debt in the later years . One of the tools you can use is zero-coupon bonds: bonds that don’t bear any current interest, but you have a higher rate later on. If you use that kind of financing, you don’t have any obligation in the early years. [The tradeoff is that] you have a bigger obligation in the later years. What about critics’ concerns about extending the tax to 40 years? Weren’t voters led to believe it would only last 25 to 30 years? The tradition in the financial markets is that bonds can be paid off early — after about 10 years. So when [cash flow overtakes] our debt service, we have a choice to make: Do we lower the tax rate and keep it going, or do we start paying off the bonds? If we left the tax rate at 1.4 percent we could pay it off early and the tax may not go much longer. [On the other hand,] there are some people who suggest that you’re better off lowering the tax rate and keeping it for 40 years. And there’s a whole public-policy theory that suggests you shouldn’t load all of the tax burden on the people that are there when it first gets constructed — that, in fact, extending the tax more fairly distributes the burden [to new residents]. What is the SMP doing to ensure that taxpayers aren’t stuck paying for overruns? One of the big advantages of the DBOM contract [in which a single team designs, builds, operates, and maintains the monorail] is that you have a fixed price, which shifts a lot of the risk onto the contractor. [For example, while the SMP will be responsible for cleaning up unanticipated hazardous waste, the contractor will have to pay for increases in the price of steel.] There is some cost to us, though [in that the contractor will factor additional risk into its final price]. I’m willing to pay that cost to get that certainty. And I would suggest to you that the cheapest monorail that we can build is not what we want. What we want is the best monorail that we can build. Is there any limit on how long the tax can be collected? Our $1.5 billion bond cap is important because it limits how much tax the tax- payers are going to pay. It limits how much I can borrow. So the tax is a function both of how much I have to pay back and how long I have to pay it back. I don’t have a cap on how long the tax can be collected, but I do have a cap on how much. Remember that after 2020 we can only use the [monorail tax] for capital costs. If a piece of the monorail fell down in an earthquake, we could continue to levy the tax to fix that, but if fares are short, I can’t use the tax to cover the fares.

Magnetic Attraction; The L.A. City Council pays the price for ‘maglev,’ an under-tested high-tech train.

Los Angeles Alternative Press March 31 — April 13, 2004 Seven years ago, the respected Scientific American drove its editorial stake through the heart of an elegant, expensive and unproven transport technology. Its page-long piece entitled “Maglev: Racing to Oblivion?” concluded: “Germany and Japan…since the U.S. dropped out in the 1970s, have sunk billions of dollars into maglev [magnetic levitation] research and development. But their efforts have yet to proceed beyond test tracks…It seems increasingly unlikely that the technology will ever compete in any significant way with airplanes, cars or more conventional trains for trips of up to [500 miles].” Since then, one cost-no-object 18-mile maglev line has just gone into operation between Shanghai’s suburbs and its major airport. In the free- market nations of Japan and Germany, however, where the whole thing started, this future has never happened: maglev has been rejected for commercial use. In England, a short airport line was years ago replaced by less-prone-to-breakdown commuter buses. The consensus, as the Scientific American put it, is that high-tech, high-speed rail trains are nearly as fast, more economical and can share trackage with standard rail cars. Instead of regular track, maglev requires an enormously expensive dedicated roadbed set with thousands of tons of wirewound, continuous electromagnets. It needs enormous surges of electricity to power these magnets. But what then happens is seductive: A train weighing hundreds of tons is lifted off the tracks a few centimeters into the air, and shot into the horizontal distance at up to 300 miles per hour. It’s a wonderful idea. But then so is commercial interplanetary flight. Now, in fact, one long-retired L.A. City Council member did once propose that the city get into space commerce with its own earth satellite. This little world was supposed to incarcerate downtown’s inebriated homeless. It would have cost the city over a billion dollars just to shuttle a single inebriate to this space station. One post-dry-out return trip would exhaust the rest of the city’s then $2 billion annual budget. Not such a bright idea, you might say. But at least that notion never made it to a council vote. And maglev, which is only a shade brighter idea than the dipso orbiter, got a unanimous approval the other day. To say the members didn’t do their homework is putting it mildly. Nothing much has changed technologically since the Scientific American tossed dirt on maglev’s grave. After 35 years and many billions in research, maglev technology now carries a total of about 1,000 passengers every working day (more on weekends) at $9 a head to Shanghai’s Pudong airport. At this rate, it will take nearly 270 years to pay the line’s cost of $1.2 billion. This simple math is why China’s since canceled all its other maglev projects. So have Japan and Germany, where the technology originated and where most of the research money was spent. Hence, Thyssen- Krupp, the behemoth German firm that’s poured the most billions down this technological rat hole, is still desperately questing for customers — or perhaps, one might say, suckers — to ease its mighty maglev deficit. But maglev, despite the lure of a standing $900 million federal grant offer to build a test line, remains a tough sale to most U.S. regional transit and environmental agencies. Who have mostly turned their backs on the costly, under-tested system in favor of cheaper and more practical wheeled high-speed rail proposals that would follow extant routes such as our local Metro Link lines. Until the Southern California Association of Governments came along. In case you hadn’t heard, SCAG is the taxpayer-subsidized planning agency for this six-county area of 18 million residents. It employs 175 people, but one MTA critic claims, “They are all planners, not engineers.” Yet it managed to persuade the City Council to vote a $530,000 down payment to study an engineering-intensive $50 billion maglev line from West L.A. to Ontario Airport in San Bernardino. This is only the beginning of what SCAG could collect to research, perhaps even administer, this boondoggle. The City Council did little or no research before committing this public money. They didn’t listen to the opposition from local transit advocates, nor from the state and local rail authorities. Instead, they believed SCAG’s three dubious key promises. Whose questionability was not surprising, considering SCAG’s shall-we-say-colorful recent history, which notoriously includes the reviled and fizzled plan for the El Toro airport. But there’s more. According to the May 2, 2002 LA Times, SCAG “has been designated a ‘high-risk’ recipient of state and federal funds after government auditors found a history of financial and other internal problems. …Caltrans officials assigned the high-risk rating…after a team of auditors examined the association’s use of state and federal grants during the years 1998 to 2000. The audit…found ‘material weaknesses’ in the association’s accounting system, purchasing processes and internal controls. Auditors also suggested that the agency may have used state and federal grants for purposes other than those for which they were intended.” The Times notes that SCAG also stiffed creditors to the tune of $2.2 million and even bounced some checks. Most interestingly, in re its rail project experience, “[T]he construction authority building a light rail line from Los Angeles to Pasadena has been forced to tap its own reserves because SCAG has not paid [as promised] for a study on extending the line to Claremont.” Which suggests that the city may never get the maglev study. That might be just as well, if that study’s veracity is forecast by the those above-noted inaccuracies: The first and most widely reported whopper was that maglev, at $100 million a mile, costs half as much as normal rail. According to the MTA, normal light rail recently cost around $150,000 a mile on the Pasadena Gold Line. That’s basically just two steel rails on concrete or wooden ties, not the hypertech maglev roadbed that’s like something out of the Matrix. So that $100 million figure looks very dubious. As it turns out, according to The Economist, Japan’s experimental high-speed rail line cost $274 million a mile a while back. China’s line cost under $100 million a mile, but presumably its builders (apparently the People’s Liberation Army was involved) paid prevailing Chinese tech worker wages of under $22 a day. That kind of labor isn’t available in L.A. County. The second apparent misstatement is that the system is ecologically superior, because it takes only half as much power to move a levitating train as it does one that rides on wheels. This may or may not be true. But it also takes a walloping amount of juice to levitate a train. Some say maglev would use about the same amount of power as a wheeled electric train. Others argue that total maglev operation uses more than twice as much electric power. That extra electricity would probably come from coal- burning out-of the basin plants that already heavily pollute such areas as the Grand Canyon. Some ecological bonus. The third bad assumption is that Maglev will be attractive to private investors, who are supposed to pay for its ultimate high costs, possibly by buying bonds. Nailing a “private partner” is a crucial step — according to SCAG’s own maglev timetable, it should have been done in 2001. I asked SCAG to send me their maglev promotional CD in hopes that it might better inform me. No one responded to my call, so I could be missing something. But searching the web, I could not find the names of any private parties interested in financing this mag line — as opposed to maybe charging (Lockheed Martin keeps being mentioned, along with Thyssen) the public a bundle to build it. Any railroad historian will tell you that, since the wartime 1940s when other forms of travel were tightly rationed, virtually every rail passenger service in the nation has lost money. This includes the sardine-can commuter roads of the Northeast and, most notoriously, the heavily subsidized Amtrak. Can SCAG’s maglev turn back the clock 64 years to avoid the subsidies that run every other passenger service, practically, in the world? Are there enough potential Ontario passengers, even among a potential 100 million or more annual regional air travelers, to make the nation’s fastest, most-expensive-per-mile surface rail line pencil out at even $100 a ride?. (Recent SCAG discussions have the ticket price at $11). No one but SCAG seems to think so. But SCAG has managed to get the city to pay it to go on thinking so, at least until the next maglev study falls due. “We need this one,” SCAG director Mark A. Pisano told the City Council. But he didn’t tell them who the real “we” was.

‘Thin is in’ at light rail station

Concrete Products April 1, 2004 Twenty-four, thin-shelled precast canopies supported on single columns will protect commuters from the elements beginning this summer at Calgary’s new Shawnessy LRT Station, one of two new stops being added to the southern extension of the rail line. The unusual and challenging design and engineering of the 18- x 20-ft. canopies was made possible with 105 cu. yd. of Lafarge North America’s Ductal, a high-performance, fiber-reinforced specialty concrete product that promises high compressive strength without sacrificing aesthetic possibilities. Columns, struts and the curved shells — whose cross-sections are as thin as 3/4 in. — were all fabricated using Ductal at Lafarge’s Calgary precast plant. Even the rain gutters, which run along the bottom of the arches, are made of Ductal and are designed to be strong enough to hold the weight of a person. At night, the curved canopies serve a dual function, diffusing and reflecting the artificial light to the platform below while animating the facade through the louvered windows. For the architects, CPV Group Architects & Engineers Ltd. of Calgary, the canopies were by far the most challenging aspect in engineering the design of the station, according to Vic Perry, vice president and general manager of Lafarge’s North American Ductal division. “The thin-shelled canopies actually curve in two directions. The structural engineers used a finite element analysis program for the design work. They input the geometry, ran the analysis, refined the sizes and redid the geometry. To form the arc properly, they experimented with mesh sizes, thickness and overall dimension for quite some time using structural engineering software,” he says. According to Lafarge, fiber-reinforced Ductal which can use either metallic or poly-vinyl acetate fibers may be used from fluid form to dry-cast. Under normal conditions or acclerated curing, the product provides a high early strength in excess of 60 MPa 9,000 psi in less than 16 hours; after 48 hours of thermal treatment, it can reach 200 MPa 30,000 psi . The nonporous nature of Ductal provides resistence to dirt, grime or corrosive chemicals and solvents, as well as color fading, cracking and peeling, even in extreme environments, says Lafarge. To verify its engineering results, Lafarge turned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to provide independent testing by means of aerospace software traditionally used to model the hulls of aircrafts. “MIT’s results were nearly identical to ours,” says Perry. “We also ran scale load tests at the University of Calgary, which confirmed that the canopy would withstand a snow load and severe wind uplift. All of this testing was done before we started building for the City of Calgary.” Perry adds that the next big test for Ductal is a bridge project, dubbed the “Bridge of the Future,” located near CIA headquarters for the Federal Highway Administration in Washington, D.C. Begun last fall and scheduled for completion in April, the structure is constructed in a test track at the Turner Fairbank Laboratory in McLean, Va. It features a 3-in. deck with no reinforcing steel and is said to be strong enough to drive tractor trailers across. “The last of the superstructure — the girders and deck together — is being shipped now,” Perry says. “The team wanted it to look futuristic, and I think we succeeded in that.”

NEXT STOP…VEGAS STRIP

Concrete Products April 1, 2004 Developers of the Las Vegas Monorail announced recently that the $650 million transit system running along Las Vegas Boulevard is expected to be completed $23 million under budget and on schedule, to begin revenue service sometime this spring. This landmark event marks the first time in the city’s history that competing resort hotels have come together on such a project. The Las Vegas Monorail is arguably the most technologically advanced public transportation system in the world, directly connecting eight major resorts along The Strip with a combined 24,700 hotel rooms and 4.4 million sq. ft. of convention space, including the 3.2 million-sq.-ft. Las Vegas Convention Center — the world’s largest venue of its kind. The Monorail also marks one of the largest precast/prestressed jobs in recent years, with 100- to 125-ft. girders placed along a right of way running nearly four miles. Concrete consumption for precast and cast-in-place conditions has surpassed 49,000 yds. since the first beam was produced in October 2001 by the project’s general contractor Granite Construction of Watsonville, Calif. ONLY THE BEGINNING The first phase of the Las Vegas Monorail is just the start of a mass transit mega-project that will eventually see the line extend to old downtown Fremont Street . There are also plans to expand the system to McCarran International Airport and the west side of The Strip, connecting a majority of the hotels and convention facilities as well as government centers. In 1996, the resort property owners and Clark County authorities determined that 18.5 miles of monorail would substantially ease the city’s sometimes severe vehicle traffic problems. The project grew from an earlier transit venture between the MGM Grand and Bally’s Hotel in 1993, when the two casinos announced a joint operation under the name MGM Grand/Bally’s, LLC, to construct a one-mile-long monorail system connecting the two properties. At the time, it was proposed that one day the line would be expanded. One of the expansion project’s earlier supporters was Robert Broadbent, a former Clark County Commissioner and mayor of Boulder City, who chaired Transit Systems Management TSM , created by MGM/Mirage and Park Place Entertainment — the two original corporations that contributed seed capital and resources to explore the feasibility of a large-scale monorail project — and responsible for overseeing and managing the design and day-to-day operations of the monorail. Broadbent died in August 2003, and as a tribute to his dedication to the project, the official name of the monorail was changed to the “Robert N. Broadbent Las Vegas Monorail” by the LVMC board of directors. In January 1997, state legislation was passed allowing Clark County to grant a public monorail franchise to the private sector for ownership, operation, and fare collection. The Monorail LLC requested proposals for expanding its existing system, eventually granting the project to the Las Vegas Monorail Team, assembled and coordinated by Nevada-based Liaise Corporation See “Project Principals” sidebar for details on the team. The Las Vegas Monorail Company LVMC , which owns the new monorail, was created in May 2000 as a nonprofit corporation. It acquired the original MGM-Bally’s system and LLC. The $650 million financing plan includes bonds and contributions from resort properties along the alignment and the design-build contractors. The monorail is 100 percent privately financed and will not use any tax money for building or ongoing support. “This project has different governmental oversight since we’re not using tax dollars,” says Todd Walker, TSM’s communications director. “And unlike subsidized work, we’re responsible to investors. We have to produce revenue and meet revenue goals. We can’t raise taxes or room fees to reach our goals. The last time someone tried to privately finance a transit system was in the 1930s in Shaker Heights, Ohio, which was a line in and out of Cleveland.” One way the organization is meeting its goals is through advertising and corporate sponsorships. In November 2003, LVMC announced that it had signed a 12-year, $50 million contract with Nextel to be the single sponsor of the Convention Center Station. Other deals are in place for wrap advertising around single trains. “Other cities are definitely taking a great interest in our method of financing,” says Walker. When completed, the seven-stop first phase of the Las Vegas Monorail will consist of nine driverless trains, each made up of four cars, for a total of 36 new Bombardier M-VI cars. The stations will be located at the Sahara, Las Vegas Hilton, Las Vegas Convention Center, Harrah’s/Imperial Palace, Flamingo/Caesars Palace, Bally’s & Paris Las Vegas, and MGM Grand. At times, the monorail will reach speeds up to 50 mph. Estimates indicate the monorail will carry between 19 million and 20 million people in its first year of operation, and will be able to handle 4,000 passengers each way per hour, or 35,000 daily riders. It will operate for 20 hours per day, 365 days a year. Trains will arrive and depart from stations every two minutes, meaning that an end-to-end trip on the monorail would take about 15 minutes for a $3.00 fare $5.50 round trip . In addition, the system is electric and will help ease traffic without impacting air quality by taking more than 4.4 million automobile trips off the major roads and reducing carbon monoxide emissions by 135 tons per year. “During a peak convention time, you could easily wait a half hour for a cab at the Convention Center or a hotel,” says Walker. “Whereas on the monorail, you’d get where you were going in mere minutes. On average, you’d cut your travel time by 50 percent or more.” GET ROLLING The official groundbreaking took place at the Sahara Hotel and Casino on August 16, 2001, with an army of dancing showgirls, the governor and a golden-bladed, 70-ft. fully extended drill on hand to mark the occasion. After about two months of ground work, Granite Construction began constructing the massive guideways that serve as the monorail tracks. About 10 miles north of the project and one mile from I-15, Granite purchased a 20-acre lot to produce its precast/prestressed girders. “We made 353 beams and they were all different,” says Project Manager Frank Whitaker. “The vertical curve of the monorail is up and down. There were a few straight beams but most were odd shapes, curved or elevated to got through or over the casinos. The only consistent thing was that they were 2 ft. 2 in. wide of various depths and lengths. “We also drilled our own foundations. We had 6-ft.-thick caissons that went 35 to 45 ft. deep. The problem with building in Las Vegas is that when you get to about 8 ft. deep, you hit water every time. That was a constant factor as well.” Using concrete with a silica fume admixture purchased from a nearby Rinker Materials plant, the 100- to 125-ft.-long girders were produced on three casting beds — each with a radius of 150 ft., with one that had a 250-ft. radius capacity — equipped by Helser Industries. Quality control was a constant issue during production, according to Whitaker. “There were major QA/QC checks in place,” he explains. “There was a third-party inspector on site all the time, checking forms for grade and line. He measured the rebar and took samples of every beam.” The girders were moved using two A-frame, straddle cranes, each with 90,000-lb. lifting capacity. The beams were transported to the job site using I-15, but only during hours designated by the Nevada Department of Transportation. “No matter when the beams were moved to the site, they had to be placed during daylight hours because of safety issues,” says Whitaker. Granite also erected 353 columns and caps for the guideways, all of which were cast-in-place and of differing configuration. “The most difficult part of the construction was getting the beams aligned and matching the closure pours. This was definitely not a project that you could just slap together,” Whitaker says. Eventually, the 2.3-mile extension from the Sahara to Fremont Street will add five more trains to the line and four more stations, along with a fully staffed maintenance building. Whitaker says the extension will require 270 additional precast guideways. “Looking toward the new design, we’re hoping for this phase that there’s more of a standard size for the guideways. We’re also shooting for longer guideway and simpler closure details,” he adds. The second phase is scheduled to be complete in 2007. PROJECT PRINCIPALS OWNER Las Vegas Monorail Co., Las Vegas CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Transit Systems Management LLC, Modesto, Calif. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Granite Construction Co., Watsonville, Calif. PRESTRESSED FABRICATOR Granite Construction Co., Watsonville, Calif. READY MIXED SUPPLIER Rinker Materials, Las Vegas, Nev. ENGINEER Carter-Burgess, Ft. Worth, Texas ARCHITECT Gensler & Associates, Santa Monica, Calif. office MONORAIL CAR CONTRACTOR Bombardier Transportation, Saint-Bruno, Quebec, Canada

Bombardier Wins $160-Million Order From Spanish National Railways for Variable-Gauge High-Speed Power Heads

Business Wire April 2, 2004 A consortium comprising Bombardier Transportation and Patentes Talgo has received an order from the Spanish National Railways (RENFE) for 44 high-speed power heads. The total contract is valued at approximately $303 million Cdn (188 million Euros) and Bombardier’s share is approximately $160 million Cdn (100 million Euros). The power heads are scheduled to be delivered to the customer from June 2006 to August 2008. Bombardier’s scope of supply will include the manufacture of the entire electrical equipment, the propulsion system, the train control and communication systems, and an exhaustive signalling system. Bombardier will also participate in the final assembly and testing of the power heads. The production of a large part of the propulsion system will be undertaken at Bombardier’s plant in Trpaga, Spain. Production of the mechanical components, including variable-gauge bogies, will be under Talgo’s responsibility. Designed to reach a maximum speed of 250 Km/h, the new power heads will be equipped with variable-gauge bogies. They will be coupled with variable-gauge coaches to form 22 nine-car trainsets to be used on Spain’s new high-speed lines (which are 1,435-millimeter gauge) as well as on the country’s conventional network (which is 1,668-millimeter gauge). These trains will integrate the most modern and complex multienvironmental automated train protection technology, which enables them to operate in four different safety environments, including the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) Levels 1 and 2, as well as the Bombardier(i) EBI(i) Cab 900 TBS, the Bombardier LZB, and the ASFA systems. “This order is a further demonstration of the confidence that our customers have in Bombardier’s expertise and know-how in the high-speed segment. It is strategic for us as it consolidates and opens new possibilities for Bombardier’s operations in the Spanish market”, said Wolfgang Toelsner, Chief Operating Officer, Bombardier Transportation. Bombardier Transportation, one of the largest players in Spain’s rail industry, has participated in some of the country’s main railway projects. Among them are the AVE S 102 very high-speed train, which will link Madrid, Barcelona and the French border, as well as Madrid’s Barajas airport people mover.

Transit on fast track to nowhere

Seattle Times April 2, 2004 Sound Transit may soon get what it has long had coming: A regional vote on whether to kill its troubled light-rail project. An anti-rail group called Trust in Transit has filed a statewide initiative that would force all voter-approved transit agencies to build roughly what they promise in those glossy pre-election brochures. If a project is more than 30 percent over budget or the route is shortened to less than 90 percent of the promised length, the agency must seek voter approval for a new plan. Or quit working on it. This initiative is an in-your-face rebuke to Sound Transit, which last month won the right in court to change its rail plans however it sees fit. If the initiative makes the ballot and passes in November, it would bring light rail to a halt and force Sound Transit to ask voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties for permission to continue. In 1996, Sound Transit proposed a 21-mile light-rail line from the University District to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for $1.8 billion. That seemed like a good deal, and I voted yes. It has since been changed to a 14-mile line from downtown to somewhere in Tukwila, two miles short of the airport, for $2.5 billion. It’s hard to imagine such a dubious route winning voter approval today. This initiative would apply to any new transit proposal statewide, but it applies retroactively only to Sound Transit. Why not the Seattle monorail? The same Sound Transit-style mission creep is setting in with it. I voted for the $1.7 billion monorail because it is Seattle’s only chance of getting true rapid transit — fast and out of traffic, with trains arriving so frequently there is no need for a schedule. A year later, and the monorail has a 30 percent revenue shortfall. Now monorail officials want to build parts of the line as a single track, so trains may have to wait for other trains to pass. This undermines a crucial feature of rapid transit — the part about it being rapid. If we want to sit in a motionless mass-transit vehicle, we have the bus for that. Rather than hash over the reasons these projects are so out of whack, it’s better to ask: What do we do now? Among the worst courses is the one Sound Transit has chosen. It is building a rail route to nowhere, because that’s what it can afford. If Sound Transit officials regrouped, put together a more expensive but rational plan that went somewhere (hint: the airport), they would probably get widespread support, including mine. Same with the monorail. Right now I wouldn’t back a monorail revote even if we could have one. But if the cost rises, as it probably will, I’d rather vote on a new plan than get stuck with some half-baked compromise. This yet-to-be numbered initiative has enough flaws to give me pause. If a rail line is mostly finished when it goes 30 percent over budget, do we really want to stop work to hold an election? Critics also say the initiative’s sole intent is to kill off Sound Transit. To that I say: So what? The people in the three-county taxing district should get to choose, and if we no longer want it, we shouldn’t build it.

House members pack pet projects into highway bill

Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee) April 2, 2004 WASHINGTON — House members’ hometown projects are moving into the highway bill like chips at a high-stakes poker game. On Wednesday evening, the $275 billion spending plan for highways and mass transit over the next six years contained 3,197 earmarked projects costing $9.6 billion. But it didn’t have enough votes to pass. By Thursday afternoon, the bill included 3,249 earmarked projects costing $10.7 billion, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. And, though the sponsors didn’t concede that the bill cost more, some reckonings showed that the new earmarks and extra multi-state projects tucked into the legislation raised its price tag to $280 billion. Leaders of both parties said the bill now has more than enough support to pass overwhelmingly on today’s final roll call vote. “In less than 24 hours, the transportation bill has gained a billion dollars in political earmarks,” said Keith Ashdown, vice president of the watchdog group. “Even if the president decides to make this the first bill he has ever vetoed, the bill is likely to survive,” Ashdown said. Colorado, whose representatives had originally snagged 22 projects costing $109 million, suddenly had funding for 25 projects costing $130 million. Florida, whose representatives had originally snagged $507 million for 125 projects, suddenly had $513 million for the same number of projects. Georgia, whose representatives had originally snagged $241 million for 113 earmarked projects, suddenly had $267 million for 118 projects. North Carolina, whose representatives had originally snagged $267 million for 60 projects, had the same amount in the revised bill. Ohio, whose representatives had originally snagged $366 million for 150 projects, suddenly had $400 million for 153 projects. Texas, whose representatives had originally snagged $749 million for 169 projects, suddenly had $763 million for 170 projects. The House bill still will have to be reconciled with a Senate bill that costs $318 billion. The Senate bill didn’t earmark any projects in its version. Senators prefer to add such nitty-gritty details during Senate-House conferences. Whatever Congress passes seems sure to be far above the $256 billion limit set by President Bush, despite his threat to veto any transportation bill that costs more than that. The vast bulk of the non-earmarked money will be distributed according to a formula based partly on how much in federal gas taxes is collected within a state, and partly on national or regional needs. The extra earmarks were used primarily to ease the pain of House members from “donor” states like Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas. Their large population of drivers, together with gasoline purchases by waves of tourists and business visitors, helps them collect more gas-tax revenue than they get back. The “recipient states” like Wyoming get more of the gas-tax revenue than they raise, because they have fewer visiting motorists or drivers, more miles of roads per family, and a harsh winter climate that leads to higher maintenance costs for highways. On Wednesday, leaders of the House and its Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure faced a revolt by members from donor states, who were upset that their states won’t get back at least 95 percent of what they collect. To squelch the revolt, the leaders gave wavering members a slightly larger slice of the pie to use on projects that would be highly visible in their districts. In addition to adding more projects, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who chairs the transportation committee, and Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who is the panel’s ranking Democrat, downgraded some projects and upgraded others. Most were mundane items like highway interchanges or bridge repairs. But the projects include a transportation network for the National Infantry Museum in Columbus, Ga., a Trolley Barn in Harrison, Ark., the expansion of a Transportation Museum in Cleveland and construction of a trail that will allow “hikers to walk to football games” in Oakland, Calif. The “managers’ amendment” that held all the new goodies was so popular that it was adopted by voice vote without a formal roll call. But “donor states” still won’t be guaranteed 95 percent of the gas taxes collected within their boundaries, pointed out Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Every penny spent on members’ projects left less to be distributed under the formula, he complained. “You shouldn’t have the right to earmark funds from Arizona to be spent elsewhere,” Flake said. “We know our districts’ needs,” Oberstar replied. “When state departments of transportation don’t understand the needs of their districts, members have this opportunity every six years to deal with that.” Young said he agreed with Oberstar, but sympathized with Flake. “He’s one of the few people in this body who didn’t ask me for any earmarks,” Young said. South Dakota was the only state without any earmarks. Its lone seat in the House of Representatives is vacant.

Bomb found on high-speed rail line in Spain

Houston Chronicle April 2, 2004 MADRID, Spain — A Spanish railroad inspector found a 26-pound bomb hidden in a bag on a busy high-speed line today, and police said the device may contain the same dynamite used in last month’s Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people. Authorities immediately stopped six bullet trains using the Madrid-Seville line after the bomb was discovered before noon under a track about 40 miles south of Madrid. About 1,600 passengers left their trains and were taken to their destinations by charter buses. No train was near the site when the bomb was discovered, said officials with the state rail company RENFE. The bomb failed to detonate because it wasn’t properly connected, officials said. The discovery rattled a country still trauma