News | Swindler | Articles

Manager warns cuts may be unavoidable; Little of $1.05B deal available this year

The Toronto Star April 3, 2004 The TTC faces drastic cutbacks this year, including some subway closings, unless the timing of the recent $1.05 billion funding deal is changed, warns the transit authority’s chief general manager. The bulk of the cash allocated under the five-year tripartite agreement comes in later years and too much of it is dedicated to new projects, Rick Ducharme said yesterday. The public, meanwhile, believes the deal goes a long way to solving transit maintenance woes, he added. “What drives me crazy is when I walk the street, people are saying, ‘Congratulations on the $1 billion. You must be incredibly happy.’ Well, on Monday and Tuesday we were happy, but on Wednesday when we saw the details, it felt like a bad hangover.” Ducharme told city council’s budget advisory committee yesterday that the agreement calls for the delivery of only $18.3 million from Ottawa and $28.2 million from Queen’s Park this year — $46.5 million in total toward the $317 million in capital that’s needed for basic maintenance and vehicle replacement needs. The city is prepared to borrow $90 million toward the capital budget, but that still leaves a whopping $180.5 million shortfall, with no obvious way to handle it, said city treasurer Joe Pennachetti. Unless that shortfall is made up, the TTC may need to resort to drastic measures, including: - Mothballing the Sheppard and Spadina subway lines and Scarborough RT line. - Closing the Bloor subway west of Keele St. - Shutting down three streetcar lines. - Parking 700 buses, almost half of the bus fleet. Ducharme said he couldn’t define the impact precisely. But he said those are the cuts he came up with four years ago in the event his capital budget was slashed by one-third to $200 million. That dire scenario will resurface unless a solution is found, said Councillor Joe Mihevc, vice-chair of the budget committee and the TTC. “What’s before us is the possible shutting down of certain parts of the TTC,” said Mihevc (Ward 21, St. Paul’s). “The TTC can’t defer these projects. They’re necessary for the running of the system.” Pennachetti said the city is reluctant to borrow any more money because “it would have a significant impact on our credit rating.” The 2004 capital program includes the delivery of 120 buses; streetcar and subway track replacement; tunnel leak-proofing and other structural repairs; and upkeep on the signal, electrical and communications systems. Fully 60 percent of the capital budget, year in and year out, is to replace buses, subway cars and streetcars as they wear out, Ducharme said. The budget committee urged Mayor David Miller to continue his efforts to rejig the three-way funding deal and continue to press the other levels of government for a permanent share of their gasoline tax revenues to fund transit. Ducharme said it will take political intervention because the pact can’t be changed through talks among bureaucrats. “We have to push it at the higher political level because — to be fair to the bureaucrats — they’re just saying these are the rules.” Up until 1998, the provincial government paid 75 percent of the TTC’s capital budget, but that arrangement was cancelled by the then-Mike Harris Tory government. Since then, the city has struggled to keep up the transit system while calling for a new deal for cities. “This week started out great,” Mihevc said. “Many of us hustled out to the Hillcrest yard for the big $1 billion announcement. There was a lot of back-slapping. “Then the real nuts and bolts of this deal came though. All that hullabaloo was for $18 million this year from the federal government. That’s it.” A spokesperson for Liberal MP Joe Volpe, the minister responsible for the GTA, said Toronto agreed to the deal, pointing out the city could have refused. Liberal MPP Brad Duguid said the province has gone out of its way to help Toronto. “While you’ve got a lot of support from the members from Toronto, you have members outside Toronto very nervous about it,” said Duguid (Scarborough Centre). “I think it was a substantial contribution. My suggestion politically would be to be careful about responding negatively in any way to it.” Amid the gloom, Ducharme was upbeat about the fact the budget committee is recommending full funding of the subsidy the TTC needs this year for its operating budget — for wages, fuel, electricity and other day-to-day costs. The committee recommended city council approve $224.8 million this year in operating subsidy, which removes any need for a fare hike, thanks in part to a $70 million special grant to the city announced this week by Premier Dalton McGuinty. The proposed subsidy includes $250,000 — down from the $4.5 million requested — for initial work on the TTC’s ridership growth strategy, which calls for improved bus service on major routes. The plan now is to wait until next spring to roll out the strategy, to cost $15 million in the first year. The budget committee will meet again Thursday to finalize some last-minute details of this year’s operating budget. The proposed budget will then go to the policy and finance committee on April 13 for final recommendations to city council, which has set aside seven days to debate it beginning April 19.

Highway Bill Is Smothered In Pork, Critics Alledge; They Say Politics Drove Key Decisions

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) April 4, 2004 Fewer traffic jams, less pollution and safer roads. Those were just a few of the promises House members made last week when they voted overwhelmingly for a $275 billion transportation bill that would create a blueprint for spending on highways and mass transit for the next six years. There is no question that the bill includes hundreds of projects — from highway expansions to new bridges to bicycle paths — that would help ease commuters’ ways to work, school or play. But watchdog groups and policy experts say the bill is deeply flawed and won’t live up to the grand promises from lawmakers. Shrewd politics, rather than good policy, drove key funding decisions in the bill, critics say. It does little to address a broken funding system. And with a bureaucratic, top-down approach, experts argue, the bill limits innovation and flexibility for the states. “There’s no reason to believe this bill … is going to result in increased capacity or giving states and local governments all the instruments they need to manage congestion,” said Joseph M. Giglio, a professor in the Graduate School of Business at Northeastern University and an expert on transportation issues. How lawmakers win support for their projects, says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, seems to have little to do with merit and much to do with political power. For example, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., is House majority whip, the third highest rank in the GOP leadership. He won $65 million worth of projects for southwest Missouri, according to a tally by his office. Nevertheless, he voted against the proposal because of a provision allowing lawmakers to reopen the bill and because it exceeded the president’s proposal. Rep. Richard Gephardt, former House minority leader, won $14 million worth of projects in south St. Louis, his spokeswoman said. Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr., D-St. Louis, also got $14 million for his district. Meanwhile, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, a two-term congressman who has bucked his party leadership on a number of issues, including the highway bill, won $8 million in projects for his district, his office said. “This thing is so political,” Akin said in an interview last week. “It’s all [about] pecking order.” Many lawmakers and state officials sharply dispute that assessment, saying the bill would provide desperately needed funds and plenty of flexibility to deal with the region’s traffic problems. Price tag battle Right now, the fate of the bill is far from clear. The White House has threatened to veto the House proposal, as well as a $318 billion version the Senate passed. The administration of President George W. Bush says both measures would bust the federal budget at time when Congress needs to rein in spending. The president is pressing lawmakers to adopt his trimmer $256 billion proposal. But no matter what the final product’s price tag is, the legislation is unlikely to dramatically reduce the congestion, smog and other problems that drivers face today, said Ron Utt, a transportation expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The president’s bill would waste a quarter of a trillion dollars, whereas the Senate misallocates one-third of a trillion dollars,” Utt said. “It’s like you have a house that’s falling apart and somebody wants to buy top-of-the-line paint for it and someone else wants to buy middle-of-the-line paint.” The House bill would give Missouri and Illinois their fair share of what critics call pork, or specially tagged funds for specific projects in lawmakers’ home districts. The projects include $3 million to link local parks and trails in south St. Louis County and nearly $7 million for improvements to Illinois Route 159 and other roads in Belleville. Lawmakers and state officials vociferously defend these projects as crucial to solving the region’s traffic problems. And there’s little question that many items, such as a proposed new Mississippi River bridge, would cut down on commute times for many drivers. But it’s hard to tell how others would ease the nation’s transportation crunch. “Do you think that $1 million for a parking lot in San Diego will work? Or $500,000 to upgrade sidewalks, lighting and landscaping … in Montezuma, Georgia?” asked Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste. His watchdog group identified about $11 billion in pork projects in the House bill. “There’s obviously a number of projects that will have nothing to do with making roads safer,” he said. Akin voted against the bill in part because of a “disturbing level of unnecessary funding for nonhighway projects, such as bike paths and museums, that have nothing to do with America’s critical transportation needs,” he said in a statement Friday. Like Blunt, he also opposed a provision allowing lawmakers to reopen the bill next year, which he said would likely lead to an increase in gasoline taxes — a move he adamantly opposes. Priorities questioned Policy experts say that aside from the pork, the highway proposal misses a key opportunity to revamp the nation’s transportation system to deal with today’s traffic problems. “It’s not going to address the problem of congestion in the way we ought to be,” said Rob Atkinson, of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. Both he and Utt argue that states should be given much more flexibility to decide how they spend their federal transportation dollars. For example, Atkinson notes that the House and Senate bills both dictate how much money would go toward highways and how much toward mass transit — a decision that ought to be made at the state level, he said. In addition, Giglio, the Northeastern University professor, said the bill does little to spur innovative funding strategies, even at a time when the gas tax is not generating enough revenue to pay for the increased transportation demands. As an example, he pointed to a California expressway on which drivers pay more in tolls at peak traffic hours than off-hours. That method allows the government to bring in more revenue, as well as to provide an incentive for drivers to reduce congestion. Missouri and Illinois transportation officials defended the bills, saying they include plenty of flexibility and will help address the bistate area’s most pressing traffic problems. “We’re going to be able to improve the infrastructure, which is getting older all the time,” said Dick Smith, director of the office of planning and programming at the Illinois Department of Transportation. He said lawmakers “made a conscientious effort to direct more money to safety projects.” As for reducing commutes, Smith said that at the very least, Illinois would be able to “slow the rate of growth of congestion” and possibly better, depending on how much money the state receives in the final bill. Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., a chief author of the Senate transportation bill, said in a statement that the measure was written “specifically to give Missouri and other states tremendous flexibility to address congestion and safety priorities as they see fit.” As an example, Bond cited a congestion and air quality program, which will see a 40 percent funding increase as well as new, looser guidelines for states to address traffic congestion. “But,” Bond said in his statement, “the real issue we should be talking about is increasing money for the states, because more money equals more flexibility.” Meanwhile, Utt says the bill is so poorly structured that “people have stopped pretending this is a transportation bill. This is about jobs.” Indeed, during both the House and Senate debate, one lawmaker after another lauded the bill’s potential to create new jobs as the construction (and election) season gets underway.

A rail of two cities: As Dallas thrives, SLC looks for missing link

Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) April 4, 2004 DALLAS — Condominiums. Restaurants. Bars. Stores. Theaters. Offices. All are popping up around the stops on Dallas’ two light rail lines. Transit-oriented development has not only arrived here — it’s taken off. Meanwhile, in the Salt Lake Valley, transit-related development exists mostly on blueprints — if at all — almost four years after the opening of the Utah Transit Authority’s initial TRAX line. “This has been one of our struggles, quite frankly,” acknowledges Jeff Harris, UTA’s chief property development official. “The challenge has been in finding developers and convincing banking institutions that there are alternatives to traditional strip development, that transit-oriented development is working nationally and it can work here.” It’s certainly working in Dallas. The showpiece: Mockingbird Station. Located a few miles north of downtown, near the campus of Southern Methodist University, the Mockingbird platform of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) guides arrivals up an escalator to a mixed-use development that includes lofts and condos, an art-house theatre complex, an Irish pub, several restaurants and stores — including a mammoth Virgin Megastore — and offices. Designed around a trendy industrial theme, virtually all of the development is occupied three years after its opening. “Mockingbird was the first; it helped set the tone,” says Jack Wierzenski, DART’s director of economic development and planning. “It started out very small and understated, but evolved over time. And once developers saw what was going on there, it was like a door opening up.” Dallas and UTA transit officials agree on one point: Opening those doors requires a developer with vision, resources and not a little moxie. In Dallas, his name is Ken Hughes. Hughes developed Mockingbird, first by finding a financial partner and betting a hunch, then insisting DART and the city of Dallas do it his way. “Fundamentally, I knew we could do something with it. I knew it had potential,” Hughes says. “So I insisted the front door of the development be the rail station and not [the adjacent] freeway. We knew it was a strong piece of real estate. But having the station right there certainly created a lot of market appeal.” Mockingbird, in turn, begot transit-oriented developments around stations such as Galatyn Park, home to high-tech businesses, an upscale hotel and performing arts center; Downtown Plano, which has tied red-brick condos and its historic main street into the station; and Cedars, where investors converted a historic Sears Roebuck warehouse and surrounding buildings into 455 loft apartments, entertainment and retail space. So why hasn’t transit-oriented development taken off along the two TRAX lines in Salt Lake County? To a certain extent, says UTA General Manager John Inglish, it is an apples-to-oranges comparison. “Dallas is the center of Fortune 500 companies,” he says. “It’s huge. There’s a lot of synergy. Big ideas. Big dollars. I don’t think we quite rise to that level.” But UTA officials also point to the economy — noting that the bursting of the bubble in Utah two years ago meshed almost perfectly with the transit agency’s bid to create a joint-development program around the TRAX stops. And they acknowledge that the UTA board was slow to grasp the potential of transit-related development — at least until taking a trip to Dallas to view Mockingbird and DART’s other station-oriented projects. “Our board did an about-face after that,” says Inglish. Mostly, though, UTA is still seeking its Ken Hughes — an individual, or company, that is willing to take that initial development plunge. To that end, it is pinning its hopes to a proposed development around the end of the north-south TRAX line in Sandy. There, UTA owns property around the station and has found an adjacent property owner who wants to jointly develop a mixed-use project that would feature residential, retail and office components. The trick so far has been in selling Sandy — the quintessential Utah suburb — on the concept. “There are concerns about density, about the quality of the development,” says Harris, the UTA development chief. UTA’s other light rail stops offer no shortage of potential. In Salt Lake City, transit-friendly development already is popping up around the Gateway — where an extended TRAX line will run to the city’s intermodal hub. And zoning is in place for transit-oriented projects around the station at 900 East and 400 South. In Murray, city officials plan to develop around the station that will connect with Intermountain Healthcare’s new flagship hospital, and Midvale has its transit-related development hopes pinned on a proposed station at 8400 South. “The biggest question people had here, was, ‘Would they ride?’ “ says Wierzenski, the DART economic development director. “Once the suburbs saw people did ride, they started getting aggressive. We’ve tried to be proactive about it,” he adds. “We look at [transit-oriented development] as an investment for our taxpayers. It’s like any other kind of investment: you want to maximize what you’ve got.”

Who foots the bill? Private funds used for many projects

Minneapolis Star Tribune April 4, 2004 Built to offer traffic-weary commuters another transit choice, Minnesota’s first light-rail line is costing taxpayers $715 million. Now, with little public attention, more taxpayers’ money — millions of dollars — is being spent to lure another group: developers. No one agrees on how much additional public money should be used to attract development along the controversial 12-mile line that will run between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America in Bloomington. But the amounts, often tucked away in government budgets, include everything from $736,000 for asbestos removal so that new transit- oriented development can be built to $100,000 to help install escalators at a transit station, among other things. Though the opening of the rail line has been postponed by the monthlong Metro Transit strike, hopes are high that the line will, in the end, do more than move people. Light-rail related — or not? Residents imagine that a building surge — perhaps shops, restaurants and housing — will help rid E. Lake Street of prostitutes. Real estate developers anticipate that buyers will pay $259,000 for lofts a half-mile from the 38th Street rail station. A used-car dealer near a rail station, encouraged by the prospect of redevelopment nearby, holds to his $1 million asking price for his property — and is drawing inquiries from as far away as Israel. “There should be additional investment with these light-rail lines, just like there is additional investment with freeways,” said Brian Miller, who heads Seward Redesign. The nonprofit group has received $1.2 million in public money for projects to entice development around the Franklin Avenue station. Two projects, two approaches There are those who think Miller and others like him are too eager to reach for public money, however. Paul Klodt, who is developing a project on the line without public financing, said using subsidies amounts to “stealing from the taxpayers.” Yet, the use of public money to attract development is adding up, with, so far, mixed results. - The city of Minneapolis, taking a calculated risk, spent $17 million to build an underground parking garage near the Downtown/Metrodome station that has footings for an office building. So far, no takers. - The proposed Riverside Station, a transit-oriented development near the Cedar/Riverside rail station, is relying almost entirely on public money for a $9.3 million apartment project for lower-income residents. - Seward Redesign received $900,000 in city money to build a retaining wall and sink footings for possible development at a site near the Franklin Avenue station. So far, developers haven’t been interested. And although the Franklin Avenue station has yet to open, Seward Redesign will use $287,500 from the Metropolitan Council, the regional planning agency that will run the rail line, for more lighting, emergency call boxes and sidewalks to “create a safer environment” to make the station more inviting to nearby developers. - Even planning studies can be expensive public undertakings. The 46th Street light-rail station master plan cost $140,000, and it recommends that city offficials should play a “large role” and “assemble land … construct streets and other infrastructure to ready the area for redevelopment.” - In the Longfellow community, a series of neighborhoods that border the light-rail line, the city provided $40,000 for an organizer to help with, among other things, light-rail planning. Using taxpayers’ money to help lure light-rail development has been viewed as a given, but how much should be spent — and what it will accomplish — has been debated since before construction began. One 1999 consultant’s report for the city of Minneapolis said the use of city tax abatements, loan guarantees and other public financing tools could “alter the balance to favor corridor development over suburban opportunities.” The Metropolitan Council, likewise, gushes about development possibilities, estimating that 17,800 new residents will move into neighborhoods along the line in the next 15 years. In fact, the agency’s eagerness to highlight development has heightened a separate debate over whether rail-line proponents are counting projects that would have been built anyway to promote the line’s success. The agency has, meanwhile, spent nearly $1.5 million since 1999 for planning, site assembly and other preparatory work at the Lake Street/Midtown and Franklin Avenue stations — and major developers now coming forward will almost certainly ask for much larger amounts of public money to help build projects. At the Hi-Lake Shopping Center adjacent to the Lake Street/Midtown station, for example, city officials are pushing for a large-scale redevelopment and have pledged to use tax-increment financing � using future increases in property taxes to recoup public redevelopment costs — and “any federal, state, regional or local funds that may become available to assist development.” While some tout development success, others believe the level of activity so far has been disappointing — even with the push to use taxpayer money. “I don’t see this huge rush,” said Herb Frey, executive director of Alliance Housing, a nonprofit agency building an affordable-housing project near the Lake Street/Midtown station. Other metro areas face same debate In other U.S. metro areas, public money for light-rail development has come to be expected. In the Dallas suburb of Garland, an aging city of 221,000, two light-rail stations opened in November 2002 when the metro area’s rail line was extended 15 miles northeast of Dallas. So far, the publicly financed, $6.2 million Patty Granville Arts Center expansion is the biggest addition near the stations. Anita Russelmann, Garland’s assistant planning director, said private developer interest has been minimal: “The public will probably have to get involved in some way.” Along Dallas’ initial 20-mile light-rail line, completed in 1997, there has been more development on the metro area’s north side, where there are more affluent suburbs, said Jack Wierzenski, economic development director for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system. On the south side, where more lower-income minorities live — not unlike similar sections of the Hiawatha line — “it’s a harder market,” he said. Robert Dunphy, a senior transportation fellow at the Urban Land Institute based in Washington, D.C., said there is a logical reason why public money is necessary: To keep down land costs, many rail lines are routed through areas — such as old industrial sections — where development potential is not as high or polluted land and other obstacles deter development. Critics, he said, then ask: “Why did you put it there? If the answer was to minimize costs, then you get what you get.” Public financing can kick-start projects Along the Hiawatha rail line, public money is an important engine. A new farmers market near Lake Street opened last year, in hopes of increasing pedestrian traffic in a neighborhood beset with crime. A primary reason for the market’s existence, say neighborhood leaders, is to entice commuters to hop off the train and shop. Thirty percent of its $81,500 budget came from public money; much of the rest came from private foundations. The proposed $600 million residential, hotel and water park and office project near the Mall of America — the biggest rail-related project to date — would need at least $35.8 million in public money, according to early estimates. The developer, the McGough Development Co., has proposed using tax-increment financing to help pay for the “unusually heavy scope” of infrastructure. The company said public financing also would be needed to provide affordable housing, where the lowered rents are typically not enough to cover the costs of the project. Bloomington officials, while not dismissing the public financing request, said more study is needed. More than half of the $4 million set aside by Minneapolis officials in 1999 for transit-oriented development remains unspent — a sign that the city is still waiting for major developers to step forward. The remaining $2.7 million will go to “appropriate” transit-oriented development, said Mark Garner, a senior city planner. One project that needs public financing is a housing and retail redevelopment plan near Lake Street, proposed by former Minneapolis City Council Member Steve Minn, who is working with former longtime City Council President Jackie Cherryhomes. The $24-million project � two four-story buildings with underground parking — would need $14 million in public assistance, including nearly $2 million in mostly city, county and Met Council grants. Minn’s development group, however, wants to cap property acquisition and relocation costs at $4.5 million. Should the property need condemnation, the city would potentially have more costs. A city report, issued in mid-February, said: “Site assembly costs are significant enough to potentially prohibit the economic feasibility of the project … warranting a high level of public participation.” For this developer, subsidy is ‘stealing’ Not everyone is happy with the rush to use public money along the rail line. Nor are they convinced that public money should be an automatic consideration simply because it is being used to promote worthwhile goals, such as affordable housing and development that is less dependent on automobiles. “Everyone wants, wants, wants,” said Paul Klodt, who is co-developing a 61-unit, market-rate housing and retail development near the 46th Street rail station, built with private money. “Stealing from the taxpayers, that’s what that is,” said Klodt, a longtime developer in Minneapolis. “I’ve never done it. I’m not a thief. I’ve never stole money in my life.” Klodt’s partner, Norman Bjornnes Jr., said the developers went so far as to pay full market value for a small, city-owned lot so that the city’s affordable-housing requirements would not apply. Avoiding those requirements, even if it meant losing out on public money, was the goal, he said. “We think the light-rail corridor is a place” where projects can stand on their own, said Bjornnes. “Simple is better.” Not all developers use public subsidies. Indeed, other projects along the Hiawatha line are sprouting up without public assistance. Two blocks from the 38th Street station, a 16-unit condominium project, with prices starting at $149,900, is taking shape on the site of an old auto repair shop. A half-mile down, at 42nd Street, developers reveled in a New Year’s Eve groundbreaking for 15 loft units, and announced that four were reserved by buyers. Neither project used public money. Patricia Fitzgerald, business development director for Master Development Services, said the company decided against affordable housing at its 38th Street project to avoid delays that come with securing public financing. The first units will be occupied in May. Meanwhile, Victoria Heller, a longtime property owner in the Cedar- Riverside area, has criticized the city for pushing the Riverside Station development. She said the affordable-housing development is an example of a project overindulged with subsidies: “Eleven [mostly public] funding sources!” stated Heller, who owns the land near the rail station where the project would be built. “This is outrageous!” she said adamantly. But Riverside Station’s proximity to light rail may help it win public money. The Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation, the nonprofit group that is a co-developer, is making sure potential funding sources know its proposed location. “I think light rail will help us in terms of funding,” said Barb McQuillan, executive director. She said to think that affordable housing — wherever it is — can be built without public subsidies is naive: “I don’t think there’s an affordable-housing project out there” that doesn’t use public money. Will city’s south end require subsidies? Most of the projects that have not tapped public money are on the south end of the Minneapolis share of the line, where neighborhoods are more stable, redevelopment is less daunting and there is less commitment to publicly subsidized affordable housing. Sandra Colvin Roy, a Minneapolis City Council member who represents the line’s most southern neighborhoods, said a city-hired analyst concluded that Minneapolis should help financially with land assembly and infrastructure but that actual development projects at the 46th Street station shouldn’t need public money. For neighbors, she added, it was a “plus” that Klodt’s proposal didn’t include affordable housing because of the added cost and possible opposition from nearby residents. Developer David Crockett said it is a mistake not to be more open-minded about public money on the city’s southern end. He applied for a $100,000 grant from the Met Council in 2002 for a 49-unit rental housing development at 53rd Street, but was denied. Thirty-one of the units would have had rents affordable to buyers earning $38,350 a year. The project is proceeding — with a new developer, no public money and no affordable housing. Now 90 units of condos, the project will feature one-bedroom units for about $130,000. Private or public, developers have faith A 1999 market study of transit-oriented development said the Hiawatha line had just four so-called “catalyst” stations — where location and land make transit-oriented projects more likely. At the Lake Street/Midtown station, the Met Council has awarded $450,000 in grants since 1999 for market studies, site assembly and, most recently, Minn’s project. At the Downtown East/Metrodome station, the $17-million underground parking garage includes city bonds, tax abatements and a $400,000 loan. “You’ve got to have a little faith in this business,” said Dick Victor, the project coordinator. “It doesn’t happen overnight.” At the Franklin Avenue station, the Met Council has since 1999 awarded at least $1.06 million in grants for light-rail-related projects, including $150,000 to integrate station planning with redevelopment in the nearby Phillips neighborhood. But Peter McLaughlin, a Hennepin County commissioner and leading rail advocate, said development subsidies for projects along the line remain controversial even at the Met Council. Newer, more conservative members are philosophically opposed to light rail and see the public money as part of a “social engineering” scheme to entice the public to use mass transportation and ditch their automobiles, McLaughlin said. The development subsidies, he said, will be no larger than what projects in the Twin Cities’ suburbs receive. He acknowledged, however, that to some, the subsidies will always be a sign that “there’s someone in the back twirling the dials” to make sure the rail line succeeds. ONE STATION’S INFUSION OF PUBLIC MONEY Here is a look at some of the public money that has been spent at or near the Franklin Avenue light-rail station to lure development. The figures do not include the station’s construction cost: - $900,000: Large retaining wall, footings for future parking structure. - $287,500: Station security enhancements, including lighting, sidewalks and emergency call boxes. - $20,000: Preliminary design work near rail station. - $152,700: To develop station area master plan for Cedar/Riverside and Franklin Avenue stations. - $75,000: Planning grant to produce “site-specific development plans.” - $150,000: Planning grant to, among other things, coordinate the light-rail station with Ventura Village, a nearby transit-oriented development. - $400,000: Grant for Many Rivers, a nearby transit-oriented housing and commercial development. - $437,600: Site assembly money for Village in Phillips, a nearby transit- oriented development.

J.F.K. by AirTrain: Bag the Bus

New York Times April 4, 2004 TRAVELERS using Kennedy Airport have had nearly four months to try the new AirTrain connecting the airport to local railroad and subway lines — enough time to weigh in with their opinions about how well it works. Based on my trip on the AirTrain on a Friday evening last month, and feedback from others who have taken the train, I’d say it’s definitely an improvement over the buses that used to carry passengers between the airport and nearby train and subway stations. The biggest advantage of the AirTrain is that it provides a way to get to J.F.K. entirely by rail, eliminating the variable of road traffic from the complex calculation of how long it will take to get there. The biggest drawback is that travelers have to take at least one and possibly two other trains to connect to the AirTrain, so it’s still complicated to figure out travel times to and from J.F.K. (see the site www.jfkairtrain.com for a few examples). More important, it’s a complicated travel experience, involving multiple transfers, multiple ticket purchases using different self-service machines and multiple stairways and turnstiles — without enough signs or instructions to help. City dwellers will no doubt have a short learning curve to master the challenge, and many will find train service a better option than a bus or a cab. But visitors unfamiliar with the city’s transportation system — say, the right way to swipe a MetroCard or how to interpret an announcement like, “The rear two cars will not platform at Jamaica” — might find the experience rather stressful. In any case, there are a number of variables in the trip from Manhattan that you should weigh when deciding whether to ride the rails ($7 to $12), hop a bus ($13) or spring for a taxi (roughly $45, with toll and tip). Among them: where you’re coming from or going to, how much luggage you have and what time of day you’re traveling. There are several ways to get to the AirTrain, so the time and cost of the trip depends on how you make that connection. From Manhattan, the quickest route is generally the Long Island Rail Road from Penn Station, which costs $6.75 during peak periods and $4.75 off peak (more if you buy from a conductor on board) and takes about 20 minutes. Trains run between Penn Station and the Jamaica AirTrain terminal every 10 to 15 minutes most of the day. When you get off the Long Island Rail Road, you may have to hunt for signs to the AirTrain — take the stairs up. You can also take the E train ($2) to the Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue stop in Queens, which connects you to the same Jamaica AirTrain terminal. One potential pitfall: the E train stations before and after Sutphin Boulevard both have the word “Jamaica” in their names, as if designed to puzzle the uninitiated. My return trip on the E, also on a Friday evening, took about 20 minutes from Sutphin Boulevard to midtown, although the subway is less predictable than the Long Island Rail Road, so that trip could take longer. Another subway option is to take the A train to Howard Beach, which connects to a separate AirTrain terminal there. It’s a longer trip from midtown, about 45 minutes, but one advantage of the subway is that if you live or are staying near one of the lines that connect to the AirTrain (the J and Z trains also go to Jamaica), you only have to change trains once. At Jamaica or Howard Beach, you can buy a $5 MetroCard to take the AirTrain, or swipe a pay-per-ride card already in your wallet, but unlimited MetroCards (the 30-day card, for example) won’t work. That $5 fee has angered some riders, particularly since people boarding at J.F.K.’s parking lots or car rental locations don’t have to pay, and the buses that used to travel these routes were free. Coming from the airport, you have to pay when you get off the AirTrain at Howard Beach or Jamaica, which can be confusing. Asked about those complaints, Pasquale DiFulco, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the AirTrain, responded, “It costs money to operate the system, so we do have to recover some of those costs.” (The $1.9 billion project was financed in part by a $3 passenger facility charge paid by travelers departing from New York City airports.) Frequent AirTrain riders can buy a 30-day pass for $40. At Jamaica, I had to wait only a few minutes for the AirTrain, which was comfortable, spacious and nearly empty. Of about 20 people I spoke with who have taken the train, no one described it as crowded. So far, Mr. DiFulco said, about 15,000 people use the AirTrain each day, only 5,600 of them paying passengers; the Port Authority expects 34,000 daily riders (11,000 paid) by the end of the year. According to the AirTrain J.F.K. brochure, the longest passengers should have to wait for a train is 12 minutes (late at night), with a 4- to 8-minute wait typical during the day. Travel time from either Jamaica or Howard Beach to the farthest airline-terminal stop is 15 minutes. It stops at six airline terminals; look for the signs inside each train with the inexplicably small print to find your airline’s terminal. It took me 73 minutes to get from the Upper West Side of Manhattan to the first terminal stop on the AirTrain, taking the subway to Penn Station and the Long Island Rail Road to Jamaica. The return trip, via the E subway, was about 10 minutes longer, partly because the AirTrain I was on stopped for about that long. Three other people I spoke with had similar delays, which Mr. DiFulco said might have been due to winter weather. IF you take the Long Island Rail Road from midtown, you can probably make it to your check-in counter in an hour or less (the AirTrain brochure says 35 minutes, but that’s definitely not accounting for possible delays or time to get your bearings). From other neighborhoods or taking the subway, I’d plan on 90 minutes for the trip. Most people I surveyed spoke positively about the AirTrain, but there were a few common complaints and cautionary tales: the challenge of dragging luggage up and down stairs or onto a crowded commuter train, the lack of adequate signs throughout the system (Mr. DiFulco said more are being added), and the fact that late at night, an unfamiliar subway station isn’t the best place to be standing around with your suitcase or asking for help. “Coming in at night on the A train as a New Yorker, it’s not a big deal,” said Maki Isayama of Manhattan, who has taken the AirTrain several times. “But if you’re coming in from out of town and you’ve got this guy talking to himself in the corner, you wonder how people would react to that.” “If you’re taking mass transit anywhere, you sort of have to accept that as part of the package,” Mr. Isayama added. But he said he’ll take the AirTrain again himself. “I’m all for options.”

Tunnel vision must change

DAILY MAIL (London) April 5, 2004 IT TAKES a particular kind of genius to own the only railway connection between London and Paris and still lose Pounds 1bn in a year. For a disaster on this scale, the blunders of the private sector are not enough. No, for this you need the involvement of regulators, governments, and grandstanding politicians of many stripes. Eurotunnel has them all. The stock market’s only quoted hole in the ground faces a crisis this week. At its annual meeting in Paris, chief executive Richard Shirrefs, retiring chairman Charles Mackay and his French successor Philippe Bourguignon will attempt to face down an angry mob of shareholders demanding their heads. They cannot count on much institutional support. Individuals own 65pc of the shares. These have fallen 85pc since the 1987 float. At 361/4p the house broker, Merrill Lynch, thinks they are still too high. The mob in the French revolution were known as sans-culottes. Today’s successors, having lost their shirts, might be called sans-chemises. They are understandably enraged and are oiling the guillotine. Some of the company’s problems are well rehearsed. Initial projections for tunnel use were far too optimistic. The debt load, nominally Pounds 6.4bn, is too big. Eurotunnel faces potential default if it cannot sort out a fix. Shirrefs and his board have a two-part plan. They want to cut prices for train operators in order to attract more passengers. In return, they want the train operators to give them cash or assets so they can cut Eurotunnel’s debt. The London & Continental Railways consortium, owner of the British track and half of Eurostar, could end up owning a large chunk of Eurotunnel through an effective bailout. The rebels, led by a colourful French share tipster and sometime politician called Nicholas Miguet, have a plan too. They want to raise, not lower, charges. They also want government aid, and for creditors to forgive part of their debts. The management is thinking on better lines, and shareholders should back them for now. The train link to Paris and Brussels is overpriced and underused. The tunnel currently charges Eurostar Pounds 30 per passenger. This is absurdly high. Cut the charge and the train operators can lower prices and sell more tickets. Look at how Michael O’Leary at Ryanair has lifted demand for away breaks in the teeth of a ‘war on terror’ and a global slowdown by selling seats for a fiver. And he operates from remote airports, not from Waterloo Station and and the Gare du Nord. Eurostar’s latest figures look good. Traffic rose 19pc last quarter and the airlines are being driven out of the market. The high-speed rail link is at last cutting journey times. But the figures could be much better still. Eurostar’s own data suggests it could double traffic even before laying on extra trains. Last quarter the company carried 1.6m passengers, but had capacity for 3.35m. Eurostar refuses to disclose yields, but did not demur from these calculations. Channel Tunnel project needed French planning and Anglo-Saxon marketing. Instead it got the reverse. This industry wants more deals and more hustle. It wants more standby seats and midweek bargains. It wants sleepers leaving London late on Friday night allowing you to wake up in Cannes. Boosting revenues further should be relatively easy. Solving the debt crisis is harder, but is still possible. Eurotunnel’s cashflow, before interest payments, was Pounds 290m last year and should rise. That is respectable compared to the market value of the debt, which is now just Pounds 3.8bn as the company’s IOUs trade for 60p in the pound. Cashflow can be ‘securitised’, or mortgaged, to cut borrowings substantially. Played well, this is a reasonable hand. But it is tricky. Provoke a crisis, and the creditors can simply call the shareholders’ bluff and take over. Investors have no right to a single penny until creditors get everything they are owed. They will be taking unnecessary risks if they storm the Bastille this week.

Alstom confident in rail tender

XINHUA ECONOMIC NEWS SERVICE April 5, 2004 Alstom, the French energy and transport infrastructure provider, expressed its confidence in the competition to build China’s planned US$12 billion, high-speed Beijing-Shanghai railway, China Daily reported. “We could be the preferred partner for the Chinese Government, with our advanced TGV technology and over 30 years’ operation experience,” said Alstom Chairman and CEO Patrick Kron during his visit to Beijing recently. The company is capable of providing trains carrying 1,000 passengers with a speed of 350 kilometres per hour, Kron said. “And we are able to offer the best technology and solutions according to the project’s demands, when the bidding is launched,” he said. Meanwhile, the company’s rich experience of doing business in China and its willingness to transfer the technology and part of manufacturing to the country will help sharpen its competitive edge in the battle, he added. The world’s eighth high-speed railway, Korea Train eXpress (KTX), which chose Alstom’s TGV technology, began official operations yesterday. The inauguration of the KTX further demonstrates the company’s advanced technology and excellent project management, Kron said. However, he said he would not like to be too certain about his company’s chances in the competition until the tender is launched, he added. Earlier this year, China reportedly decided to use the French company’s TGV technology in building the 1,300-kilometre-long high-speed railway. But both the company and China’s Ministry of Railway denied the report. The ministry said any decision will be made through a fair and open international bidding process. The call for tenders is expected to take place in the second half of the year. Currently, Alstom and companies from Germany, headed by Siemens, and Japan, headed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, are striving to stake their claims for contracts in the project. “Alstom has its edges, and so do the other two groups,” said Sa Shuli, a railway expert from the Beijing Jiaotong University. According to him, Germany’s ICE technology is stronger in terms of manufacturing, while, Japan’s Shinkansen line is advantageous in management and operation. “A long period of time is still needed for the Chinese Government to decide which technology will be used in this project,” Sa said. He added that the country still has not made a decision between the use of wheel-track technology or maglev technology, though many railway experts prefer the former. “The Beijing-Shanghai railway project is of great importance for our company, and we are well-prepared for the strong competition,” Kron said. But, it is not the only project for the company, he added. It is also preparing competitive bids for four metro railway lines in Beijing and five or six lines in Shanghai.

Debate rises over funding for public transportation security

Government Executive April 5, 2004 The Homeland Security Department plans to make new grants available next fiscal year for securing public mass transit systems, but some lawmakers and industry representatives say the federal government needs to do more. Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee said in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge last week that federal agencies have not provided enough money or effort to protect public transit systems from attacks such as those in Madrid, Spain, on March 11 that killed about 200 people and injured more than 1,500 others. “Although a terrorist attack similar to the Madrid attacks or frequent bus bombings in Israel have yet to occur in the U.S., the threat is real and chances of success are high,” lawmakers stated in the letter. “To date, the federal government has not taken strong enough action to respond to the threat to passenger rail and public transit.” According to the lawmakers, the Bush administration should take “immediate steps” to provide a “down payment” of at least $250 million to address public transit security needs for the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. They suggested that DHS consider making a supplemental funding request to Congress for the current fiscal year and amend its budget request for fiscal 2005 to address “urgent transportation security needs in light of the recent Madrid attacks.” The lawmakers also said that confusion exists over the roles of federal agencies in securing public transportation, and they asked DHS to establish “best practices” for transit security, lead a federal effort to promote public awareness, and set timeframes for achieving security goals. Public transit authorities have invested about $1.7 billion of their own money into security since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said Greg Hull, director of operations, safety and security programs for the American Public Transportation Association, which represents more than 1,500 organizations. Most of that funding has been for operating costs and training, establishing new policies, making capital improvements, and paying for additional personnel, particularly during heightened states of alert, Hull said during an interview Friday. However, APTA members say they need at least $6 billion more to meet their needs, Hull said. Of that amount, $5.2 billion is needed for capital improvements such as upgrades to radio systems, more closed-circuit televisions, and installation of intrusion-detection and access-control systems. About $800 million is needed for operating costs associated with additional security personnel, training, research and heightened threat levels. Hull noted that the federal government has provided about $11 billion for aviation security since the attacks, but only $115 million in grants to public transit authorities, even though they transport 16 times more passengers than airlines, or 32 million people each weekday. Additionally, he said, only $35 million of the $115 million in grants made available to public transit authorities over the last two years has been spent, as the rest is tied up in bureaucratic knots at the state level. He said funding for public transit security has been “sporadic and difficult to access,” and the industry is hoping the federal government will do more to help. “While we have invested significant monies, we see that we have a significant way to go, and we are in need of support from the federal government because there currently is no federal budget that supports security in the public transit industry,” Hull said. He added that a supplemental funding request this fiscal year would be helpful, but what is really needed is a consistent line item in the federal budget to fund mass transit security efforts. Hull said he is “hopeful” the federal government will begin to do more. He said APTA officials met two weeks ago with Ridge and Asa Hutchinson, DHS undersecretary for border and transportation security, and walked away with the impression that DHS will increase funding for public transit security in 2005. DHS spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department does plan to set aside more funding for public transit security beginning next fiscal year. He said the department plans to establish specific grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative program. The department, however, would not know how much funding would be designated until Congress approves the fiscal 2005 budget. “If Congress acts quickly, then we have the flexibility to decide the priorities for this, and we can potentially use some of these funds for rail and transit security,” Roehrkasse said. Additionally, he said public transit authorities could work with their local and state governments to apply for more funding through DHS’ Office of Domestic Preparedness. Hull said APTA has advised all its member organizations to look at how they might be able to access UASI grants, but added that none of them to date have been designated solely for public transit. Roehrkasse also refuted the comparison of funding for transit security to that of aviation security. For example, one reason why so much money has gone to aviation is because the Transportation Security Administration operates a federal workforce of airport screeners. He said he also believes that funding for public transit security may be available through other federal agencies, such as the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration. DHS is already following a number of recommendations made by House Democrats, Roehrkasse said. “It’s not like we woke up on March 11 and started doing rail security.” On March 22, Ridge announced a series of DHS steps to improve public transit security. The initiatives target three areas: threat response support, public awareness and participation, and future technological innovations. They include the development of a rapid deployment mass transit K-9 program; a pilot program to test the feasibility of screening luggage and carry-on bags for explosives at rail stations and aboard trains; activities to increase passenger, rail employee and local law enforcement awareness; and advanced research into biological, chemical and explosives countermeasures. House Democrats noted in their letter that the initiatives provide no additional funds for public transit security, and most do not provide immediate additional protection. Ridge also said DHS has assisted in the deployment of biological and chemical detection equipment to some transit districts. For the current fiscal year, $285 million was allocated to develop biological countermeasures and $61.5 million for chemical and explosives countermeasures. DHS’ science and technology directorate has specifically dedicated some of those funds for rail systems, Ridge said. He also noted that the Transportation Department would provide nearly $4 billion in transit grants to states and local governments in its fiscal 2005 budget. “Entering our own election season,” he said, “we must remain on heightened alert so that the very foundation of our freedom does not become a weapon of the enemy.”

Rules of the road, for all you sheep out there

Houston Chronicle April 5, 2004 Dear Mr. Traffic Man: During the evening rush hour, cars get really backed up on the highway exit ramp I take on my way home. I’m always in a hurry to get home and sit on my couch, so I use the shoulder of the exit ramp to squeeze past all the other cars waiting their turn in line. A lot of people honk their horns and shake their fists at me when I do this, which makes me wonder if I’m doing the right thing. — Lines Are for Losers Dear Lines: Of course you’re doing the right thing. I’m always amazed at how few people properly use the shoulder. What do the non-shoulder- users think it’s there for — to act as a safety buffer? Puh-leese. Here’s a clue, people: The shoulder wouldn’t be just wide enough for a car to fit into if it weren’t meant to be a lane of transit. Keep up the good driving, Lines, and don’t be discouraged by the misguided honking and fist- shaking of fools who would rather follow the crowd than blaze their own courageous trail. They’re sheep. Dear Mr. Traffic Man: Can you resolve a dispute between my fiancee and me? I say that if I’m in the center of a busy three-lane road and am about to miss the right turn into a 7-Eleven where I really want to get a Slurpee, then it’s OK for me to just stop right there in the middle of the road and wait for the traffic to clear so I can get over to the right. She says I’m an idiot and am endangering everyone on the road and that if I want a Slurpee so bad then I should just go around the block. Who’s right? (There’s a 40-ounce Mountain Dew Slurpee riding on this.) — I’m Thirsty Right Now Dear Thirsty: The real danger here is not your completely appropriate driving maneuver but your fiancee’s shocking ignorance of the rules of the road. I guess she’s too important and busy to look it up, but if she would just glance through the Official Mr. Traffic Rules of the Road Handbook she’d realize that there is not a single rule relating to “going around the block.” You know why? Because it doesn’t freakin’ exist! Rather than making up nonexistent driving laws, your fiancee needs to zipper it shut and get you that Slurpee. Dear Mr. Traffic Man: If I’m pretty sure I can make it without hitting anyone, is it OK to run through a light that has just turned red? — My Time Is More Valuable Than Your Property or Life Dear Time: Yes. Dear Mr. Traffic Man: I’ve found a great route to work through a residential area. There are no speed bumps and I can zip along at 50 mph. The problem is, every time I whip around this one blind curve, there’s a lady standing in her yard holding her little kid’s hand and yelling at me to slow down to the 25-mph speed limit. She’s getting on my nerves. Frankly, I don’t have time for her nonsense. What should I do? — Concerned Driver Dear Concerned: You can’t reason with this type of megalomaniac. The best thing to do is get away as quickly as possible. Fifty mph probably is not fast enough. I recommend going at least 60. And to keep from being distracted by her yelling, simply hold your horn down until you’re safely past. Courage, fellow motorist, and remember, it takes a village to drive a car safely. Cloud is a staff attorney for the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Streetcars play a part in transportation plan

Pioneer Press April 6, 2004 Trolleys could be on their way back to Minneapolis, 50 years after the Twin Cities streetcar system reached the end of the line. City Council Member Gary Schiff wants the council to study a $53 million proposal for a streetcar line along the Midtown Greenway, a bike and pedestrian trail that cuts across South Minneapolis along a former railway. The city won’t be able to pay for the project alone so officials expect to work with Hennepin County, though no financing plan has been drawn up. Still, 13 of the 16 neighborhood groups needed for support already are behind the proposal for trolleys running east and west along most of the five-mile Greenway. “You’ve got a strong route, key destinations and significant population densities,” Schiff said of the route, which would start near the popular Lake of the Isles and Lake Calhoun and pass through the Uptown area. Supporters of a Greenway streetcar line think it could spark development, offer a feeder line to the future Hiawatha light-rail line, and be less conspicuous and more attractive than buses. So far, the project has no outspoken opponents, but at least one City Council member wants to hear more about ridership and financing before supporting it. The Midtown Greenway is a paved “rails-to-trails” route running below street level for walkers, runners and bicyclists parallel to Lake Street, from Chowen Avenue to Fifth Avenue. In the next few years, the Greenway will be extended farther east to Hiawatha Avenue and then Dorman Avenue, a block west of the Mississippi River. Bikers and other users would share the Greenway with any trolley. The Greenway trolley proposal calls for vintage streetcars moving 7,300 passengers a day on a single- and double-track system that could eventually be converted for light-rail. Advocates see the streetcar line as providing a valuable east-west link between the upcoming Hiawatha line and a proposed Southwest Corridor light rail line from downtown Minneapolis to suburbs such as St. Louis Park and Eden Prairie. The plan calls for eight streetcars running every 10 minutes from the city’s lakes to the Hiawatha light rail station through neighborhoods that are home to major developments such as Abbott-Northwestern Hospital and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage headquarters as well as the future Allina Hospitals & Clinics headquarters. The speed of the streetcars is limited to 40 mph, but a rider could hop on board in Uptown and head east across town to the Lake Street/Midtown light-rail station in about 14 minutes. Advocates hope to acquire former Twin Cities streetcars now retired from use and housed in Newark, N.J. While the Midtown Greenway Coalition has completed a study for the project and has come up with an estimate of the building costs, the proposal could take five years or more to come to life. The City Council must study and approve the project as well as find money for construction. At this point, operating costs haven’t been studied and the council probably won’t discuss financing this year, Schiff said. Still, Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin said plans for an improved regional transit system of light-rail lines and busways are being made with a Midtown Greenway streetcar system in mind. “I see it as part of the long-term vision for transit in the Twin Cities,” he said. The Metropolitan Council hasn’t been directly involved so far, except to propose putting buses on the Greenway a few years ago, an idea that didn’t go over well with Greenway organizers and neighbors. “Many neighborhoods opposed a Met Council proposal for a busway and that’s what got the streetcar proposal going,” said John DeWitt, chairman of the Greenway Coalition’s streetcar committee. Neighbors believe vintage-style streetcars traveling on tracks over grass would fit in better than buses riding on asphalt along the Greenway. “There’s something romantic about a streetcar,” said Bernie Waibel of the Seward Neighborhood Group. “That’s been proven in other cities that have resurrected their streetcars.” Cities including Portland, Ore., have revived their streetcar system to provide another transit option. In New Orleans, the St. Charles Avenue line has been around since 1835 and continues to be popular with locals and tourists. While buses were rejected for the Greenway, not everyone is enthusiastic about a return to streetcars. Council Member Dean Zimmermann, an advocate of a “personal rapid transit” proposal with a leg along the Greenway, is reserving judgment. Zimmermann’s plan calls for a “Jetsons”-like network of small, automated on-demand vehicles riding on elevated guideways throughout Minneapolis. For now, he’s skeptical about ridership potential on the proposed streetcar and the money involved. “It’s cute and romantic and all but let’s run the numbers on it and see if it makes any sense,” he said. CLANG, CLANG, CLANG WENT THE TROLLEY A Midtown Greenway streetcar line would cost $53 million to build. Officials don’t yet have a financing plan for the streetcar line, which could take five years or more to come to life. Streetcars would run at speeds of up to 40 mph. Advocates of a Greenway streetcar system believe it would have 7,300 passengers daily.

LIRR CARS; The skinny on the new seats; As the M-7 cars are phased in, riders say they feel squeezed by smaller seats, but LIRR says they’re barely narrower — and ergonomic, too

Newsday (New York) April 6, 2004 Commuter Ray Xerri employs his own strategy when boarding a new M-7 Long Island Rail Road car at Oceanside: Look for the skinniest person to sit beside. “Those are the seats that go first,” he said. As the M-7 cars continue to roll into service, some commuters have found the train seats uncomfortable and too tight. “They haven’t clicked on the fattening of America,” said Neil McPherson, 39, of Huntington, who works as a security analyst in Manhattan. The railroad completed the first purchase order in February with 226 cars and has just launched a second order that will add more than 400 into service. By April 2006, the railroad will be running 678 M-7 cars on all electrified lines, making up the bulk of the LIRR’s electric fleet. The cars, manufactured by Bombardier Transportation Inc. of Canada, cost about $1.7 million apiece. Railroad officials defend the seating, saying that extensive market research and planning went into their construction. There are 24 fewer seats per pair of cars than the older M-1 and M-3 equipment, due mostly to federal law requiring handicapped accessible bathrooms on board. Railroad officials and some passengers give the cars high marks. “They are great cars,” said LIRR President James Dermody. “They ride very well and from a railroad point of view, they perform very well … The train crews like them, and by and large the customers like them.” “They’re much nicer,” said Aaron Rokosz, 28, who was traveling yesterday from Manhattan to his parents’ home in Lawrence. There are several design changes from the older M-1 and M-3 cars. Most of the M-1 cars, the bulk of the current fleet, were built between 1968 and 1972 and are being decommissioned. The M-3 cars were rolled out in 1985 and will continue in service. For the M-7, Federal Railroad Administration requirements instituted in 1999 require thicker sidewall construction on all new passenger trains for greater crashworthiness, but the trains also had to fit into the East River tunnels. So while the carriage is 4 inches thicker, railroad officials said that through design work, the interior is only 2.3 inches narrower than the old equipment. That works out to about half-an-inch less per seat, but the middle seats on the three- seat-across rows remain the same width. The seats were designed after an ergonomics consulting group from the Netherlands rode dozens of LIRR trains and noticed where and how passengers sat. “They observed how people slept, read, worked on the train and they built a model which had a series of sensors that identified hot spots to maximize comfort,” said Dave Elliott, the LIRR’s general manager of fleet support. A mock-up of the M-7 car was made for focus groups in early 2000. The focus groups asked for more leg room and the seats were reconfigured to include a concave back shell and sculptured arm rests that made them more open, to allow for more side-to-side leg movement. Railroad officials said customers in the focus group felt the seats cradled their bodies. Gone are the half-seats on the three-seat rows of the old equipment. “Some of the perceptions of the customers that there is less room is caused by the full high back that was an answer to customer demands and lumbar support. They might feel that it’s tighter, the seat is designed to be ergonomically correct,” Dermody said. But Peter Haynes, president of the advocacy group the LIRR Commuters’ Campaign, said that “perceptions are very important. A lot of people perceive them to be tighter and harder than the older seats. … but there isn’t much that can be done about that at this point.” For commuter Marc Fuhrman, who stands 6 feet, 3 inches tall, the daily commute means a tight fit on the way to work from Bethpage. “America’s a big country and so is its population and so are the size of a good percentage of the people that ride the LIRR,” he said. “Hopefully gas prices will come down and I will start driving again.”

Tokyo Metro enjoys privileged birth

The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) April 6, 2004 Tokyo Metro Co., a subway network operator established through last Thursday’s privatization of Teito Rapid Transit Authority, enjoys greater advantages than other similar entities in seeking efficient and profitable operations. The transformation can be said to be a “happier” privatization than that of the road-related public corporations — the privatization of which likely will fall short of the goals initially set by the government — and even the privatization of the former Japanese National Railways, which has been identified as a successful precedent. The former state-run entity has been transformed into Tokyo Metro, a special-status corporation whose stock will be held by the central and Tokyo metropolitan governments. Teito Rapid Transit Authority was established in 1941. Its lines currently are connected with those of seven other private railway companies, handling an average of about 5.6 million passengers a day. To further improve its service, Tokyo Metro has changed its corporate logo and employee uniforms in an attempt to change the mind-set of its workforce. When JNR was privatized into Japan Railway, a group of train companies divided by region, the first noticeable change was that station clerks became more polite toward passengers and station toilets became cleaner. To follow the precedent, Tokyo Metro plans to place workers to guide passengers at major stations and also make station toilets cleaner, a company official said. Other planned measures include: — Setting up counters to accept inquiries and complaints in order to speed-up response times. — Undertaking related operations that can boost its business, such as fully utilizing station floor space. — Developing a prepaid card system that also can be used on other trains and buses in cooperation with other companies, to expand and improve public transportation and reduce the burden on the environment. Tokyo Metro has long-term debts of about 950 billion yen. But the company’s future is not entirely bleak as it has been reducing its debt level each year. Tokyo Metro’s scheduled construction of a new route — a potentially heavy financial burden — will be completed in fiscal 2007, when the railway line under construction between Ikebukuro and Shibuya will be completed. After the project ends, “A stock market listing is a possibility,” a company official said. In addition, in contrast with the road-related public corporations in which the central government will continue to hold at least a one-third stake even after privatization, all of Tokyo Metro’s shares are to be offered up for sale, although the central government and Tokyo metropolitan government now hold 53 percent and 47 percent, respectively, of its stock. This plan further frees the management of Tokyo Metro from outside influence. But the main reason why Tokyo Metro has enjoyed a happy privatization is that it has been able to avoid influence-peddling from politicians with vested interests, who may have pushed the firm to construct unprofitable new lines. Unlike the road-related public corporations and JNR, Tokyo Metro’s predecessor was not forced to spend funds on new lines it did not wish to construct. The growing population of Tokyo and its vicinity also has meant a continuing increase in the number of subway passengers, meaning that the construction of new subway lines in the past did not result in overinvestment due to the demand rise. Though Tokyo Metro will have a freer hand, it remains an operator of mass public transportation and therefore is required to use its surplus funds for the improvement of services, such as fare discounts. Most of the eight subway operators run by municipal governments in the nation are in the red, with some municipal governments, including Yokohama and Kawasaki, reviewing their subway businesses. In such a situation, the manner of Tokyo Metro’s privatization, which was free from political pressure and overinvestment, can set a good precedent for debate over the privatization of not only other subways, but also the road-related public corporations. Of course, there are hurdles still to be cleared. First, the Tokyo metropolitan government has expressed its desire to integrate its publicly-run subway lines with Tokyo Metro’s. While Tokyo Metro has said such an integration would improve services for subway passengers, the metropolitan government’s subway operations are in debt to the tune of 400 yen bullion, running up losses of more than 20 billion yen each fiscal year. As a result, Tokyo Metro executives have said they want the metropolitan government to improve the performance of its subway operations as soon as possible. Second, there is the issue of safety. After an accident four years ago on the Hibiya Line in which five people died and about 60 were injured, Tokyo Metro’s predecessor was criticized for not learning the lessons of similar accidents on private railways. The new entity must ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not lead to a similar accident. An especially urgent task is securing sufficient evacuation routes — an issue of concern to all subway operators in the wake of last year’s fire in a South Korean subway. Tokyo Metro has said there are difficult issues particular to a big city, such as the cost of purchasing land to provide for evacuation routes. But the new entity needs to speed up its safety efforts for fire and other disasters, particularly with the number of elderly passengers set to increase in the future.

New TRAX station slated for 900 S. and 200 W.

Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) April 7, 2004 A series of modest, but distinctive housing developments has sprung up just south of downtown Salt Lake City in anticipation of a new TRAX light rail stop at 900 South and 200 West. Utah Transit Authority (UTA) officials and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson confirmed Tuesday that not only has the stop been approved, it could be operational by the end of the year if funding is resolved. “It’s going to get done; there’s no question about it,” said Anderson, on hand for the unveiling of a new affordable housing project along 200 West, less than half a block from the proposed station site. When completed, the 900 South station will be unique in the TRAX system — the light-rail line’s first truly urban residential station. Surrounded by high-density housing, the new stop will not include a park-and-ride lot. But city officials and developers predict that density — combined with the station’s proximity to downtown, should make it attractive to younger residents, and perhaps empty nesters looking for an affordable area with a bit of flair. D.J. Baxter, Anderson’s transportation adviser, says $ 500,000 in Redevelopment Agency money has been earmarked for the new TRAX stop. That is roughly $ 500,000 less than UTA says it will need to construct the platform on the north side of the intersection at 900 South and 200 West. Jeff Harris, UTA’s chief development official, says UTA and the city are studying ways to bring down the cost of the station, while at the same time maintaining the look and feel of the other stops on the north-south line. “A large portion of the cost is associated with doing the construction at night, when the trains aren’t running — and permitting issues,” he said. “But we’re trying to be creative, and we think we could get it constructed during this [construction] season and open by late 2004.” Developer and Salt Lake County mayoral candidate Peter Corroon officially opened his new six-story, 25-unit apartment building Tuesday, the third such affordable housing project on the block. “It’s a neighborhood that’s developing a little bit of artistic chic, for lack of a better term,” he said “It’s such a great location, and there’s really nothing that services the area, so a [TRAX station] will be nice to have.” Added Salt Lake City Mayor Anderson: “The station wasn’t there when the TRAX line opened, but they still committed to the project, and this [and the other housing projects] helped make the case to UTA to get this station added.” Other cities along the north-south TRAX line also are vying for new stations. Sandy wants a station that will connect with the South Towne Expo Center and Larry H. Miller’s office and entertainment complex; Midvale is seeking a stop for planned transit-oriented development around 8400 South.

A Symbol Of Europe, An Investors’ Nightmare

Press Association April 7, 2004 Today’s attempt to unseat Eurotunnel’s board is the culmination of years of frustration for investors in the historic, but troubled, Channel Tunnel project. Rebel shareholder group Adacte has proposed replacing the company’s management with its own team following a reported 90% fall in the value of shareholders’ investment in the world’s biggest privately funded infrastructure project since 1987. The tunnel’s opening in 1994 represented the realisation of ambitions for a fixed link between Britain and France that emerged as far back as 1802. After years of often heated debate about what form the link should take, with suggested schemes including a bridge, a combined rail tunnelroad bridge and a roadrail tunnel, politicians finally plumped for a rail-only version. Invitations to the private sector to build the tunnel were issued in 1985 and construction concessions were awarded in 1986. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former French premier Francois Mitterrand gave the final go-ahead for the tunnel by ratifying the Fixed Link Treaty on July 29, 1987. But the scheme, which Mrs Thatcher insisted should be entirely privately funded, has been plagued by financial problems. Eurotunnel currently has debts of £6.4 billion and made record losses last year of £1.3 billion. The group’s problems have included higher interest costs, a fall in travel caused by the economic downturn and fierce competition from cross-Channel ferries. Passenger numbers on the Eurostar trains that use the tunnel have also been much lower than expected, although business has improved sharply since the first stage of the UK high speed rail link between the tunnel and north Kent opened late last year. Eurotunnel and Eurostar expect numbers to improve further with the opening of the second part of the link to London’s St Pancras station in 2007. Eurotunnel’s board has put in place a turnaround strategy, which includes plans to increase use of the tunnel by cutting access charges to passenger and freight train operators. The company, which runs its own car and lorry shuttles through the tunnel, is launching its own rail freight service between continental Europe and the UK. It has also proposed the appointment as its chairman of French corporate fixer Philippe Bourguignon, who is credited with turning around the fortunes of Euro Disney during his time at the helm of the Parisian theme park. But Adacte says Eurotunnel’s situation has continued to worsen since the last restructuring of the group’s bank debt in 1997. It claims successive managements, creditors and public bodies have failed to react to the problems. The group has proposed a new board consisting of more French nationals than at present, as well as cost-saving initiatives and a wholesale debt reduction drive. Adacte has also proposed to ask the European Union and the French and British governments to intervene in the project. It is believed that victory for the group in today’s vote would represent the first time that investors have exercised their right to replace the entire board of such a major company. In a document accompanying today’s extraordinary general meeting, Adacte claimed the current situation could not continue without risking the company’s insolvency. “This great project, which ought to be a symbol for the whole of Europe, has become a nightmare, especially for the shareholders who have invested their savings in it,” it said.

A Major Lane Change: The once innovative cloverleaf freeway interchange is now considered a bottleneck. Flyover ramps are seen as the way to go.

Los Angeles Times April 7, 2004 The graceful loops and simple design were meant to let motorists maneuver in any direction on a freeway interchange without braking. So ubiquitous is the roadway design with its four circular ramps — resembling a four-leaf clover — that cultural critic Lewis Mumford once joked that the freeway cloverleaf had become the national flower. But the bloom is off. The cloverleaf interchange has outlived its usefulness, creating traffic jams instead of free-flow movement, transportation experts now say. Across the country, transportation agencies have launched expensive reconstruction projects to replace obsolete cloverleaf interchanges — in New Jersey, where the cloverleaf first grew; in Ohio; in Texas; and in California, where Caltrans has budgeted millions of dollars to replace cloverleaf intersections from Orange County to San Jose. The cloverleaf’s biggest flaw is that motorists merging onto a freeway and drivers trying to get off converge on the same short length of road, creating a gantlet of speeding vehicles battling for a few precious gaps in traffic. The design works fine when traffic is light, but when traffic gets heavy — as it does regularly in Southern California — motorists slow in every direction, transportation experts say. A 1999 study by the Virginia Department of Transportation concluded that cloverleaf interchanges begin to bog down when traffic surpasses 1,000 vehicles per hour. During peak rush hours, the cloverleaf intersection of the Riverside (91) Freeway and the Pomona (60) Freeway — now being rebuilt at a cost of $317 million for four years of construction — carries about 14,600 vehicles per hour in each direction. The Virginia study also concluded that cloverleaf interchanges have the most “fixed object accidents” of any interchange design. Such accidents usually happen when motorists are forced off the road and into a wall or tree in the battle to merge with other drivers. Studies of freeway accidents have yet to determine which freeway design is the most accident-prone overall. An engineer from Maryland named Arthur Hale patented the cloverleaf design in the United States in 1916 for use primarily on surface streets. The advantage of the design was that a motorist could turn from one road to another without stopping and without having to make a left turn across the path of oncoming traffic. On a cloverleaf, motorists make the transition left by swinging right along a circular loop under an overpass, turning 270 degrees. The first cloverleaf was built in 1929 at the intersection of two major roads in Woodbridge, N.J., the state’s oldest township. In the 1920s, New Jersey roadways had a traffic density seven times the national average, or nearly 60,000 vehicles per day, largely because of motorists traveling between New York and Philadelphia. To accommodate demand at the intersection of the two heavily used routes in Woodbridge, the state was willing to test the innovative cloverleaf design. The designer of the intersection, Edward Delano of the Pennsylvania- based contracting firm of Rudolph & Delano, got the idea after seeing an illustration of a cloverleaf interchange in Argentina on the cover of an engineering journal, according to the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The design caught on and was used on roads throughout New Jersey and, eventually, throughout the nation. The disadvantages did not emerge until much later. “In 1929, we didn’t have that many people in the U.S., and not many were driving cars,” said Jim McDonnell, an associate program director for the American Assn. of State and Highway and Transportation Officials. The association has been meeting and distributing road design specifications since 1914 and played a key role in spreading word of the cloverleaf design throughout the country. The design gained popularity because it was usually cheaper than alternatives that included long, elevated ramps to carry traffic over two or three roadway bridges. Although the cloverleaf design needs extra real estate for the loop ramps, cheap land was plentiful when the nation’s freeway system began to expand in the 1940s and ‘50s. Beginning in the years after World War II, California added more cloverleafs to the state’s freeways than did any other part of the country. At that time — before “rush hour” and “SigAlerts” became part of the region’s lexicon — the looping ramps moved motorists fairly efficiently from one road to another. But “traffic levels grew faster than anyone predicted,” said Robert Poole, director of transportation studies for the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based think tank. In retrospect, installing cloverleaf interchanges in fast-growing Southern California “wasn’t the smartest move,” said former Caltrans Deputy Director Chuck O’Connell, who helped design several Los Angeles County freeways in the 1950s and ‘60s. Now, transportation engineers recommend cloverleaf interchanges only for rural regions where traffic is light. But that suggestion comes too late for Southern California, where at least two dozen cloverleafs contribute to congestion on major freeways. Moreover, the state’s budget crisis has ensured that only a few of the interchanges will be replaced in the next decade. “It’s as big a problem as not having additional lanes to handle the extra traffic,” said Hasan Ikhrata, director of transportation policy and planning for the Southern California Assn. of Governments. In Riverside, the cloverleaf junction of the Riverside and Pomona freeways creates such a hair-raising motorist mosh pit that Cindy Roth, president of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, has refused to let her 16-year-old daughter break in her new driver’s license there. “I told her to get off and take the side streets,” Roth said. “That is how bad it is.” It should remain “bad” until the redesign and expansion project is completed in 2008. In Los Angeles County, three cloverleaf interchanges on a 2-mile length of the Long Beach Freeway in Long Beach contribute to making that one of the region’s most congested and vexing stretches of freeway. Margaret Peterson, a veteran short-haul trucker who regularly tackles the Long Beach Freeway, said truck drivers hate cloverleaf interchanges because state law requires big rigs to stay in the two right-hand lanes, forcing truckers to drive into the weaving traffic, like a stone dropped into a food mixer. She also notes that an 80,000-pound rig can’t maneuver the banking loop ramps at the same speed as a small passenger car. As a result, Peterson said, safety-minded truckers easing along the concrete loops often end up with impatient motorists in passenger cars blasting them from behind with their horns. To eliminate the weaving traffic that locks up cloverleaf interchanges, transportation engineers often remove two of the loops, replacing them with expensive flyover ramps that carry traffic over the intersection, allowing cars to merge into traffic farther from the roadway junction. Another remedy to the problem is to move the merging and weaving to separate “collector/distributor” roads that run parallel to the freeways. In San Jose, the California Department of Transportation plans to spend $12 million to redesign an obsolete cloverleaf intersection on U.S. 101 using flyover ramps to ease the gridlock. At the cloverleaf interchange in Riverside, Caltrans plans to do the same, replacing two of the loop ramps with two flyovers. Even the nation’s first cloverleaf interchange, in Woodbridge, is about to undergo a massive remodeling. The New Jersey Department of Transportation plans to spend more than $20 million to convert the antiquated cloverleaf into a diamond-shape interchange that will eliminate the weaving lane. For years, Woodbridge residents considered it a point of pride to live in the home of the nation’s first cloverleaf interchange, said Woodbridge Mayor Frank Pelzman, who has lived in the town of 97,000 since 1941. The town’s graveyard, next to the interchange, is called the Cloverleaf Cemetery. But the Woodbridge interchange now represents a daily headache for commuters. So far, Pelzman said, he had heard of no one who wanted to preserve the cloverleaf interchange for the sake of history. Pelzman himself is looking forward to driving over the intersection without having to battle the mire of traffic. “Like everything else, progress moves on,” the mayor said.

Motor-Vehicle-Related Deaths Will Increase, Study Predicts

New York Times April 7, 2004 WASHINGTON, April 6 — Motor vehicle crashes kill about 1.2 million people a year worldwide, and the number will rise to more than 2 million in 2020 unless new steps are taken, according to a study being released Wednesday by the World Health Organization and the World Bank. The study predicts that road-traffic injuries will rise to the third largest cause of death and disability by 2020 — after heart disease and depression — from the ninth in 1990. One of the reasons it ranks so high is that many of the victims are young, which amplifies the loss of productivity and quality of life. “All over the world, economic development is leading to more cars and more roads, but we’ve forgotten to match that with more safety,” Dr. Étienne Krug, director of the department for injuries and violence prevention at the World Health Organization, said in an interview here. Dr. Krug attributed the problem to “fatalism, and ignorance of how big the problem is and what can be done about it.” Attention to road safety varies widely, according to the study, so much so that the authors acknowledged that they had little idea about how many people were injured. The estimates ranged from 20 million to 50 million a year, they said. But an earlier W.H.O. study showed that almost one- quarter of those who sought medical attention from a clinic or hospital after a traffic accident were suffering from brain injuries. The study said that road crashes should be ranked with cancer, heart disease and stroke as major threats to public health. The organization, an affiliate of the United Nations, issued its last major report on the subject more than 40 years ago. The death and injury toll is directly related to poverty, according to the study, which predicts that between 2000 and 2020, motor-vehicle-related deaths will decline by 30 percent in high-income countries but increase 80 percent in poor ones. In China, for example, road-traffic deaths more than tripled between 1975 and 1998, according to a study cited by the authors. For 2000, the study put the death rate at 11.8 per 100,000 people in high- income countries, compared with 26.1 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 19.2 in the Middle East and North Africa and 19.0 in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The developing world has 20 percent of the cars but 80 percent of the dead, Dr. Krug said. The study, mostly a compilation of smaller studies conducted around the world, points out that especially in low-income countries the victims are often pedestrians and cyclists and other people not in vehicles. In India, more than half of the dead were pedestrians; in the United States, less than 15 percent were, and 80 percent of the dead were in cars and trucks. Part of the problem is money, Dr. Krug said. “Clearly, to repave and redesign all the roads of India would be hugely expensive,” he explained. But he also noted that most cars already have seat belts and that enforcing laws against drunken driving is not very expensive. In Thailand, he said, more than one-third of the deaths involve motorcyclists, most of whom do not wear helmets. Helmets are not expensive, he said, and helmet laws are easy to enforce. Not all the hazard is from cars and trucks. Motorized two-wheelers and three-wheelers, like rickshaws and jitneys, make up 95 percent of motor vehicles in Vietnam. The study gave examples of steps taken to reduce deaths, like limitations on the size of motorcycle engines that beginners are allowed to ride and the installation of road devices designed to absorb shock when hit by a car. It also recommended a variety of other steps, including better land-use planning to reduce the need to travel.

River Line an early success

Trenton Times April 07, 2004 The River Line is drawing more riders than expected when it opened nearly a month ago, but state transportation officials yesterday said much hard work remains to ensure the light-rail system between Trenton and Camden is successful. State Transportation Commissioner Jack Lettiere told the Assembly Budget Committee the 34-mile rail line that opened March 14 has carried about 3,000 riders per day on weekdays and nearly 6,000 per weekend day. The number of weekday riders actually matches the ridership projections by NJ Transit, but many others doubted the system would draw that many passengers. “We’ve had more riders than any of us anticipated when we started,” Lettiere said. The line’s trains run every half-hour from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., except for Saturday, when trains run until midnight, but George Warrington, NJ Transit’s executive director, said he hopes trains will begin running every 15 minutes by the end of May. “It’s actually a very nice operation,” Warrington said. Assemblyman Joseph Malone III, R-Bordentown City, said the line has received rave reviews. “I’m pressed to find anyone who has a negative comment to make,” Malone said. The line, decried by critics as a waste of vital transit money, was under construction for four years and was supposed to open in early 2003 but faced numerous delays. It was approved by former Gov. Christie Whitman and hailed as an economic development engine for South Jersey, but the McGreevey administration said it wouldn’t have approved building the line, contending the money could have been better spent on other projects. “This may not have been the first place we may have wanted a state dollar. However, we have a transportation system that the state paid for,” Lettiere said. “It’s our responsibility to make it successful.” Despite meeting early ridership projections, Warrington said the system continues to have revenue concerns. Even if the system attracts the expected ridership, it will have far fewer passengers than other light-rail lines across the nation and require massive state subsidies. The $1.1 billion line, with its one-way fare of only $1.10, is expected to cost the state $48 million per year in debt and about another $20 million in annual operating costs. Warrington said NJ Transit will continue working with the three counties and 19 municipalities along the line to ensure it attracts business and mixed-use development. Whether the line attracts such development will be key, he said. “We’re prepared to commit to that over the long haul,” Warrington said. Assemblyman Louis Greenwald, D-Cherry Hill, the budget panel chairman, asked transportation officials to submit a business plan for the River Line that touches on subjects ranging from whether the line needs connections to adjacent transit systems to what businesses the state plans to attract to its corridor. “I think it is critical in the financial times we’re in,” Greenwald said of such a plan. The committee heard testimony from Lettiere, Warrington and Sharon A. Harrington, Motor� Vehicle Commission chief administrator, as it reviews the governor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2005, which starts July 1. The DOT and NJ Transit proposed a $2.6 billion program that includes $17.5 million in the next fiscal year to begin reconstruction at the Trenton Train Station this summer. Another $17.5 million is projected to be budgeted next year for the work, which also has received $14.75 million from the federal government. “We’re good to go, and this is a real project and it’s fully funded,” Warrington said. The proposed 2005 fiscal year capital program for the DOT and NJ Transit includes $1.2 billion through the Transportation Trust Fund. The trust fund was established in 1984 to provide stable money for transportation projects, but debt will leave the fund unable to finance new projects starting in fiscal year 2006. In December, McGreevey rejected increasing the gasoline tax to replenish the fund. Several legislators asked Lettiere about the state’s proposal to issue $900 million in bonds to pay for new projects. The bonds would be paid back in 12 years and would be secured with federal money. Letteire said the bonds wouldn’t be issued for the next budget but rather for the 2006 fiscal year if the trust fund isn’t replenished. “We’re fiscally OK this year,” Lettiere said. “It’s next year when critical decisions will have to be made.” Malone suggested using $300 million generated for the general budget by the MVC to rebuild the trust fund, but Letteire said the money is spent on other things, and using it differently would require budget cuts. Legislators also asked about state initiatives to protect transportation infrastructure from possible terrorist attacks. Letteire said the state has spent nearly $103 million on security measures this fiscal year, including hiring 100 more NJ Transit police officers and putting surveillance systems on bridges. “It’s been a long list, and we believe motorists and commuters should feel safe,” Letteire said.

Number of trains during rush hour to expand in May

Burlington County Times April 7, 2004 TRENTON — River Line trains will begin running more frequently in late May to serve rush-hour commuters, according to the head of NJ Transit. Executive Director George Warrington said yesterday that morning and afternoon rush-hour trains would run at 15-minute intervals, starting on an unspecified date in late May. The trains have run at 30-minute intervals since the line opened to passengers in mid-March. Rush hours are 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. The change in service was not unexpected. NJ Transit had planned to increase rush-hour frequency about two months after the start of service, according to Warrington spokeswoman Lynn Bowersox. The state agency hopes extra service will entice more riders to try the River Line, she said. Ridership on the Camden-to-Trenton line so far has averaged about 3,000 trips each weekday, and about 5,000 per weekend day, she said. If each rider takes two trips, the estimated number of passengers is about 1,500 daily Monday to Friday, and about 2,500 a day Saturdays and Sundays. Bowersox said NJ Transit is not dismayed those ridership figures have not yet reached first-year projections of 5,900 average daily trips, or just under 3,000 riders per day. After warm weather arrives — and with it baseball games, concerts and other activities — leisure travel on the rail line is expected to grow, she said. A boost in the economy and economic growth along the light-rail corridor also will gradually increase ridership, she said. Warrington and state Transportation Commissioner Jack Letteire yesterday appeared before the state Assembly budget committee to defend their $2.58 billion capital budget, part of Gov. James E. McGree- vey’s proposed $26.3 billion state budget, and to answer questions about light rail. Meanwhile, those who live along the light-rail line had varying opinions on increasing rush-hour service. Helen Mack of Riverton, who lives near the tracks, said she wasn’t looking forward to the additional noise. “It’s not just the horn, but you hear the ‘ding, ding, ding’ of the arms (gates) going down,’’ she said. She said she also fears more trains might back up traffic. “I live on the other side of the tracks, so it’s going to be a little more of an inconvenience,’’ she said. At Zena’s Patisserie on Broad Street, owner Zena Demirceviren said she was excited about the potential extra business more rush-hour trains could bring. “They come in and grab coffee, and something to munch on their way to the train,’’ she said.

It’s a Fight to the Finish; With actual bidding imminent, monorail boosters and critics regroup for yet another battle

Seattle Weekly April 7 — 13, 2004 “They thought it was all over after the vote,” John Arthur Wilson is saying, standing outside a Seattle Monorail Project meeting room last week. SMP’s executive board is poised to give final approval to the new 13.7- mile sky track alignment. “They’ve realized that’s untrue now.” Wilson, a public-affairs consultant with the Gallatin Group, was recently buttonholed to reorganize support for the $1.6 billion proposed monorail project. His backers include former members of Monorail Now, a pro- monorail group that disbanded after the 2002 vote. Its contributors back then included now�SMP Executive Director Joel Horn, who gave $2,000 to the cause, and Bombardier, the transportation giant that gave $5,000 and is now part of a consortium seeking to win the monorail construction bid. Wilson won’t say who his clients are today. “They came to me in January,” Wilson recalls, “and said, ‘We’d better do something.’” SMP’s design work and environmental impact statement were under fire, property owners were headed to court seeking more money for their seized land, other lawsuits were threatened over the downtown alignment, a new opposition group was forming to seek a recall vote, and the true cost of the project had (and has) yet to be determined. Other than funding, none of those consequences might be fatal to the plan. Yet Wilson’s monorail backers felt they were losing ground, he says, and under a reconstituted Monorail Now logo, he’s got a Web site up and is trolling for boosters. So far, “Labor, business, environmental types, they’re all behind [the new drive], a very organic group,” says Wilson, a onetime Seattle Weekly news editor. A steering committee is forming, and Wilson has a database with a chorus of 10,000 potential supporters to sing the monorail’s rallying tune: “Just build it!” Does any of this sound familiar? Eighteen months after the monorail plan was narrowly approved at the polls, the vote seems almost to have not registered. The rhetoric and hard sell are back, along with new polls and a regrouping of supporters and opponents. With approval by a divided City Council up in the air, and construction bids due within two months, it’s showtime. SMP has upped the intensity of its own publicly funded campaign, emphasizing the promise of fast commutes, great views, and environmental friendliness. With a $7.7 million budget for advertising, promotion, and public outreach in 2004, the monorail’s mantra is now almost spiritual in heralding the results of its “guiding principles,” “grassroots effort,” and the “movement” that gave birth to Green Line planning. Spin is in. The March cover of SMP’s newspaper, The Inside Track, consists only of numbers in large type, including: 35,000 (the number of people who have spoken with SMP staff members) and 1,750 (the number of questions fielded by the monorail answer man, Ask Lars). Among the inside stories: Why bookworms should ride the monorail. As with most government agencies, criticism doesn’t rate big type. But, “At SMP, especially, you’re either with ’em or again’ ’em,” says a member of the Downtown Seattle Association, which wants changes in the monorail’s design and alignment. DSA questions whether SMP has really closed the gap on its funding shortfall. Pat Stambor, co-chair of the new Monorail Recall group, says the agency’s attitude and miscues have stirred her group to life. They “seem to cherry-pick the favorable comments and ignore the negative ones, making it seem like everyone loves what they are doing.” There’s no hiding Stambor’s feelings. “Our goal is to stop this monorail plan in its tracks,” she says. Only a few months old and claiming more than 700 members — some of whom are posting campaign yard signs and have volunteered to distribute petitions — the group has already revamped its strategy. It had planned to seek a recall vote, based on SMP’s “financial difficulties,” as provided by the law that created the monorail. The idea now is to aim a petition directly at City Hall, demanding legislative action. The petition would, if successful, prohibit the City Council from granting street rights of way to the monorail. “In a sense, we are trying to head the monorail off at the pass,” Stambor says. “With an average 33 percent shortfall in projected revenues, the monorail can’t be built to the design and engineering standards they are promising.” Besides a renewed monorail battle, there’s a new burst of infighting among the opposing camps. Wilson’s fledgling Monorail Now group e- mailed supporters last week to show up at a city- sponsored monorail design hearing to counter the “California-style recall fever” of Monorail Recall. The anti-monorail OnTrack faction, whose members include former Mayor Norm Rice and property owners from downtown, Ballard, and West Seattle, recently filed an appeal against SMP’s environmental impact statement. OnTrack is taking flak from another group, Friends of the Monorail. OnTrack, says Friends spokesperson Kevin Orme, is just “trying to stir up trouble yet again.” Enough with the stalling, says Orme, “get on with building the monorail — do we need to have yet another election?” There have been three already. Still, two new monorail polls just popped up. A Seattle Times online poll of 1,860 participants logged 57 percent in support of the monorail, while the city’s Seattle Channel polled 960 online visitors and found 62.7 percent against the plan. In the midst of this campaign redux, monorail officials are not shy about expressing their displeasure at those they perceive as opponents. The other day, I caught up to SMP Executive Director Horn to ask about Tim Eyman. The tax- revolt king is challenging SMP’s move to set aside a third of the monorail construction jobs for women and ethnic minorities; Eyman thinks that’s a violation of state law. Horn said lawyers approved the set- asides. Then he half-smiled and told me: “With Tim Eyman and the monorail, you’ve got a lot to hate.” I wasn’t sure what that meant, but I told him I didn’t dislike the monorail and would like to see it built. “Well, you’d never know it by what you write,” Horn said. He walked off before we could discuss the pros and cons of media cheerleading. Only a few days earlier, a monorail executive sent an e-mail response to a citizen who had asked about issues raised in a monorail story I wrote. My “article in the Weekly was so divoid [sic] of facts as to be criminal,” said the executive, who added that “the shrillness of monorail opponents is extreme — they know no bounds of decency and have no integrity.” The monorail hasn’t challenged the story (“Monoreality,” March 3) and has it linked on its Web site. But, true, some opponents are shrill. And as the executive’s e-mail indicates, so are some proponents. Yet shouldn’t a civic project this immense be a fight to the finish? Monorail officials have promised “transparency,” but has anyone seen exactly how this life-altering project is going to look, beyond those flattering mock-ups? The question has led to formation of a new group of design professionals headed by architect Philip Beck, called WhatDoesItLookLike.com, which points out that some monorail overhead track switches will be two-and- one-half blocks long and create “a solid concrete lid about 20 feet above the sidewalk.” Another group, SaveSeattleCenter.org, led in part by critic Geof Logan, has posted before and after photos of the controversial route through the Center. Dick Falkenbury, father of the monorail, calls the current design a “burden” and hopes bidders come up with a simple system that works. Kate Joncas, president of the Downtown Seattle Association, last week said that she and the DSA expected “a light and elegant system that would swoosh through downtown.” Instead, “we feel we’re getting a heavier, larger, more clumsy system.” Talks with SMP have been short on the details needed to make informed decisions, she says. “Do they have the money not just to build it but to operate it, keep the stations clean, and so on?” Joncas says. She’s grateful for SMP’s efforts. “But it’s still not there yet,” she says of the promised system. “We have to be persistent about getting answers.”

HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS A SLEEK WAY TO TAKE IN THE SIGHTS

THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER April 8, 2004 LAST FALL WHEN I arrived in Vancouver, B.C., by bus at Pacific Central Station with no clue how to get where I was staying, a station employee directed me to the SkyTrain terminal right across the street. For $2, he said, I could ride SkyTrain to the Waterfront Centre in a matter of minutes. Fat chance, I thought. I could smell a fiasco brewing. I better pay for a cab. But for two bucks Canadian, how could I lose? On the other hand, I thought this could be quite a challenge to try to navigate a rapid-transit system for the first time, especially since it was dark and I didn’t exactly know what part of Vancouver I was in. I scrapped the cab idea because I just knew any self-respecting Vancouver cabbie would probably spot a confused American in a heartbeat. And I was in the dark, literally and figuratively. After I climbed the stairs to the terminal platform, a fellow passenger, who said he could tell I was a rank amateur and most likely American, showed me how to buy a one-zone pass from the machine for a $2 coin and advised me to catch the next westbound train. Waterfront Station, he told me, was a terminus and that I didn’t have any choice — I had to get off the train there. In minutes, a string of howling, sleek, shiny, high-speed rail cars ground to a stop right in front of me. The doors slid open and I hopped aboard. This is impressive, I thought. I was so nervous, though, I forgot to check to see which direction the train was traveling. I didn’t know east from west and I forgot to look at the sign. To make things worse, when I waved the ticket around I had just paid $2 for, nobody took it. I found out later the whole high-speed rail system operates on what it calls a “proof of payment system.” If you can’t prove you paid during one of the surprise inspections by the train cops, you will be issued what is called a provincial violation ticket. The train was indeed headed for the Waterfront Centre. And just as the Pacific Central employee told me, I got there in a matter of minutes. And, yes, the short adventure only cost $2 — or more precisely, $1.52 U.S. After my first and one-and-only SkyTrain experience, I decided last week I wanted to learn more about Vancouver’s high-speed rail during my visit to Vancouver. The system was designed for Expo 86 and expanded over the years to serve other parts of the greater Vancouver area, as well as downtown. (It seems that by the time rapid light-rail transit or the monorail is finally built in King County I’ll be either using a walker to get around or dead.) First, I needed to lay the groundwork for my SkyTrain adventure. It was early afternoon last Thursday when I checked into the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver downtown. The receptionist gave me good directions on how to get to the nearest SkyTrain terminal, which was only a block away. She even supplied me with a map of the color-coded routes — blue for the Expo Line and yellow for the Millennium Line. The maps are widely distributed by Translink, which operates SkyTrain as part of an integrated transportation network that includes buses, ferries and commuter rail. Mentally I was pumped for this trip. For some reason, as soon as I reached the Burrard Street SkyTrain Station, I started to hum an old Kingston Trio tune about a gent who wouldn’t pay the extra nickel on the MTA in Boston and never returned. To keep him alive, his wife had to hand him a sandwich every evening as he flew by the same station for the umpteenth time. Gail the SkyTrain attendant (she wouldn’t give me her last name) must have noticed the blank, American stare on my face when I walked in. She immediately picked me out of a crowd and directed me to one of the self-service kiosks to pay for my ticket. I must have looked as much out of place as I felt. Later on, by the way, another SkyTrain attendant gave me a different, more compact map to help me sort out where I was headed. All of the attendants I talked to were pleasant and helpful. This time around I decided to splurge and buy a day pass for only $8 Canadian that allowed me to travel anywhere, anytime on either the Millennium or Expo Lines and not have to worry about any zone changes. I whipped out the trusty map the hotel receptionist gave me and asked Gail if she would decipher it for me. First she told me not to fixate on the color codes for the separate routes. They’re meaningless except to graphically show the route differences on the map. She said it was more important to pay attention to the overhead digital signs at the various terminal platforms that tell riders whether the train is Millennium or Expo and its final destination. It was important to know which direction I wanted to go as well because the terminals are separated for east- and westbound departures. Gail’s information was good, but apparently I just didn’t digest it very well. My goal was to catch an eastbound Expo Line train to Surrey. Instead I ended up on an eastbound Millennium train to God knows where. It was time to regroup. I disembarked at the next terminal to look for answers. A kind passenger told me I got confused because the Millennium and Expo trains run on the same tracks in certain places. As Gail told me in the first place, the digital sign at the terminal platform lets riders know which train it is. The kind passenger said I just needed to wait for the eastbound Expo train, which would be along momentarily. During off hours a train comes by every three to eight minutes. During rush hour they speed up to one every two minutes or so. What I initially found confusing, too, was that no matter what station I was at along either line, the next stop was announced only after riders boarded the train. The terminus station of the line, whichever direction the train was headed, was listed as the destination for whatever train was arriving. For instance, I was traveling eastbound on an Expo train so the sign at the terminal platform at the Stadium Station read, “Expo Line to King George.” King George is the terminus in Surrey, 15 stops away from the Stadium Station, where I boarded the train. Once safely aboard the eastbound Expo, I looked at my trusty map again just to double-check that I was finally on the right train headed in the right direction. Gail had warned me that between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. eastbound trains might get pretty crowded with commuters. That was an understatement. Every eastbound car was packed. There were a couple of times when I didn’t think one more passenger could squeeze in, but they managed. Translink said more than 60 million passengers ride SkyTrain each year. The two lines continue to expand as some of the older portions of the Expo Line are upgraded to technically higher standards. Riders and SkyTrain attendants have appropriately nicknamed the evening and morning commutes “The Crush.” The last thing vacationers probably want is to have to deal with a similar, tortuous commute experience they left behind at home. The SkyTrain attendants I talked to recommended that during the week visitors should plan their SkyTrain travel around the high-density times. Between 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. and after 6:30 p.m. the trains usually are less crowded. After about an hour on the rails, I felt comfortable enough to switch trains and directions whenever I wanted and could fully experience some of the scenery as the trains snaked through Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey and back to downtown Vancouver at sunset. Most useful for the casual Vancouver visitor I found is how useful SkyTrain is in the downtown area. It’s a snap to, say, travel from Waterfront Centre,��which is near Canada Place, several major hotels and the cruise ship terminal, to a hockey game at GM Place for $2 Canadian. The five downtown stations cover a pretty good portion of the city. The SkyTrain Destination Guide is packed full of useful information and easy to use. I toured the complete SkyTrain line in just over three hours, which included a stop at Metropolis, the mega-mall at Metrotown, Surrey Central and a couple of other stations to take some photographs. Despite a police action in Surrey and a security issue at the Millennium Line’s Holdom Station, both of which stopped the train for short periods, the experience proved to me how beneficial an effective rapid transit system can be in a large metropolitan area. Not bad for an $8 (C) investment.

Threat forces closure of Paris rail system

San Gabriel Valley Tribune (San Gabriel Valley, CA) April 8, 2004 French authorities evacuated stations on a train line that cuts across the French capital on Thursday after the CIA warned of possible attacks, police said. The CIA warned of an attack on Paris’ RER train network between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m., said a French intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Subway stations connecting to the line were also closed, the RATP public transport company said. But no attack materialized in that hour and just after 9:30 p.m., police said a search of stations turned up no evidence of a planned attack and lifted the alert. Traffic on the RER-A line, which crosses Paris and links the capital to the suburbs, was interrupted at 8:15 p.m., police said. Stations in Paris and the suburbs were evacuated so officers could search. French authorities have been on high alert since the March 11 bombings on four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, that killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800.

Eurotunnel in chaos after its board is ousted

DAILY MAIL (London) April 8, 2004 REBEL shareholders yesterday succeeded in overthrowing the board of troubled Channel Tunnel operator Eurotunnel. The unprecedented coup by thousands of small investors was staged during a rowdy annual general meeting in Paris. Furious over the firm’s spiralling Pounds 6.4billion debts, they won a vote of no confidence in the directors led by British chief executive Richard Shirrefs. The rebel group, headed by failed French presidential candidate Nicolas Miguet, is now set to appoint its own team of directors, which will mean British influence will be kept to a minimum. Speaking from the AGM, Monsieur Miguet said: ‘This is a vote of confidence like we have never seen before. ‘It is the financial world’s equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall.’ Jacques Maillot, founder of the French travel company Nouvelles Frontieres and director of insurance company Generali France, has emerged as the leading candidate to run Eurotunnel. Last year the company, which celebrates the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Channel Tunnel next month, made a profit of Pounds 170million before expenses, down 18 percent. But this was dwarfed by interest payments of Pounds 318million, and the company racked up total losses of Pounds 1.3billion. Shares are now almost worthless and investors have never been paid a dividend. Shareholders 1.1million in France and 150,000 in Britain have seen their investment lose 90 percent since 1987. The rebels claim a new strategy is needed to cut the debt and create returns for shareholders. They want state aid from the British and French governments even though the firm is barred from receiving any. Experts say Eurotunnel ran into financial trouble because passenger numbers and freight have fallen far short of predictions made when the Channel Tunnel was opened on May 6 1994. The company’s problems also stem from fierce competition from cross-Channel ferries and the rise of budget airlines. Construction costs for the tunnel were double the initial projections at Pounds 13.6billion, leaving the firm with debts it has never managed to shake off. Long delays building the British side of the high speed rail link and the additional security costs to prevent asylum seekers trying to get through the tunnel, have further cut revenue. Monsieur Miguet wooed shareholders with a promise to adopt a hardline negotiating stance with the 200 banks demanding repayment of the debt. This will come as a major blow to hopes of lower ticket prices for the millions of British passengers who use the tunnel each year. The move will also dismay governments on both sides of the Channel. There have also been fears dismissed by the board and industry experts that yesterday’s coup could lead to the closure of the tunnel. Some experts believe that the coup threatens the entire investment of shareholders and risks putting the company in the hands of its creditors. Eurotunnel’s managers had put forward a proposal to salvage its finance