THE NUTS AND BOLTS; Plenty of local know-how and handiwork went into the reconstruction of the Canal streetcar line
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.)
April 17, 2004
In the noisy and spacious Carrollton Barn on a warm day, Tali Karriem, Cindy Moffett, David Craig and others toil away to finish building the last of 24 shiny, apple-red street cars, the workhorses of the Canal Line.
Karriem noisily drills holes into the metal ceiling for aluminum flanges that will support hand-rail tubing. Horace Blanks cuts the tubing and sands its edges. Craig affixes mahogany wood trim along the metal frames of the windows by first spreading a silicone sealant onto the metal base and then screwing down the trim. Joe Baudier shadows Craig, delicately scraping away excess silicone and wiping the area spotless.
Carpenter Moffett slices sections of the trim for Streetcar 2024’s vestibule, over and over until all three sections abut perfectly. “Sometimes you have to cut it 10 to 12 times before you get it just right,” noted Moffett as she sliced millimeters off the edge of a strip of mahogany.
In April 2001, a workforce of 41 men and women began assembling the streetcars at the Carrollton Barn. Moffet and the others completed the final touches March 17.
All 24 electric trains built for the Canal Line are ready to roll. “We’re done,” said Elmer von Dullen, the authority’s superintendent for vehicle assembly who has been guiding this made-in-New Orleans enterprise — an economic boomlet for the metropolitan area.
The Regional Transit Authority has spread millions of dollars throughout the New Orleans area in the form of jobs and contracts.
The metal roof frames and other heavy metal components were fabricated by the Boes Corp. of New Orleans. A company in Marrero made the safety baskets, tow bars and other medium-size metal pieces. A Kenner business fabricated the windows, conductor consoles and other light-metal pieces. The accordion-style doors were built in Chalmette. The seats were crafted by Hardwood Lumber, a New Orleans company that recently moved to Pearl River, La.
The RTA has purchased raw materials, including steel, aluminum, wood and rubber, from vendors throughout the metro area. Local companies also supplied the destination sign boxes, electric controls, the air-conditioning systems and the wheelchair lifts. “Eight vendors in the New Orleans area each had contracts of more than $300,000,” said von Dullen “and at least 100 vendors in the New Orleans area provided some parts.”
A company in Brookville, Pa., provided the wheels and axles as well as truck assemblies, which hold the wheels, brakes and motor. “They were flawless,” he said.
Each of the 24-ton vehicles cost about $1.3 million to build, $31.5 million collectively.
The authority also spent about $6.8 million to transform the workspace at the Carrollton Barn at 8225 Willow St. into a streetcar assembly plant — nearly $2.5 million of that to replace a termite-eaten roof that covered the one-square-block facility. Another $15 million was spent to build an addition to the A. Philip Randolph Operations Facility in the 2800 block of Canal Street, where the 24 Canal streetcars and seven Riverfront streetcars will be stored, serviced and cleaned.
The project is financed with a mix of money, 80 percent from the federal government and 20 percent local.
In the spring three years ago, the authority began assembling the many parts into Canal streetcars with a workforce of six people. Ultimately another 35 workers had to be hired, including mechanics, welders, carpenters, electricians and sheet-metal workers. Since completing the streetcars, the RTA has trimmed down the workforce, reassigning some of the streetcar builders to other RTA jobs.
The RTA got into the streetcar-building business when it started construction the Riverfront Line cars in 1994, von Dullen said.
Although the agency has no specific plans to build cars for others at the moment, “it’s been talked about a lot,” said Donald Preau, the Regional Transit Authority’s vice president for capital projects. “There’s not a large market,” he said. “It’s something we’re exploring. There’s nothing firm.”
Meanwhile, the RTA plans to enjoy its success, assembling the largest number of streetcars to date, trolleys demonstrably different from the historic St. Charles Line — and in some ways different from the Riverfront Line:
A Canal streetcar can travel up to 35 miles per hour compared with 30 miles per hour for St. Charles cars. As a deterrent to crime, each Canal car has six cameras and two audio sources to record the sights and sounds. The St. Charles cars are a uni-body design, whereas the Canal cars chassis and walls were attached during assembly at the barn.
Canal streetcars are accessible to riders in wheel-chairs. Said von Dullen, “We can pick up the largest motorized wheel chairs, and we have a dedicated spot on the car where we can secure the largest to the smallest wheelchair.”
Unlike the other lines, the Canal streetcars are air-conditioned, which prompted several design changes: The roof and ceiling are flatter so they can better support the weight of the air-conditioning unit.
The Canal cars have recessed lights, as opposed to the exposed lighting used on the other lines. The ceilings of the cars are supported by stainless-steel box tubing, which is stronger than the T-iron supports used for the St. Charles cars. The windows on the Canal cars open only 6 inches.
“These things will be here when I’m dead and gone,” said Baudier, a rail-tech body man thrilled to be a member of the streetcar assembly team. “It’s kind of neat. I wish my grandparents were here to see this.”
|
Main Street was dangerous before the rail, records show
Houston Chronicle
April 17, 2004
Vehicles collided frequently along the Main Street corridor long before the MetroRail line was built, Texas Transportation Institute data show.
Between 1998 and 2000, nearly 8,000 crashes were recorded along the 7 1/2-mile corridor where Metropolitan Transit Authority light rail trains now travel. Almost 2,000 were on Main and Fannin alone, two streets that make up most of today’s rail route.
The pre-rail crash total averaged about 51 incidents per week, or roughly 7 1/2 per day.
Vehicles have collided with trains 35 times since the rail line was completed six months ago, a little more than one collision per week. “The reality is, the driving public was experiencing these serious collisions before we ever put a different mode of transportation there,” said Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert.
The Houston-Galveston Area Council, which closely examined 1999 crash records from the Texas Medical Center, calculated a serious collision rate in that neighborhood of 314 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, 58 percent higher than the Houston regional rate of 199.
“The Medical Center attracts people who are ill or whose minds are totally preoccupied with an injury or illness of someone they know,” said Dave Willis, director of the Texas Transportation Institute’s Center for Transportation Safety. Eight of the train/vehicle crashes have occurred in the Texas Medical Center.
A TTI safety assessment done for Metro in March warns that regardless of what steps are taken to improve safety along the rail line: “There will likely still be a large number of collisions in the area due to unfamiliar drivers and high traffic volumes.”
While the publicity mostly has surrounded the train crashes, Metro police have kept busy working numerous incidents along the rail corridor that did not involve trains. About 15 cars have driven into the Main Street Square fountain downtown.
Police reports also detail such mayhem as several cars careening off Main Street into adjacent buildings and running into light and utility poles.
One driver ran over pedestrian barricades near Preston Station, and another rolled through flower beds before crashing into the train station at Main Street Square.
Metro Chairman David Wolff has vowed to continue stepped-up police patrols. “People have gotten accustomed to perhaps not obeying traffic laws the way they should,” he said. “We believe it is imperative the traffic laws in this region be better enforced if we are to have a safe system.”
|
Caution is key for drivers, walkers; RTA warns; Canal cars are quiet, quick
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
April 17, 2004
With new streetcar lines poised to open on Canal Street and Carrollton Avenue, the Regional Transit Authority is offering safety tips to motorists and pedestrians, as well as streetcar passengers.
First of all, drivers should be aware the new streetcars are there, said Beth Branley, RTA public relations manager. “Before turning left at any corner on Canal or Carrollton, look both ways for oncoming streetcars,” she said. “Remember, the streetcars always have the right of way, and they weigh a lot more than your vehicle, even your SUV.”
Additionally, the new streetcars are much quieter than the vintage models running on St. Charles Avenue, she said, “so don’t depend on hearing an approaching streetcar.”
Although the Canal streetcars will operate on the neutral ground, the streetcars on Carrollton Avenue will run in a traffic lane on most of the route, she said. Motorists who use that lane on Carrollton should be on the alert for streetcars, she said.
As part of the streetcar project, the city has replaced some of the signs on Canal Street, and motorists should take note, Branley said.
For example, the large “No left turn” sign that was positioned on the traffic pole at the corner of Canal Street and Claiborne Avenue for many years has been exchanged for a smaller overhead sign. “Remember, you are still not permitted to turn left when you are traveling down Canal Street, either at the corner of Claiborne Avenue or at any other major intersection,” she said.
Pedestrians need to be just as cautious as drivers, Branley said. Before walking onto the neutral ground on Canal Street, and before crossing Carrollton Avenue, they should look both ways for streetcars, she said.
Because the new cars are so quiet, pedestrians also must remember not to depend on hearing a rattling or clanging to warn them that a streetcar is approaching, she said. And no one should try walking or jogging on the tracks, because it’s too dangerous, she said.
As for streetcar passengers, they should be careful when they go up or down a car’s steps, she said. And they should never walk in front of a streetcar they have just exited.
And they, like other pedestrians, should be careful when crossing streets or neutral grounds as they approach designated streetcar stops or walk off after a ride, she said.
The streetcars on both the new Canal Street line and its Carrollton Avenue spur are equipped with heating and air conditioning, and the windows will be kept closed when they are operating, she said. The windows can be opened and raised 6 inches, but passengers who raise the windows should be careful not to dangle their arms outside, she said.
Mindful of all those cautions, she said, the RTA hopes passengers will “enjoy the ride.”
|
CANAL STREETCARS; LONG TIME COMING; Sunday’s opening of the Canal streetcar line marks the happy end of a difficult project
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
April 17, 2004
There was a time when New Orleans was a spider web of streetcar lines stretching clear out to Lake Pontchartrain and deep into the city’s neighborhoods.
At the pinnacle of its popularity in the mid-1920s, the local rail system included 235 miles of track.
But as the automobile became the preferred mode of transportation, trolleys began to disappear not only here, but also across the nation. Offering size, speed, comfort and flexibility, buses were in vogue by the 1940s and ‘50s, and the streetcar’s fate was sealed.
With its rail infrastructure crumbling and ridership dwindling, New Orleans was virtually out of the streetcar business by May 1964 when the city shut down its Canal Street line, leaving electric trolley service only on St. Charles and South Carrollton avenues.
The city got back in the game with the debut of the Riverfront line, a 1.9-mile route envisioned largely as a novelty project that politicians could unwrap in the summer of 1988 for the national media descending on New Orleans for the Republican National Convention.
But the new service quickly proved to be a phenomenal draw for tourists and locals, and its unexpected popularity sparked debate among streetcar enthusiasts that the old could be new — and functional — again.
Traditionalists hope that vision will come into better focus Sunday as the Regional Transit Authority returns streetcars to Canal Street, and, simultaneously, along a North Carrollton Avenue spur line to the entrance to City Park.
Although the RTA’s so-called Desire streetcar line through the North Rampart Street-St. Claude Avenue corridor is nearing the end of the design phase, that project has been put on hold as the agency re-evaluates where the project fits on its priority list of capital needs.
Transit officials have said the costs to build the line would be prohibitive if they cannot resolve a dispute over access to a railroad crossing that would necessitate construction of an overpass. But the RTA remains bullish on the idea and may explore the option of extending the Riverfront line downriver to Poland Avenue as a way to service the same area. There is also talk of extending the Riverfront line upriver to Jackson Avenue.
And while a high-speed, light-rail system linking downtown New Orleans to Louis Armstrong International Airport remains in the discussion stage, the mere fact that federal dollars are flowing for studies indicates that local and national officials are taking the idea of further expanding the light-rail network seriously.
Back in vogue
New Orleans isn’t the only place where streetcars are back in fashion. >From Memphis to Cleveland, from Pittsburgh to Buffalo, from Sacramento to Denver, cities across America are laying tracks. Countries around the globe are doing likewise, from Greece to Canada to China.
And there are dozens of potential rail projects applying for federal aid. In some ways, the appeal of rail transportation is more aesthetic than practical. For example, studies have shown that a streetcar line will likely take only a fraction of the traffic off the street.
But there are other reasons for the renewed interest in streetcars, including reducing the number of exhaust-belching buses on downtown streets and cutting costs by replacing them with more energy-efficient vehicles.
In New Orleans, the apple red color won’t be the only difference between the Canal streetcars and the green Perley Thomas streetcars on St. Charles Avenue.
The Canal version also will be equipped with air conditioning, a modern propulsion system and hydraulic lifts on both sides to accommodate handicapped passengers. Those amenities are not on the St. Charles streetcars because RTA officials want to preserve their historic character. The St. Charles line is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Because of the space needed to accommodate wheelchairs, the Canal cars will have seating for 42 passengers, 18 fewer than the St. Charles cars.
A shaky start
When the first of the new streetcars begins ferrying paying customers between the foot of Canal Street and City Park Avenue, it will mark the culmination of a long and often painful process that started more than 15 years ago.
At times, the project, whose price tag has swelled from $94 million to $161 million, appeared doomed as the RTA labored to secure the required matching dollars. Then, midway through construction, the agency fended off an effort by an influential congressman who appeared bent on altering the federal funding formula to increase the local share of the costs by 20 percent.
The project got off to a shaky start in the mid-1990s, when the Federal Transit Administration committed to pay 80 percent of the costs. But securing the federal aid has not been an easy task. At issue was the cash-strapped RTA’s inability to guarantee its 20 percent share of the costs.
After repeatedly being rebuked by the state Legislature, RTA officials explored several other financing options to no avail. The matter finally was resolved in the spring of 2000 when the RTA and leaders of the city’s hospitality industry settled a legal dispute that cleared the way for the transit agency to collect a long-suspended 1 percent sales tax on New Orleans hotel rooms.
Revenue from the tax, which raises more than $4 million a year for the transit system, was used by the RTA to secure a $66 million credit line to provide the match for the project and for planning work on the Desire route.
The next obstacle arose late in 2001 when, without warning, the FTA stopped the flow of transit aid into New Orleans, forcing the RTA to temporarily assume 100 percent of the construction bills to keep the project on schedule.
The decision was driven by U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, which has final say on federal transit assistance.
In what he described as an effort to stretch scarce dollars as his committee wrestled with a glut of new light-rail proposals, Rogers told the RTA that, like all local transit systems, it needed to scrub its budget to free more money for capital needs.
While RTA officials said they were prepared to bear a larger percentage of future project costs, they charged that Rogers was setting an unfair precedent by trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Led by U.S. Sen. John Breaux, the state’s congressional delegation weighed in and eventually convinced the Bush administration to back off. In February 2003, the White House announced that the funding formula would remain the same.
The last hitches came in the fall of 2003, when a Dec. 6 planned start of service was pushed back to the spring, at first because street and sidewalk repairs and neutral ground landscaping were behind schedule, and later because the construction contractor had to correct design flaws that left the project out of compliance with federal rules on handicapped accessibility.
A mess of detours
Construction workers began excavating the Canal Street neutral ground in January 2001. Since then, confusing detours, street closings and construction debris have made driving along the 3.1-mile route a sometimes torturous experience.
A separate, $5 million end-to-end resurfacing of Canal Street being overseen by City Hall added to the frustration.
The final piece in the puzzle was the one-mile spur along a stretch of North Carrollton Avenue that will link the Canal Street line with the entrance to City Park at Beauregard Circle. Opening of the spur will mark the first streetcar service to the park since 1940.
The silver lining in all the delays is that Sunday’s launch will allow the RTA to debut both components of the project at the same time, rather than months apart. Formal ceremonies are planned for Memorial Day weekend, on the 40th anniversary of the line’s closure.
When they are out of service, the streetcars will be stored, serviced and cleaned at the A. Philip Randolph Operations Facility in the 2800 block of Canal Street. The construction budget included $15 million to renovate the building.
The three bus lines that serve Canal Street currently carry about 16,000 people a day. Transit planners are projecting that the appeal of streetcars will boost those daily numbers to 18,000. Initially, the RTA estimates that 25 percent of the line’s riders will be tourists.
High hopes
While the restoration project has not produced any direct development along Canal, hopes remain high at City Hall that the return of the streetcar will help revitalize the street, which has suffered the fate of so many downtown main drags in recent years, as venerable business have closed.
While regular bus service will be shut down when the streetcars begin running, the RTA plans to maintain three express bus lines during morning and afternoon rush hours for Lakefront commuters looking for a speedier trip downtown and back home.
Since the project was first proposed, RTA officials have changed the location of the end of the line. Originally, the RTA proposed building a $5.5 million streetcar terminal south of City Park Avenue between Canal Street and Interstate 10. Plans called for the terminal to feature an eight-bay bus dock to allow easy transfer between buses and streetcars.
That plan was scuttled, however, after transit officials were unable to reach an agreement to buy or lease the 3.5-acre tract. As a result, the line will end in the center of Canal at City Park Avenue, where streetcars will stop along a new 22-foot-wide neutral ground. Riders will disembark, cross Canal and board buses at a newly renovated stop along City Park Avenue.
The bus lane on the downriver side of Canal has been converted to a regular traffic lane to free space needed for the wider neutral ground. The RTA also has improved traffic signals on Canal and installed a pedestrian crosswalk.
Meanwhile, the agency continues to explore ways to improve the Canal Street line’s terminus. The most frequently mentioned option is the Canal Boulevard neutral ground near the intersection of City Park Avenue.
|
Work To Resume On Odu’s Maglev/ Lawsuits Settled, $2 Million Now Released For Further Development Of Magnetic Train
The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.)
April 17, 2004
Work on Old Dominion University’s stalled experimental maglev train should soon be back on track now that lawsuits against its builder and the university have been settled and a $2 million federal grant needed to fix technical problems has been approved.
Scientists and engineers will resume the task of trying to fix vibrations that have plagued the controversial magnetic levitation project, which has cost $14 million in public and private money and was to have begun ferrying students across campus in September 2002.
The bullet-nosed vehicle sits idle, perched atop an elevated guideway, because money to fix the glitches ran out. Contractors who were not paid for their work on the system’s passenger stations sued for a total of nearly $800,000 last fall.
A settlement agreement to pay that debt calls for the non profit ODU Research Foundation to provide $200,000 and the university to spend $185,600. A portion of the money goes to the Georgia-based company that built the train and its guideway, American Maglev Technology Inc., once work resumes.
The creditors will be paid out of an escrow account established with the new funding.
ODU will be reimbursed for the $185,600 by the Federal Railroad Administration, said an official for that agency. The ODU Board of Visitors has insisted that no university money be spent on the project, whose technology remains unproven.
American Maglev’s president, Tony Morris, promised that the technological problems will be corrected within six months after work resumes, and the train will levitate and move smoothly along its guideway.
The project has been plagued by a series of setbacks and has become the subject of growing criticism since its much-ballyhooed debut was delayed 19 months ago.
Although Congress approved the $2 million grant for the project more than a year ago, the money was held up by the railroad agency while ODU and American Maglev dealt with the lawsuits and figured out exactly how the new money would be spent.
The railroad agency issued a stop-work order in November after the lawsuits were filed. The agency this week agreed to release the $2 million grant following the settlement of the lawsuits, said John Harding, chief maglev scientist for the railroad agency.
“We wanted to make sure our money was not going into settling those debts ? and that we have a reasonable expectation something useful would come out of this,” Harding said from Washington this week. “We expect to find out what’s wrong with the system and have a fix for it. That’s a hope, that’s not a guarantee.”
Members of the ODU Board of Visitors said they were pleased that the long-dormant project was moving forward again and voiced hope that it would succeed.
“I’m pleased with this agreement,” said Ross A. Mugler, secretary of the board, who in December had expressed displeasure about the way ODU had overseen the contract with American Maglev. “If it’s successful, it will be a great opportunity for the university to advance its research,” Mugler said. “It would be big for ODU, big for Hampton Roads. We’d all like to see it work.”
Mary C. Haddad, the board’s vice rector, said the university “is the perfect venue for this project. It has the potential to revolutionize transportation in Hampton Roads, the country and the world. “We learn from our errors in science and technology,” Haddad said. “This is a perfectly good investment for ODU.”
But several maglev experts have raised questions about whether the technology American Maglev uses will work at all.
Phyllis Wilkins, executive director of a federally funded high-speed maglev project in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C., area, said the system Morris has developed “may be ready for baby steps, but is not even close to commercial application.”
ODU Board of Visitors member William M. Lechler also has voiced skepticism. “It sounded like it was going to be a difficult process,” he said in December. “They really had to have a breakthrough in technology.”
Morris has insisted that breakthrough will happen once the $2 million federal grant money flows.
Under the terms of the grant, ODU staff and faculty will take a greater role in managing the project funds and finding the fix.
Until now, American Maglev managed both the funding and the technical development of the project. The new arrangement calls for ODU to take the primary role in decisions about spending and development. “We’re on the hook with the federal government to deliver this project,” said Robert L. Ash, ODU interim vice president for research.
The equipment ODU will buy from American Maglev includes motors, magnets and electrical components used at a Florida track where the ODU train was developed and tested. The university also will acquire a test car, called a “bogie,” also once used at the Edgewater, Fla., facility. The equipment will be used for research as part of a maglev deployment center ODU plans to create.
Under the terms of ODU’s agreements with American Maglev, the university has not paid anything for the project, but rather American Maglev will gift it to ODU once it proves successful. If it fails to work, American Maglev has signed an agreement to pay to remove the one-kilometer guideway and train from the campus.
ODU, however, has spent about $12,000 on safety certification. The university is poised to spend more money to clean up the incomplete passenger station sites, now in disrepair, to make them safe to resume work, said Robert L, Fenning, ODU’s vice president of administration and finance.
Half of the $14 million spent on the project so far was a loan from the state’s Commonwealth Transportation Board. The other half was private contributions from partners, including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Dominion Virginia Power.
The $2 million in federal money will be spent in the next year to refine the technology with the goal of creating a “demonstrable engineering prototype.” Various checkpoints will be used to evaluate the progress over the next year. By the year’s end, however, it will not be ready to transport students. ODU and its partners would need more money to complete that step.
If the train still does not work, ODU must decide whether to seek other sources of funds, convert it to an alternative transportation system, or instruct American Maglev to remove it.
|
Tempe likes paving light rail; $10.1 million would be spent on over 4 miles of track
The Arizona Republic
April 17, 2004
Tempe moved forward with a plan Thursday night to spend $10.1 million to pave more than four miles of light-rail track, following a similar move by Phoenix last month.
Under the original budget, the track would have been ballasted, which looks similar to a traditional railroad track. The upgrade means that all public access track that runs through Tempe will be filled with concrete in and around the track.
During the review session, the council met with city officials, including Public Works Manager Glen Kephart, to discuss pros and cons of paving.
In Kephart’s presentation, pros included: easier to clean, lower initial maintenance cost and a uniform look. Cons cited: higher costs of construction and safety concerns for pedestrians, because the ballasted track would offer a more visible barrier.
Some of the council members leaned toward paving only certain areas, one being Apache Boulevard, where the track will run down the middle of the road.
However, Councilman Ben Arredondo was in favor of paving the whole line. He told the council, “This community deserves the very best. If Phoenix can do it, we can do it, and we can probably do it better.”
That along with an endorsement from outgoing Mayor Neil Giuliano spurred the approval. “We can’t afford to not do it right,” said Giulianoin an interview. “It’s going to be there forever.”
He said the funding for the project would come from within the project’s existing budget. It would just involve “spreading it out” to avoid an initial lump-sum cost.
One man thrilled with the outcome was Bob Stafford, owner of Apache Palms R.V. Park and president of Tempe Apache Business Association. “I can go home and sleep now,” said Stafford, whose concern was the paving of Apache Boulevard. He said that if Tempe had gone with the ballasted line, the track area would become a “big ashtray” in front of his business.
|
Archive: Tram-pled By Rush Of Progress; Tram Travel Enjoyed A Golden Age Back In The 1920s
Birmingham Post
April 17, 2004
This is the age of the tram. Or so say many of the city authorities across the world. Call it rapid transit or metro, put it above ground or below, light rail systems are increasingly being adopted as a solution to the traffic problems of our crowded inner cities.
But, of course, yesterday was also the age of the tram. For every person excited about the future of rapid transit, there is another who gets dewy-eyed about its past. At a rough count there are more than a dozen books currently inprint, devoted to Birmingham’s old tramways. Indeed, it’s hard to believe quite how many men took photographs of trams in the city during their heyday. The statistics alone tell just how vital a role the trams once played in Birmingham’s transport infrastructure. In the peak year of 1927 the Corporation trams carried a staggering 250 million passengers over more than 70 miles of track within the city. In all the Corporation owned 843 vehicles.
The figures also reveal why the tram was such a popular form of transport among local authorities, and why it remains attractive today. The average tram travelled more than 80 miles a day, cost about one shilling (5p) a mile to run, and in the course of its lifetime covered around one million miles. These were hard-working, durable (and cheap) vehicles.
Not that they always covered the ground in exactly the same way. Once the concept of a road -rail system was accepted, there were plenty of ways of skinning that particular cat.
The tram could be driven by steam (as many of the earliest ones were), or battery-operated, or electrically powered through overhead wires or underfloor conduit. But perhaps the most unusual form of locomotion was via a moving cable. This format, pioneered in San Francisco in 1873, found its way to Birmingham in 1888 and lasted until June 1911 on the Handsworth line.
Each tram had a claw or gripper that fastened onto a continuously moving cable, which dragged the car along. It was clearly a winner on the steep streets of the Californian city, but a curious introduction in Birmingham.
The earliest trams of all, however, used no complex electrical or traction device; the only moving parts were the legs of a horse. It’s a pleasing irony that the horse-drawn tram was invented by a man called Train. George Francis Train, an American by birth, launched a horse-drawn tram from the ferry terminal at Birkenhead in 1860, and in the same year came to the Midlands to propose a similar tramline in Birmingham too.
It’s a further irony that the route he proposed — along Paradise Street and down Broad Street as far as Five Ways — has been such a bone of contention in recent years.
The proposal was accepted by the Corporation, but Train appears not to have been able to generate enough cash to run his service and the scheme was therefore dropped.
It was a further ten years before the idea was taken up again, by which time the birth of the tram was resembling the birth of railways, with a flurry of parliamentary acts and rival companies bidding for routes.
The first horse-drawn car (actually drawn by two horses) set off on Whit Monday 1872 from Hockley Port to Hill Top and Dudley Port. Such were the crowds clammering for a seat that the police were required to keep order.
The era of the horse-drawn tram was brief, and by the early 1880s steam power had replaced horse power on seven of the routes. Quite why it did so is not easy to fathom, since electricity was already becoming available, and the steam-tram was hardly the most appealing of vehicles.
Not only did it need more frequent refuelling than a horse, those sitting on the uncomfortable and exposed upper deck were treated to a faceful of the Industrial Revolution every time it moved. Yet such was the popularity of trams that even this least loved of specimens generated thousands of souvenir postcards when it was discontinued on the last day of 1906. ‘In remembrance of the old steam trams,’ they read, ‘passing away due to an electric shock…’
This, of course, was nothing in comparison with the wave of nostalgia that accompanied the final (electric) tram to the knacker’s yard on July 4 1953. In every jewellery box in Birmingham, I’m led to believe, there’s a bent halfcrown or penny that was placed on the line prior to its final passing. This was the cheap, readily available memento. Those lucky enough to get a seat on the final tram made off with whatever they could prise away and carry with them.
Sadly for Birmingham’s favourite form of public transport it was not a single spectacular send-off, but a slow death. It was in January 1939 that the city council adopted the policy of closing each tram line as it became unprofitable and replacing it with buses. Successful though they had been, trams had never been able to penetrate the furthest housing estates or to negotiate the country lanes around the city boundaries. There was also middle-class resistance to a form of transport that was seen as too working-class for nicer neighbourhoods, and thus the trams had never made it as far as Harborne or to the private housing estates such as Acocks Green and Hall Green. Nothing has changed in Harborne -residents recently vetoed an extension of the Metro along Metchley Lane.
And so the age of the tram came to a grinding halt. The last lines to be taken up were those to Short Heath, Pype Hayes and Erdington, and the sole surviving vehicle — No. 395 — eventually found its way to the Science Museum and now stands in Thinktank. Who knows, we may see its like on Birmingham’s streets sometime in the future, but it’s unlikely we’ll ever get up to 843 again.
|
Project on track to renew the past
Pittsburgh TRIBUNE-REVIEW
April 18, 2004
It’s been nearly a decade since an outmoded trolley rattled along the Overbrook line of the light-rail transit system in the South Hills.
The century-old line — which runs from Castle Shannon to the southern edge of the city — closed in June 1993 because railroad beds, tracks and bridges were too unstable. Steep hillsides where the line passes had been mined for coal and slate in the 1800s, leaving the terrain susceptible to subsidence and landslides.
South Hills residents, especially those who live near the Overbrook line, have wondered if transit cars ever would return.
Their wait is about over.
Starting Friday, Port Authority of Allegheny County will begin regular testing of transit vehicles on the reconstructed Overbrook line. The 5.5-mile rail system is scheduled to open officially in June, although the exact date hasn’t been set.
“We’ve replaced the old rickety line. It functioned reasonably well when we had the old street cars, but we had difficulty just maintaining the surface because of unstable hillsides,” said Port Authority Chief Executive Paul Skoutelas.
Joseph Moses, owner of Moses Quality Market in Castle Shannon, said his business was hurt when the line closed. “Reopening the ‘T’ could give us a nice mix of businesses. We’re hoping that people will invest in the area once it opens,” he said.
Motorist Richard Rhodes, of Upper St. Clair, said he hopes reopening the transit system will ease traffic congestion. “This is going to enhance the area a great deal,” he said. “It will cause people to once again identify with places along Route 88 and once again give us that artery we need into the city.”
The old-fashioned trolleys are gone for good. The reconstructed line will be served by new and remanufactured vehicles — all part of Port Authority’s $386 million Stage II Light Rail Transit reconstruction program.
The transit agency has spent $151.1 million for an ongoing project to buy 28 new cars and to remanufacture the 55-car fleet that has been in service for nearly two decades. The remaining money, mostly in federal funds, was spent on overhauling the Overbrook line.
The overhaul is projected, over about 10 years, to add 13,000 new weekday riders, said Port Authority spokesman Bob Grove.
The work, which started about four years ago, included replacing or reconstructing nine bridges; laying all new tracks and rail beds; improving the right-of-way; and consolidating the previous 22 trolley stops into eight modern stations.
The line will serve Beltzhoover, Bon Air, Overbrook, Castle Shannon and nearby neighborhoods.
Modern traffic signals and controls have been installed where roads and tracks intersect, including gated crossings at Killarney Drive, Sleepy Hollow Road, Grove Road and Poplar Avenue.
The project also reinforced slide-prone hillsides, transit officials said.
The Stage II project includes reconstruction of other tracks; expansion of the Operational Control Center at South Hills Village; construction of more park-and-ride lots and stations; and the upgrade of the transit system to a 650-volt power grid.
|
Men hunting for New York subway that started it all
Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
April 18, 2004
Amid the daily scrum of the New York City subway, few ever go looking for the past. Rushing to work or home, from one appointment to the next, riders scurry past mysterious doors that lead nowhere, walled-off platforms and stairwells, faded sections of tile and other odd artifacts of history without a second glance.
But this being the subway’s centennial year, Joseph Brennan and Joseph Cunningham, a pair of transit buffs, agreed recently to lead a small band in search of the original 1904 subway.
Brennan, 52, helps administer the e-mail system at Columbia University but has never outgrown his childhood fascination with trains. A few years ago, he put together a Web site on the city’s abandoned subway stations. Cunningham, 52, has written several books on the subway. On weekends, he volunteers as a tour guide for the New York City Transit Museum.
The city’s subway system first opened as a single line on Oct. 27, 1904. It began at City Hall and ranged north to Grand Central, where it made an abrupt turn west to a sleepy area that had been renamed Times Square, before finally heading north again to 145th Street and Broadway.
The original City Hall station was the system’s ceremonial centerpiece, with vaulted ceilings, skylights and chandeliers. But it closed in 1945. So, the hunt for the 1904 subway begins aboveground. Gesturing at the empty plaza, Brennan explains how the original line swung out from Brooklyn Bridge station and looped around in front of the steps of City Hall.
And down in the Brooklyn Bridge station, at the southernmost end of the downtown platform for the No. 6 train, Brennan and Cunningham point into the gloom, where the tracks disappear around a sharp bend. City Hall station is just around the corner.
A short distance up the platform, he ducks down to peer into a control room across the tracks. Through the glass window, the outline of a staircase is etched on the far wall, like fossilized remains in a cave.
Upstairs in the mezzanine, the two men stop in front of a 50-foot section of wall of yellowing tile and red brick wainscoting, by the exit to Brooklyn Bridge. The station was renovated once in the early 1960s and again in the 1990s. But this length of original wall survived. “It’s the one place they didn’t touch,” Brennan says.
The group heads for Bleecker Street, which is rare among the original stations because all eight of its medallion-style plates have survived. The original white tile walls, with red wainscoting, give way abruptly to a two-tone green, marking an extension to the station made in the early 1960s. “There was no attempt to blend here,” Brennan says.
They skip Astor Place, a favorite among subway historians for the decorative terra-cotta beaver plaques. Cunningham is dismissive: “Everyone knows about the beavers.”
Instead, they head to Union Square. Here, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has made an effort to preserve its history. Six jagged columns of concrete and tile line the busy passageway. They are remnants of the original two-story walls that used to extend from the platforms. At the tops of these walls, bronze-colored eagles, clutching crests bearing the number “14,” looked down on the tracks. For decades, these columns were hidden behind an area used for storage, Cunningham says.
At 23rd Street, the group surfaces briefly to head over to the downtown side.
The two men press on to Grand Central, weaving their way to the platform for the shuttle to Times Square. The original 1904 subway line headed north on Park Avenue and then curved left to enter Grand Central at 42nd Street near Madison Avenue.
Grand Central was an express station, with two local and two express tracks. But one of the downtown express tracks was covered up in 1918, when the Lexington Avenue line was extended north. The original Grand Central station was converted into a shuttle station.
Entering the shuttle area, the track on the far left, Track 1 for the shuttle, is the only one of the three that extends through the station today like the original line did. The track bends south, eventually connecting further down in the tunnel to the downtown tracks near 39th Street.
Over in Times Square, plenty of 1904 remnants can be found. Back then, the area above the subway station had just been renamed, after The New York Times built its new headquarters there. At the shuttle platform, above a map of Midtown, the outline of an archway can be seen under a thick coat of brown paint. It marks the old entrance to the Times building.
A few hundred feet across the platform, a grimy, bronze-colored ceramic sign above a rusted doorway spells out “KNICKERBOCKER,” for the old Knickerbocker Hotel at Broadway and 42nd Street. It opened two years after the subway opened, only to close in 1921, becoming an office building.
Along the far wall, by Track 4 for the shuttle train, an original uptown platform existed until recently but was walled off a few months ago. Brennan is momentarily mournful. “I can’t believe it’s covered up,” he says. “It was barely touched.”
Soon, however, he is explaining about the columns that line the platform. Their circular shape betrays the fact that they are original, he says.
Up at 59th Street/Columbus Circle, Cunningham and Brennan are interested in only a portion of the station, because much of it was gutted in the 1930s to accommodate a passageway to the Eighth Avenue line. “Check out the ceiling,” Cunningham says, stopping about 75 feet south of the turnstiles on the uptown side.
Protected by a wooden newsstand that went into the station shortly after it opened and was only removed in the 1980s, a large swath of peeling beige-painted ceiling has been preserved. Intricate rosettes stud supporting beams and encircle light fixtures.
At 66th Street/Lincoln Center, Cunningham said, “Here we have the old-old and the new-old.” In a renovation in the late 1990s, workers installed new station plaques, done in the original 1904 style, but the “LC,” woven into the “66,” give them away. Lincoln Center did not exist in 1904.
At 72nd Street, the pair step off to inspect a series of mosaic tile pieces done in the style of a green, yellow and blue Oriental rug on the track walls. The only other ones in that style that remain are 110th Street, they said.
The trek continues at 96th Street, where the two men point out an abandoned side platform.
Cunningham wants to find a length of wall that shows the change in decor from 1904 to 1910, when workers lengthened the northbound platforms from 350 feet to 475 feet, then to 1948, when the platforms went to 525 feet. But he only finds the spot where the elaborate egg-and-dart ceramic trim that was part of the original gave way to flat tile in 1948. He realizes that the change in 1910 was obliterated.
In some ways, it is fitting. The end feels a bit anticlimactic, with nothing to mark it. Brennan says there is no reason to. Just a month later, the subway extended north to 157th Street, with another branch opening on Lenox Avenue to 145th Street. And a few months later it was running to the Bronx. “They were already building the rest,” he says.
|
Light Rail Plan Sputters Amid Doubts Over Funding
Tampa Tribune (Florida)
April 18, 2004
TAMPA — The Tampa Rail Project dodged a bullet this month in a vote some transit leaders say could have proved fatal.
Just how alive the light rail proposal is, however, remains to be seen. “I have grave concerns,” said Jan Platt, a Hillsborough County commissioner on the board of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. “We really don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Lucie Ayer, head of the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization.
After years of studies and public hearings, the transit board voted in October 2001 to build a 20-mile light rail system connecting downtown Tampa and Ybor City with the West Shore business district and the University of South Florida.
The HARTline vote didn’t open any checkbooks, though, and funding for the $1.4 billion project is elusive.
Half of that money, more than $700 million, is supposed to come from the Federal Transit Administration, which approved the project a year ago. The agency has not specifically recommended funding the project, however, citing a lack of local support.
HARTline suggested that more than one-third of the project’s cost could be funded with a local sales tax increase that has not reached a public ballot for consideration.
In an annual report, the national agency warned that the project could lose its shot at federal funding if “progress is not made on improving its financial status.”
Falling off the government list, behind dozens of other communities seeking a limited pool of start-up dollars, would be fatal, HARTline officials and rail supporters fear.
Jan Smith, who chaired the HARTline board that approved the project in 2001, said local leaders must not let years of work languish. “We are going to be sadly lacking if we don’t have the chutzpah to step up to the table and try to get these funds,” Smith said. “If we have forward-thinking, visionary people in places of political influence, we will. If we don’t, we won’t.”
Worth The Investment?
The HARTline board was nearing the close of its April 5 meeting when member Steve Polzin raised the question: Why was the agency planning to spend $65,000 on consulting work for a light rail system that appears light years away? “I’m trying to make this board make a very deliberate decision on whether or not they want to continue to invest in it in light of the prospects of local funding being available to do something with it,” said Polzin, a USF transportation researcher.
HARTline Executive Director Sharon Dent argued that the consulting work — $15,000 worth now and $50,000 through 2006 — was necessary to keep Tampa’s rail project in good federal standing.
The consultant would be paid to prepare annual project updates for the federal agency, including one due in August. Failure to meet the deadline would be a fatal flaw, Dent warned. “If you tell me not to authorize this task order, you’ve just killed the rail project, and you made that decision today, so you need to understand it,” she said.
Platt balked at Polzin’s suggestion, saying, “I’m concerned that some little motion like this could put the brakes on rail.”
Ultimately, board members approved the first $15,000 of work, given to Gannett Fleming of Camp Hill, Pa. They also signed off on the second phase with the caveat that they could cancel the rest of the contract at any time.
Beyond that money, though, is the billion-dollar question of what will become of light rail. Platt anticipates a full-bore discussion soon. “I think the future of rail is going to be decided in the very near future,” she said.
Long-Range Planning
If it’s not decided by HARTline, it could be decided by the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The organization is updating its long-range transportation plan, a document that includes the rail project at this point. It’s time again to revisit the plan, and some rail supporters worry that the planning board will target their effort for elimination.
Such a decision would erase several million dollars worth of work and thwart any hope of opening by the plan’s horizon date of 2025, said HARTline spokesman Ed Crawford, an avid rail proponent. “If you get bumped out of the queue, if this thing somehow falls off the feds’ radar screen, and if our report doesn’t remain updated, … it’s highly likely that those kind of time horizons go way out the window,” Crawford said.
Tampa deserves rail of the type that works in Salt Lake City, Denver, Houston, Dallas and Portland, Ore., Crawford said, even if some question whether Tampa is in the same league. “You by no means have compelling community consensus,” Polzin said. “They want strong, viable projects. They don’t want laggards. This is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.”
HARTline has predicted about 30,000 people would ride the rail daily.
There is also the matter of HARTline’s credibility, though.
Dent recently took a verbal beating from county commissioners, who expressed “no confidence” in her leadership. A county auditor found questionable spending practices on the agency’s other rail project, the TECO Line Streetcar System. Federal transit investigators have been asking questions about the streetcar woes.
Some of the loudest critics of HARTline leadership have been vocal opponents of the streetcar.
Crawford acknowledged that the agency’s credibility could play a role — “I haven’t been living under a rock,” he said — but he also wondered whether recent criticism is part of a concerted effort to derail light rail. “Is this all part of the plan?” he said.
(CHART) Tampa Rail Project
Facts and figures on the proposed light rail system in Tampa. Estimates were calculated in 2001 and based on 2025 opening. 20.1 miles; 26 stations
Frequency of service: 4-to 15-minute intervals
Capital Costs: rail system: $986 million
Necessary companion improvements to bus system: $390 million
Total: $1.4 billion
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Rail: $21 million
Bus: $75 milliom
Total: $96 million
Ridership
HARTline estimates about 30,000 additional daily riders if light rail is introduced.
Federal Transit Administration predicts about 38,000 daily tips.
Original Funding Proposal:
Federal grants: 50%
State funds: 25%
Local sales: 25%
Sources: Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority
|
Test runs of Halifax buses fuelled by fish oil going swimmingly
The Canadian Press (CP)
April 18, 2004
HALIFAX (CP) _ The most surprising thing about Halifax city buses powered by fish oil is that they don’t stink.
“I was concerned at the start,’’ said Paul Beauchamp, who manages the municipality’s fleet of vehicles. “Flowers and sunflowers are one thing, but fish oil? But if you didn’t know it, and you walked up to the bus, you would probably never know.’’
As part of the city’s effort to help slow climate change, 20 Halifax buses recently began burning a biofuel blend of 80 percent diesel and 20 percent fish oil. “It’s a lot of work to convince people that it does have benefits and that it will work,’’ said supplier Ian Wilson of Wilson Fuels.
Biofuel is made by mixing diesel with an animal or plant protein such as beef tallow, old french fry grease or even soy beans. Wilson Fuels has added an East Coast twist to the formula by mixing fish oil with the diesel.
The fuel company explained the benefits of its unique blend to the city last fall, emphasizing that biofuel burns cleaner than traditional diesel but doesn’t cost a penny more. “It’s a great way to be environmentally friendly and not have it impact the pocketbook,’’ said Wilson. “With Canada being a signatory to the Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is a really great way to go toward meeting those goals.’’
For every litre of biofuel burned, carbon-dioxide emissions are cut by 2[ kilograms _ news that bodes well for Halifax as one of the first Canadian cities to experiment with the stuff.
Rocker Neil Young is currently on tour using a bus powered only by biofuel. Ontario opened its first biodiesel pump in March, and a traveller known as the Eco-trekker is crossing the country on a motorbike powered only by natural fuels, including biofuel.
Wilson Fuels gets its fish oil from Ocean Nutrition, a Mulgrave, N.S., health products manufacturer that imports crude fish oil left over from the processing of anchovies and sardines in South America.
Ocean Nutrition extracts Omega-3 fatty acids from the oil for use in its dietary supplements. The leftovers from that process are essentially waste that Wilson Fuels uses in its biofuel. “We see this as another viable fuel that’s gonna make its way into the marketplace,’’ said Wilson.
Howlan Mullally, energy co-ordinator for the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, calls the use of biofuel “a step in the right direction.’ Once you have a customer that’s willing to use it and a promoter like Wilson Fuels, then things just tend to fall in place,’’ he said.
Are customers willing to use it, though?
During a recent trip on Halifax city bus No. 956, few of the passengers seemed to notice, or care, if their transport was fish-powered. “As far as inside the bus, it’s fine,’’ said Rita Gray of Halifax. “To me there’s no odour. If you didn’t say anything, no one would know.’’
Bus driver Tom Comeau said he’s a fan of the fuel. “It’s great. You can’t notice any difference in the performance.’’
The fleet’s manager said the city is already seeing a difference. “The benefits for us are strictly emissions,’’ said Beauchamp. “At this point the only thing that we actually changed is the fuel and our smoke ratio has changed.’’ He said the biofuel buses are getting the same mileage as those that burn diesel while sacrificing nothing in terms of engine response and performance.
Further tests will determine if the biofuel has helped reduced other emissions from the municipality’s vehicles. The city is also hoping to eventually increase the amount of fish oil used in the biofuel mix. “We’re looking at hopefully this summer going to a 50-50 ratio,’’ said Beauchamp, adding the city is also considering switching to 100 percent fish oil fuel for its furnaces.
|
Financial Express Historic High-speed Tube Is Vital To Maintain Capital’s Lead In Europe; London’s Crossrail Set To Get Go -Ahead
Sunday Express
April 18, 2004
THE Government is expected to give the green light to one of the biggest engineering projects in UK history in the next few weeks by unveiling a multibillion pound plan to proceed with Crossrail.
The hugely ambitious scheme will involve the construction of high-speed commuter lines beneath central London.
Crossrail, first proposed more than 15 years ago, is v iewed as a crucial plank in the UK’s long-term transport infrastructure. The construction phase will last almost a decade and the project could cost up to GBP 10billion and would represent a huge political commitment.
In recent months, the Department for Transport has been conducting a thorough review of the plan after the submission earlier this year of an independent feasibility study by British Energy chairman Adrian Montague.
Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport, is thought to have broadly backed the project — under certain conditions and assuming strict limits on the amount of public money put up. The project is expected to be funded by a mixture of public money, along with new tax levies, and at least GBP 3billion in private funding, much of it raised through bond offerings.
Sources close to Crossrail say the announcement is expected “within the next two weeks” before a moratorium associated with the London Mayoral election campaign comes into play. Any further delay would mean keeping the project on hold until several weeks after the ballot on June 10.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport admitted an announcement was “imminent” although he declined to comment on the details.
Douglas Oakervee, president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, said he would warmly welcome a decision to back the project. “If London is to retain its position as Europe’s leading financial and business city it is of paramount importance to have a transport system that meets the needs of the 21st century. Crossrail is the key to this essential infrastructure.”
For years, Crossrail has been dogged by concerns about funding as well as the capacity of the UK construction industry to deal with the scale of the project.
A spokesman for the Strategic Rail Authority said it would be “one of the biggest civil engineering projects in the world”. The work will involve digging many more deep tunnels beneath London as well as new infrastructure and stations at Liverpool Street, Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street and Paddington.
When complete, Crossrail will allow passengers and freight to travel directly across the capital, creating a new network of services that will help ease the pressure on the city’s creaking transport network and reduce congestion on its roads and other trains.
The extra transport capacity is considered crucial to keep London moving. Its population is expected to grow by up to 1million in the next 10 years, equivalent to merging Leeds with London.
According to the Institution of Civil Engineers, overcrowding on London’s Tube will reach dangerous levels by 2011. However, it will be some time before construction can begin. The project must first be given the go-ahead by an Act of Parliament.
|
To get the most from your short break, grab a visitor pass.
Sunday Times
April 18, 2004
If you’re planning a weekend city break, you can save both time and money by investing in a visitor pass or tourist card. Most offer free public transport, and they invariably include entry to a number of museums and other attractions. Discounts in shops and restaurants are often included too.
What you get for your money varies from city to city, but wherever you are, the more active your visit, the better the returns. According to the Lisbon tourist office, for example, the average tourist visiting three attractions and using public transport on three occasions would save about £6 a day.
Another perk of the passes is that you can usually skip the queue for tickets — not to be underestimated, especially in peak season.
AMSTERDAM. The Amsterdam pass.
- What does it cover? Free entry to all the city’s most famous museums, including the Van Gogh, the Stedelijk and the Rijksmuseum, and unlimited travel on trams, buses and underground, plus a free canal cruise, and a 25% discount on the Canalbus and Museum boat, as well as at a few restaurants. There’s a motley folio of other freebies, including a van Dobben croquette roll, a glass of liqueur at De Drie Fleschjes, a cup of coffee in the restaurant La Place, and five postcards at Cafe Ristretto, Magna Plaza.
- Where do I get it?: Local tourist information offices (VVV), including the main one opposite the central station.
- How much?: One day £22; two days £30; three days £37. No child card.
- NB: there are no reductions for children, but most museums are free for the under-12s. The pass is relatively expensive, so you need to pack a lot in to make it worthwhile.
BARCELONA: Barcelona Card.
- What does it cover?: City transport -bus and metro -including the funicular de Montjuic; free or reduced entrance to more than two dozen museums including the Picasso, Gaudi and Ethnological museums; a free city walking tour; and modest discounts in a selection of shops, restaurants, nightclubs and shows.
- Where do I get it?: Turisme de Barcelona offices, including the airport (terminals A&B), and in El Corte Ingles department stores.
- How much?: One day £12 (£10); two days £14 (£12); three days £15.50 (£13.50); four days £17 (£15) and five days £18 (£16). Child prices apply between 4 and 12 years.
- NB: Feeble saving for children and, with a limited number of free admissions on offer, not as good a deal as some other cities. Several museums close on Monday.
BERLIN: Welcome Card.
- What does it cover?: Three days of travel on all buses and trains of the Berlin-Brandenburg network within the A, B and C fare zones, plus reductions of up to 50% on many museums, including the Pergamon Museum, the Gemeldegalerie (Painting Gallery), and other attractions.
- Where do I get it?: Tourist information centres, hotels, S-bahn offices.
- How much?: Three days for £14 -and it also covers up to three children under 14.
- NB: excellent value, despite the 50% still to pay on entrances.
BRUSSELS: The Brussels Card.
- What does it cover?: Access to 30 museums and the use of public transport throughout the capital region, as well as a slew of discounts. According to the promotional blurb, you can “discover the Comic Strip and the Musical Instruments museums in their magnificent art-nouveau decor, savour typical beers in the Gueuze Museum, pay a visit to the prestigious Fine Arts Museum and complete your tour with the famous mussels and chips at Chez Leon, and a show at the puppet theatre and museum-cum-cafe-bar, Toone (25% discount)”.
- Where do I get it?: Tourist offices, public-transport stations, museums, several hotels.
- How much?: Three days for £20.
- NB: no children’s reduction, which is tough on the culture-keen and mussel noshing family. But otherwise, it’s a good deal.
COPENHAGEN: The Copenhagen Card.
- What does it cover?: A new card will be introduced on May 1, with unlimited travel on the entire metropolitan transport system and entry to virtually every museum in the Copenhagen area.
- Where do I get it?: Tourist offices, including the one at the airport, and train stations.
- How much?: £18 (£11) for one day and £36 (£20) for three (no two-day option). Prices in brackets are for children from 10 to 15 years.
- NB: think twice about getting one on Wednesdays, when museums are free anyway.
LISBON: The Lisboa Card.
- What does it cover?: Travel on the underground, on Carris buses, trams and lifts, and on trains between Cais Sodre, Cascais, Rossio and Sintra, as well as admission to 28 museums, historic buildings and other places of interest, and discounted entry to about 40 other attractions.
- Where do I get it?: The airport, tourist offices, train station, several hotels and travel agencies.
- How much?: One day £9.50 (£4); two days £16 (£6.50); three days: £20 (£8.50). Children’s prices apply up to age 11.
- NB: excellent value, especially with the broad reach of the transport element.
LYON: Lyon City Card.
- What does it cover?: Admission to 19 museums, including Fine Arts, the History of French Resistance, Modern Art and others variously devoted to dolls, hospitals, silkworkers, electricity, cars, fabrics etc, plus guided tours on foot (audio-guided) or by boat, the roof of Fourviere basilica, some concerts at the Opera House and The Auditorium of Lyon, a puppet show and full use of the Lyon public-transit system.
- Where do I get it?: Tourist offices or online at www.lyon-france.com.
- How much?: One day £12 (£6.50); two days £20 (£10); three days £27 (£13.50). Bracketed prices are for children aged from 4 to 18.
- NB: a pity it doesn’t cover some of the city’s gastronomic icons.
NEW YORK: New York CityPass.
- What does it cover?: Entry to six sights: the Empire State Building Observatory, Intrepid Sea Air Space Museum, American Museum of Natural History, Guggenheim, Museum of Modern Art and a Circle Line Harbour Cruise, as well as a range of other discounts.
- Where do I get it?: Each sight on the list.
- How much?: Nine days £25 (£21 for 6-to 17-year-olds).
- NB: limited appeal, but worth it for first-timers.
PARIS: The Museum pass (Carte Musees and Monuments).
- What does it cover?: Free entry to the permanent collections in more than 70 museums and monuments in the city and the region, including the Arc de Triomphe, the Louvre, the Quai d’Orsay and Picasso museums.
- Where do I get it?: Participating attractions, Metro stations, tourist information offices.
- How much?: One day £13; three days £26; five days £40. There are no children’s prices since most museums let them in free up to 18 years (carry ID if you’re an oldie teenager).
- NB: reduced entry prices are also usually available to those aged between 18 and 25. Many museums close on Mondays or Tuesdays, so neither is a good day for recouping your investment. Also, several are free on the first Sunday of the month.
VENICE: Venicecard.
- What does it cover?: There are two tiers of card -the Blu, which covers just transport, including Grand Canal and lagoon boats; and the Orange, which also includes museums such as the Doge’s Palace. Both offer some discounts at hotels and restaurants.
- Where do I get it?: The tourist desk at the airport.
- How much?: Orange: one day £20 (£13); three days £34 (Pounds 25);seven days £48 (£43).Blu: one day £9.50 (£6); three days £19.50 (£15); seven days £34 (£33). A bit less if you buy online: www.venicecard.com. Prices in brackets apply to under-30s. Pay an extra £13 if you want to include transport to (and from) Marco Polo airport.
- NB: it takes a while to decipher the details. And where else in the world could you still get a child discount up to age 29.
|
New era of Canal streetcars gets rolling at 3 a.m. and, despite a partial power outage, serves 30,000 passengers on the debut day
New Orleans Times-Picayune
April 19, 2004
It’s hard to sneak up on a crowd of 150 people when you’re piloting a multiton pillbox done up in firetruck red, but the driver of the first Canal Street streetcar to carry passengers in 40 years managed just that Sunday at 3 a.m.
RTA officials had bragged the new cars would be quiet and quick, nothing like the spark-throwing green tanks on St. Charles Avenue. And they weren’t lying.
The car was greeted by the standard mishmash of New Orleans people: old and young, black and white, local and tourist, drunk and sober, all standing around slurping coffee and noshing on beignets. They had amassed on the neutral ground at Canal and Salcedo streets for the better part of two hours, taking numbers for a ride to nowhere in particular and trading life stories with friends and strangers alike.
All of a sudden, the red car rolled up. A man named Alan Drake, a volunteer who gave out numbers because, he said, he just knew the scene would otherwise devolve into madness, started hustling people into a line. “Only if you have a No. 90 and below, get in line! Respect the people who have been here for hours!” he ordered.
The streetcar ignored Drake and his line, pulling up in the middle of the crowd. Its doors parted to reveal a police officer. “We got no numbers,” the officer barked.
For a moment, outrage spread. “Can you believe this?” snapped local public relations professional Warren Bell. “This is the RTA, remember?” another man griped. “They’re the ones that destroyed these things in the first place.”
Meanwhile, the first person to hop on the car was a relative of driver Lamont Williams, perhaps explaining why he stopped short of the numerically ordered line.
Sixty-five people, not including the driver, made it on for the first spin up to City Park Avenue. At least five riders had been on the last streetcar that cruised Canal on May 31, 1964. Others never had the privilege, on Canal or any other street.
All appreciated the polished workmanship of the new ride, with its mahogany benches and meticulously stitched leather handholds.
Streetcar fever was dampened on part of the route a little after 6 p.m. Sunday, however, when a power outage stalled service along North Carrollton Avenue between Orleans Avenue and Beauregard Circle, the line’s northern limit.
Electricians had the cars running again by 9 p.m., said Regional Transit Authority spokeswoman Rosalind Blanco Cook, and the outage did not affect streetcar service anywhere else along the new Canal Street line, which had logged about 30,000 riders by Sunday night.
Last ride was ‘torture’
Before and during the maiden ride, the chosen few used the occasion to trade where-we-were-then stories, with a love of New Orleans and its quirks as the common theme.
At age 16, preservationist Jack Stewart took up the streetcar’s demise as his entry into local activism. Wearing his father’s white Mayer Israel suit, the same one he wore 40 years ago, he remembered the streetcar’s last roll down Canal Street as “torture, like your insides were being torn up.” People crammed onto the car with dour faces, he said. But one couple boarded carrying grocery bags and wearing smiles.
“The man pulled out these wieners and he said, ‘Look at these hot dogs,’ “ Stewart said, waving an imaginary sausage in a stranger’s face. “When we got back to the bus barn, Mayor Vic Schiro came out and the guy said, ‘These are for you, Vic,’ and he started throwing the hot dogs at the mayor.”
Local author and commentator Errol Laborde rejoiced in the irony of the city’s decision to kill the Canal streetcars only to revive them nearly a half- century later. “Back then, nobody was talking about pollution and congestion and light rail,” he said.
As the car rolled toward the cemeteries, Michael Bartee, a blacksmith who estimated he has helped build nearly half of the curved front and rear panels on the city’s streetcars, gave a running commentary on the machine’s underpinnings. “I counted once, and I’ve made maybe 94 of the streetcar fronts and backs,” he said.
Bartee helped shape all the parts passengers will never see, those that make the new cars run so smoothly and quietly. “Like the ZOK gusset. That stands for ‘Zbar-to-Outer-Knee,’ ,” he said, pointing toward the doors. “It’s underneath that red box over there. It’s in the chassis.”
End of the line and back
When the car reached the end of its route at City Park Avenue, the driver ordered everyone off. Everyone got back on after lining up and kicking in another $1.25.
Waiting to board again, Drake, wearing blocky glasses and a string of Endymion beads, lamented the fact that his numbering system had little to do with who got the thrill of the maiden voyage. “I was the first one here, at 12:10” a.m., he said. He appointed himself to hand out numbers to those who followed. “I’m just a private individual who knew there was going to be a problem unless we did that. . . . It only kinda, sorta worked.”
“Right!” said a burly man standing next to Drake, wearing a Hawaiian shirt under a blue blazer, pants stained with doughnut sugar and a pair of furry brown slippers that resembled expired nutria. “It kinda, sorta worked,” he repeated. “Just like New Orleans.”
|
Sound Transit’s quest for ideal route produces ‘disappointing’ choices
Seattle Times
April 19, 2004
After a 2-1/2-year search, Sound Transit’s board is on the verge of choosing a new light-rail route from downtown Seattle to the University District.
A tentative alignment could be selected as soon as Thursday. But whatever option is chosen, it won’t do everything the agency hoped for when it began examining the alternatives in late 2001.
Sound Transit’s staff has presented the board with nine possible new routes to the University District, as well as three possible alignments north to Northgate.
Some of those routes aren’t acceptable to the University of Washington — considered a must. Those that do pass muster with the UW deliver less bang for the buck than the route the board mothballed three years ago. “It’s been disappointing,” admits Tacoma City Councilman Kevin Phelps, who chairs Sound Transit’s finance committee. “I guess we were hoping we’d find some lower-cost alternatives.”
The route the board seems most likely to pick, which features a tunnel under the Montlake Cut and a station at Husky Stadium, actually costs about 1 or 2 percent more and would carry about 4 percent fewer riders in 2030 than the old alignment, according to Sound Transit’s estimates.
Board members who lean toward it, including Phelps and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, say it’s the better choice anyway because there’s a much smaller risk of budget-busting surprises later, when workers start digging.
Ladenburg, the board chairman, says Sound Transit’s staff deserves credit for not sugarcoating the economic realities. “We know it’s going to be tremendously expensive,” he says, “because we didn’t do it (build light rail) … years ago like everybody else.”
When Sound Transit began its search for a new route north in late 2001, the project was a shambles. Contractors said the route the board had picked in 1999 — a tunnel under First Hill, Capitol Hill, Portage Bay and 15th Avenue Northeast — couldn’t be built for the money Sound Transit had budgeted.
So the agency decided to build south from downtown instead while it looked for a new route north that ideally would be cheaper, more cost- effective and less risky.
Those ideals have proved elusive. “There’s probably no perfect route,” says board member Fred Butler, an Issaquah city councilman, “and no route that makes everyone happy.”
The board’s impending decision doesn’t mean construction will start soon. More environmental studies of the chosen alignment must be completed before the board makes its decision final, probably next year.
And Sound Transit still doesn’t have the money. The agency has released estimates only for the construction costs of each option, not including trains or administrative and engineering expenses. The partial estimates range from $1.31 billion to $1.75 billion to reach Northgate.
The total cost? Metropolitan King County Councilman Dwight Pelz, D- Seattle, another Sound Transit board member, pegs it at around $2.5 billion. Sound Transit critics contend it will cost much more.
The agency has only $248 million available now to go north, although more could surface if bids to build the light-rail line south of downtown come in low.
There’s also the possibility of $1 billion from a three-county transportation package that could be on the November ballot. And Sound Transit officials are hoping for $500 million or so more in federal grants.
Instead of waiting until every dollar is assured for going north to Northgate, Ladenburg has suggested Sound Transit just start building. “Can’t we just pick segments and add them until we run out of money?” he asked at a recent board meeting.
Doing the numbers
Like the 1999 route, all nine new routes from downtown to the University District would be entirely underground. Seven would cost less to build than the original. Three would tunnel directly from downtown to Capitol Hill, bypassing First Hill. Three more would follow a route up Eastlake Avenue East to the Lake Washington Ship Canal, bypassing Capitol Hill as well.
John Ladenburg
But Sound Transit estimates five of those six alternatives would carry at least 10 percent fewer passengers in 2030 than the 1999 alignment, which had stations on both hills. On a per-rider basis, the new routes actually would be less cost-effective, the agency calculates. They appear to enjoy little, if any, support among board members.
Sound Transit did find one alternative that serves both First Hill and Capitol Hill that also would attract slightly more riders and cost a little less than the 1999 route. It would tunnel under the Montlake Cut, then under the heart of the UW campus from southeast to northwest, beneath Rainier Vista and Red Square.
But the UW’s regents, who must approve any route through campus, effectively vetoed that option in December. Vibrations and electromagnetic fields from trains would pose too great a risk to scientific research, they wrote.
A fight with the university is the last thing Sound Transit wants. “I just can’t imagine us wanting to go down that path,” says Phelps.
The route the board seems poised to approve is a variation on the one the regents rejected. It would follow a more looping route under the campus, beneath the Husky Union Building and the Quadrangle.
‘Modified Montlake’ favored
Theresa Doherty, UW assistant vice president for regional affairs, says the route, dubbed “modified Montlake” by Sound Transit, is acceptable because it’s farther from the buildings that house the most sensitive research.
But the route’s longer tunnel under campus pushes its price tag above the straighter Montlake route and the 1999 alignment, according to Sound Transit’s environmental studies. It also would attract slightly fewer riders, largely because a station at Husky Stadium would be farther from the university’s medical center and main campus than the south campus stations envisioned for the other routes.
Even so, “modified Montlake” has the backing of Northeast Seattle community and business groups and the Seattle City Council’s transportation committee. Board members Pelz and Metropolitan King County Councilman Larry Phillips, D-Seattle, support it, and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and King County Executive Ron Sims also are said to be on board. “It’s the best way to get along with the University of Washington,” says Kenmore City Councilman Jack Crawford, another board member who favors the route.
Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver, another board member, isn’t so sure. “I think crossing the UW campus is going to be much more expensive than we know now,” he says, alluding to future negotiations with the university over mitigation.
McIver supports a “West Tunnel” under the Ship Canal near the University Bridge and a route up Brooklyn Avenue Northeast. The “modified Montlake” route’s chief advantage over the 1999 route, according to its backers, is less risk. Soils under the Montlake Cut are compact. Sediments under Portage Bay are more likely to hide boulders that might wreak havoc with construction schedules and costs.
For all the support it has, the route isn’t trouble-free. It requires a power substation and an emergency tunnel vent in the Montlake area. Both would be housed in a one- or two-story building with a 3,000-square-foot footprint.
Sound Transit has identified three possible sites. One would require demolition of three houses. Another would take a house and part of the parking lot of St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church. The third would displace the 71-year-old Hop In Market, a Montlake institution.
The Montlake Community Club opposes all three. Sound Transit is working on alternatives for the Hop In site that might allow the grocery to remain.
St. Demetrios also fears tunneling could damage its sanctuary and the mosaics and icons inside. It has asked Sound Transit to build the tunnel at least 1,000 feet from its property. Project manager Ron Endlich says that may not be possible.
The University District Chamber of Commerce, University District Community Council and other groups say they’ll drop their support for “modified Montlake” if Sound Transit puts its University District station on Brooklyn Avenue Northeast between Northeast 45th and 47th streets, one of three options being considered.
Businesses there, including the Best Western University Tower Hotel, couldn’t survive years of construction disruption, says community council President Matthew Fox. He favors a station on UW property near the Burke Museum, at 15th Avenue Northeast and Northeast 45th Street. “The university isn’t going to go out of business,” Fox says.
The third option is for a station on Brooklyn south of Northeast 45th Street.
The board also faces a tough choice between two Capitol Hill station sites near East John Street. One would be under busy Broadway, the other a block to the east under Nagle Place.
Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce President Charles Hamilton says many Broadway businesses, fearful of construction impacts, prefer Nagle. But that site could affect a city park. And Bonney-Watson, the venerable Capitol Hill funeral home, says the Nagle station would eliminate its parking and threaten its future.
Looking farther north
The Sound Transit board hasn’t picked a route north from the University District to Northgate before. An alternative that would include an underground station near Roosevelt High School enjoys strong backing from Roosevelt business and community groups.
They oppose two other options, which both feature an elevated station just east of Interstate 5 at Northeast 65th Street. But some board members like those routes, in part because they could be up to 13 percent cheaper.
|
Plans for Medical Center shuttle train dropped
Houston Chronicle
April 19, 2004
Metro has withdrawn a promise to the Texas Medical Center to run a special shuttle train during peak weekday hours.
For years, planning for the Main Street light rail line included the shuttle concept, a special train running through the medical complex every six minutes between Smith Lands Station and Memorial Hermann Hospital/Houston Zoo Station. Combined with full line service every six minutes, medical center workers and visitors would have had trains come by every three minutes during morning and afternoon rush hours.
But with 35 train collisions since the line opened for testing in October, including eight in the medical center, safety concerns have led to elimination of the shuttle trains that were going to begin operation May 30. Instead, the Metropolitan Transit Authority plans to handle the anticipated heavy loads in the medical center by running double trains along the entire route during peak times. A double train is two cars connected together, seating 144 with standing room for more than 200 others.
“It will be less disruptive to traffic and pedestrians to run two-car trains every six minutes rather than one-car trains every three minutes,” said Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton. “Hopefully it will be less inducive to accidents with trains.”
An adjustment to MetroRail service is just one of the numerous route modifications the transit authority plans to implement May 30 — more than three months later than originally planned because of the high crash rate along the Main Street corridor.
The 61 service changes were the subject of two public hearings Monday at Metro’s headquarters.
Doug Abel, representing the medical center’s government affairs office, did not address the rail changes at the first of Monday’s two hearings but did complain about adjustments to bus service, including elimination of Route 291 and reduction of Route 292. As Metro increases service on the rail line, it is decreasing service on many adjacent bus routes.
Abel was among the speakers concerned reduced bus service will prompt many riders to drive to work instead. “Route 292 riders will be taken to Wheeler Station,” to transfer to the train, Abel said. “That will increase their travel time by an additional 10 minutes.”
The most controversial Metro change had been the elimination of Trolley B. Midtown residents have protested at numerous hearings in past months that scratching the free trolley will force many residents next to downtown to resume driving the mile to work. Metro offered to restore the trolley if 250 Midtown residents agreed to purchase $35 monthly transit passes.
But it proved difficult to get people to pay for something they had been getting for free, said Edna Ramos, president of the Downtown/Midtown Residents Association, who admitted defeat Monday. “We didn’t get the response that Metro wanted,” Ramos said. “That’s the end of the effort, unfortunately.”
Other complaints raised at Monday’s first hearing included elimination of the Greenspoint Flyer bus on Houston’s far north side. Metro is replacing the privately-run shuttle with a new Route 55 serving Greenspoint, Bush Intercontinental Airport and Kingwood, but it will offer less frequent weekday service and no weekend trips.
“Hundreds of airport-based workers rely on the Flyer seven days a week,” said Jack Drake, president of the Greater Greenspoint District, which is working with Metro and the Houston-Galveston Area Council to obtain a federal grant to expand Route 55 service. The Flyer was funded mostly by a three-year grant that expires next month.
PTP NOTE: The editorial below states that, following a public vote, Houston’s Metro board “subsequently chose to pursue a monorail system.” Strictly speaking, Metro pursued an elevated transit system; while a monorail alternative was heavily publicized, the specifications also seemed to allow standard two-rail technology. A bid from a team proposing a standard-rail system generally modelled on the technology of London’s automated Docklands Light Railway (which uses light rail technology running in full automation on a grade-separated, predominantly elevated alignment) was received. Before Metro could make a decision on which system to install, political events intervened to divert transit funds into road projects and police funding, as described in the editorial. |
WHY NO MONORAIL; For city’s transit riders, two rails better than none
Houston Chronicle
April 19, 2004
The Houston Chronicle frequently receives letters from readers wondering why the Metropolitan Transit Authority chose light rail instead of a more distinctive, futuristic monorail system. The argument for elevated monorail swelled during a rash of collisions between Metro trains and private vehicles at grade.
A brief review of history reveals why Houston has no monorail:
In 1988, voters in Metro’s jurisdiction approved a long-range mobility plan that proposed to spend half of Metro’s tax revenues on bus service, 25 percent on road and general mobility improvements, and 25 percent on some fixed-guideway transit system.
The Metro board subsequently chose to pursue a monorail system. Before the system could be built, however, Houston voters elected Bob Lanier mayor. Lanier campaigned on his desire to kill the monorail plan and use the money put aside for it for road projects and, indirectly, police patrols. After the voters elected Lanier in what was to a large degree a second referendum on monorail, Lanier killed monorail and transferred millions of dollars in Metro savings to Houston and other entities.
After that debacle for mass transit, monorail was disgraced in the minds of many voters. Whatever its advantages, monorail will not be a strong candidate to meet Houston’s transit needs.
Houston’s rail transit was further thwarted by key members of the Houston-area congressional delegation who sent Houston’s share of rail transit money to Dallas and other cities.
When Metro, during Mayor Lee Brown’s administration, wanted to build a rail line in the Main Street corridor, the transit agency had to foot the entire bill with local money.
The cost constraints dictated that the modest line run at the same level as traffic. A spokesman for Metro said a cost analysis was never done for monorail because monorail was unanimously rejected by the property owners and institutions along the Main Street corridor.
The alarming number of train-car collisions threw doubt on the wisdom of light rail in Houston, but the data suggest that bad driving citywide is to blame, not a fundamental flaw in the light rail system’s design. With federal funds, Metro could have built a grade-separated line, but that was not an option.
Better enforcement of the traffic rules and more conscientious driving habits, not monorail, are the solution to our transit safety problem.
|
“Smart Growth” opponents meet in Portland
KGW-TV Portland
April 19, 2004
Critics of Portland-style planning arrived from around the world this weekend to discuss their concerns about investing in light rail, emphasizing more closely packed housing and restricting uses of farms and environmentally sensitive properties.
The Preserving the American Dream conference wrapped up Sunday, sending about 75 participants back to their hometowns to fight the philosophy known as “smart growth.”
Portland has long been known as an epicenter of smart growth, which aims to preserve rural land, decrease car use and increase amenities close to homes. The City of Roses also is becoming the heart of a movement against it.
Oregonian Randal O’Toole, an economist with a Libertarian bent, organized a meeting last year in Washington, D.C., for others who were fed up with how the United States plans for growth.
The group evolved into the Preserving the American Dream Coalition, defining its goals as mobility and home ownership. Members came from places such as California, Georgia, North Carolina, England and New Zealand. Some were Libertarians, some property rights activists.
In rural South Carolina, Kay McClanahan is fighting a county growth plan she says will restrict development and farming opportunities — especially for black families who own most of the area’s agricultural land. The crowd cheered for McClanahan and punctuated her speech with choruses of “that’s right” and “don’t give up.”
“People know where they want to live and how to get around,” said McClanahan, a retired forensics expert who owns a horse farm. “And rural property owners know how to care for our land.”
Many conference participants said they were curious about Portland and want to make sure their cities don’t emulate its growth patterns.
Oregon gained national attention in the 1970s by requiring long-term growth plans for every local government and setting urban growth boundaries to corral suburban sprawl. Metro, the Portland area’s regional government, monitors the boundary and leads the urban area in trying to preserve farms, spark growth in urban hubs and protect the environment.
Local tour leaders on Friday criticized tax breaks and subsidies used to encourage high-density development along public transit lines. Many oppose using government money to pay for light-rail routes that serve a small percentage of the population, saying buses are a more economical public transit option.
Some speakers said high-density housing such as apartment complexes or condominium high-rises should be permitted but only if the market supports them without government help. Others decried nontraditional living quarters as promoting crime and eroding a comfortable neighborhood feel.
During a session on alternative viewpoints, U.S. Rep Earl Blumenauer, D- Ore., argued that Oregon’s planning system has revitalized every Portland neighborhood and attracted a younger and more diverse population.
He told the group that 1960s-style development was propelled by regulations that mandated large lots and separated housing from shops and services. “We found the ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ version of the American dream was not the result of invisible forces of the market,” Blumenauer said. “That version was the result of massive government engineering.”
|
Maglev just as noisy as wheeled trains
Washington Times
April 19, 2004
Soesterberg, , Apr. 19 (UPI) — Dutch researchers said magnetically levitated trains actually cause more noise pollution than today’s intercity trains.
When the researchers at TNO Human Factors in Soesterberg played recordings of maglev and normal trains that mimicked the sound levels in houses near railway lines, study participants rated the maglev noise as more disturbing than standard intercity trains, Nature Science Update reported Monday.
Strong magnetic fields suspend maglev trains a few inches above their tracks, while electromagnetic forces between train and track propel them. The reduced friction allows maglevs to run at about twice the speed of current intercity trains.
Prototype maglev trains have been tested in Japan, Germany and China. The first commercial line, built by German company Transrapid, opened between Shanghai, China, and the city’s Pudong Airport in 2003, and has clocked a record speed of more than 300 miles per hour. In the United States, projects are planned for Pittsburgh and Baltimore.
At high speeds, however, the maglev sound is similar to that of some aircraft, and study subjects considered maglev noise worse than intercity trains. Many said the maglev noise made them feel insecure, some found it startling, and disliked the occasional shrill sound the maglevs produced.
|
Innovative “green” construction practices saved $3 million on MAX Yellow Line
TriMet Email Update
April 19, 2004
Reducing the demand for new materials, reusing existing materials, using recycled materials and recycling waste from the Interstate MAX Yellow Line project saved $3 million in construction costs and helped bring the project in four months early and under budget.
Construction innovations
TriMet worked with its contractors Stacy and Witbeck, and FE Ward to test and develop new practices for light rail construction. This collaborative effort resulted in several innovations and cost savings on the Interstate MAX Yellow Line.
Using recycled plastic
Interstate MAX is the first light rail project to use recycled plastic bollards in paved trackway. The bollards and the recycled plastic chain discourage pedestrians from crossing the trackway. These bollards are 20 percent cheaper than steel, saving $100,000, and don’t require grounding, which saved an additional $150,000.
MAX Yellow Line uses plastic railroad ties made of recycled automobile gas tanks (instead of steel) in its embedded trackway. An added benefit: the plastic ties don’t affect the MAX signaling system the way steel ties do.
Eliminating wooden and steel forms
Four miles of trackway concrete was placed by the extrusion method — speeding up construction and eliminating the need for wooden and steel forms.
Reusing materials
TriMet reused materials that were located along Interstate Avenue. This saved money by reducing the amount of new materials purchased and the cost of sending materials to landfills.
Layering and using recycled pavement and track
On several acres of track construction, TriMet used an innovative practice that allows the existing road base concrete to stay in place while a new layer of asphalt is laid on top. This practice saved nearly $2.4 million in demolition, trucking and disposal fees.
In sections where the existing roadway couldn’t be left in place, TriMet used recycled asphalt and concrete as base materials for roadway, trackway and sidewalks. About 80,000 yards of material was used in all, enough to cover a 50-foot wide strip, five miles long and 1.5 feet deep. TriMet saved $186,000 by foregoing the purchase of solely virgin materials and on disposal fees. Old trolley rails uncovered during excavation were removed and recycled into rebar.
Reusing excavated soil
TriMet was able to show environmental regulators that excavated soil could be reused on site. Typically excavated soil is hauled to a disposal site. Because TriMet showed the soil was not polluted, it could be reused as fill material along the line.
Storm water management
Where construction was near waterways, TriMet came up with environmentally sensitive solutions and the innovation of incorporating art into its storm water management projects.
Station art filters runoff A tall sculpture suggestive of a ship’s prow at the N Prescott St MAX Station gathers rainwater and funnels it to a drain leading to the nearby bio-filtration greenspace.
At the Delta Park/Vanport MAX Station, TriMet constructed a pond with plantings and artwork to collect and naturally clean storm water runoff from the Park & Ride lot. A bio-swale receives runoff from the 4,000-foot Vanport Bridge via a cast-bronze art scupper, providing natural filtration prior to entering the storm sewer system. The pond saved TriMet $186,000 by avoiding the cost of additional piping and a pumping station.
Eco-friendly landscaping
TriMet tripled the number of trees located along Interstate Avenue, and numerous large trees were relocated in the area. Neighbors helped select the size and type of tree species to be planted. Naturescaping principles were applied when selecting plantings that could survive in an urban environment using less water, fertilizers and pesticides.
Wetlands
TriMet expanded and recreated the wetland next to the Forebay Slough on Portland International Raceway property. About 18,000 cubic yards of soil was excavated to allow the newly restored wetland and the Forebay Slough to become one continuous body of water. TriMet enhanced the wetland by planting more than 200 trees, 12,000 deciduous shrubs and 12,000 plants. The wetland provides wildlife habitat and the ability to bio- cleanse the water.
Fewer impervious surfaces
Interstate MAX reduced the amount of impervious surfaces along Interstate Avenue. More than two acres have been converted to pervious surfaces, allowing rainwater to filter into the ground. Concrete unit pavers were used at all 10 MAX station platform areas allowing rainwater to filter into the ground. The pavers also provide easy access for maintenance.
A commitment to our environment
TriMet is an environmental leader in the transit industry, committed to reducing the environmental impact of transit projects and to pioneering cleaner, earth-friendly construction practices.
|
Toronto subway system featured on new stamp
The Toronto Star
April 19, 2004
Late last month, 50 years after Canada’s first subway opened, Canada Post released a set of four new 49-cent stamps commemorating Canadian urban transit and light rail trains.
Highlighting the stamp set is one featuring Toronto’s own subway system.
The new set of four public transit stamps is all about movement. The stamps depict the country’s four largest subway or light rail systems: Toronto’s subway, Vancouver’s TransLink SkyTrain, Montreal’s Metro and Calgary’s CTrain.
Each stamp features three trains, one moving left, one to the right and one stopped with passengers about to board. When duplicate stamps are placed side by side, or viewed on an uncut sheet of stamps, the trains’ movement seems to quicken, running continually like the real thing.
Toronto celebrated the 50th anniversary of our first subway opening on the day the stamp was issued. In 1954, after more than four years of construction, Torontonians could take a 7.4 kilometre ride from Union Station to Eglinton Ave. Since then, the city has opened two additional subway lines for a total of more than 70 kilometres of track. The Toronto Transit Commission, which runs the subways, has grown with the times, carrying about 1.4 million people daily.
Vancouver’s SkyTrain is unique in its design, dating back to when it first opened in conjunction with Expo 86. With two different lines, the Expo and the newly opened Millennium Line, the SkyTrain lets commuters travel all over Vancouver and beyond. With 16 elevated stations overlooking Vancouver and the surrounding area on the Expo line alone, TransLink, which oversees this light rail project, offers riders a unique travel experience.
Montreal may have been the second city in Canada with a subway system, but the Metro is number one to the community, linking the city with Ille Ste. Helene by running underneath the St. Lawrence River. Opened in 1966 for Expo 67, the Metro started with 26 stations and has continued to grow. Each day, the Metro provides an average of 700,000 trips. Since it opened, it has carried more than 6 billion passengers and its trains have travelled 1.8 billion kilometres.
Calgary’s light rail system, the CTrain, opened in May, 1981. Today, the system has seen many extensions beyond the original 25 stations to serve the greater Calgary area. The light rail trains have both below-grade and at-grade crossings at intersections, complete with railway lights.
Other cities serviced by light rail include Edmonton and Ottawa.
The designer of the four transit stamps, Toronto’s Debbie Adams, has created several stamps for Canada Post. Adams graduated from the Ontario College of Art in 1983, and in 1988 established her own firm, Adams + Associates.
Other stamps issued in recent weeks honour St. Joseph’s Oratory on Mount Royal in Montreal, the 125th anniversary of the Army Cadets, and the 150th anniversary of the birth of Norwegian explorer Otto Sverdrup.
In 1898, Sverdrup charted a vast area of previously unexplored areas in northern Canada. The stamp is part of a joint stamp issue with Greenland and Norway on the same theme.
|
For new trains, a rough ride; Despite two years of fixes, NJ Transit’s rail cars still face a galaxy of problems
April 19, 2004
Star-Ledger Staff
With advanced technology and the latest amenities, NJ Transit’s new rail passenger car was supposed to make commuting easier.
Instead, the model, called the Comet V (five), has produced tedious travel delays and routine aggravations ever since it started carrying New Jersey riders back in the fall of 2002.
First, there were computer glitches that caused the trains to shut down en route. Then came a nagging series of door malfunctions that riders say still have not been fixed.
On top of that, the very comforts that transit officials bragged about in a news conference two years ago have turned out to be less than comfortable. Take, for example, the Comet V’s public address system. More often than not, it spews annoying static.
What else? The ticket holders are ripping the new red seats. The faucets in the restrooms do not work correctly. The windows leak. The electronic message screens sometimes announce the wrong station.
All this for rail cars that cost between $890,000 and $1 million apiece. “It’s some of the worst new equipment I’ve seen,” said Bob Vallochi, general chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. “They arrived dead on arrival.”
“If you purchased something that has quality problems in the beginning, what can you expect in the next 20 or 30 years?” wondered commuter Michael Weingarten of Westfield. “We’re going to have to live with these things for a long time.”
NJ Transit officials say it’s normal for new rail cars to have kinks that need to be ironed out. After the manufacturer, Alstom Transport of France, provided a test model of the Comet V a few years ago, NJ Transit crews found 260 things that needed to be fixed before the rest of the cars could be completed.
Once the trains started running on regular schedules, the railroad identified another batch of flaws that needed to be resolved. NJ Transit has a list of 60 “modifications” that still need to be done, including things like the public address system and the doors, said Richard Sarles, the agency’s assistant to the executive director. “It’s like peeling an onion,” Sarles said. “You see a problem and you believe you’ve identified the fix and then something else may pop up, which was masked by the problem that was fixed.”
Sarles said the number of modifications needed on the Comet V has not been unusual for new equipment. But some of the veteran engineers, conductors and mechanics who work for the railroad say otherwise, insisting they cannot recall new trains that were so problem-plagued.
“It’s not acceptable for new cars to have this many problems,” said Xavier Williams, general chairman of the United Transportation Union, which represents NJ Transit’s conductors. “We’ve always felt like these cars are a piece of junk.”
At present, Alstom has about 25 employees at NJ Transit’s various rail yards, working on improving the cars. “I believe it has taken Alstom longer than it should to address some of these problems,” Sarles said.
An Alstom spokeswoman in France, Helen Connolly, referred questions about the Comet V cars to staff members in the United States, who did not return phone messages.
In 1999, Alstom won a $273 million contract to build 265 Comet V cars for NJ Transit and Metro North. NJ Transit is paying $207 million for its allotment of 200 of the cars.
Sarles said the agency has withheld about $12 million of the payments to Alstom until the company fixes the lingering problems.
One of the factors that complicated the construction and the repairs on the Comet Vs has been Alstom’s financial problems, officials said. Last year, the company worked out a deal with its creditors and the French government to avoid bankruptcy.
This is the first time Alstom, one of the major rail equipment builders in the world, has provided news cars for NJ Transit. The company has had two other contracts with NJ Transit, one to rebuild the railroad’s Comet II passenger cars several years ago and one to provide 33 new diesel-powered locomotives, a job that’s scheduled to be complete at the end of this year.
Alstom won the Comet V contract by bidding the lowest price. Sarles declined to comment on whether another company would have done a better job with this model train.
But, he said, NJ Transit’s current administration prefers awarding contracts for new train equipment through a proposal process in which bids are evaluated based on the companies’ technical qualifications as well as price. “Somebody may be able to give you the best price, but they may not be able to give you the best car,” he said.
In addition to the defects in the Comet Vs themselves, the cars also have had difficulties when they are connected to other models in NJ Transit’s 700-car fleet as part of a set of cars on one train. The Comet Vs depend on computers — including for power, brakes and communications — far more than the rest of the equipment and the Comet V systems are much more advanced than the electronics of the other rail cars.
Officials said there is no way to avoid having different types of cars on the same trains because of the complexities of running such a vast and busy railroad. “Although you think you’ve got the integration right, inevitably when you put coaches from different eras together, glitches are going to pop up,” said Sarles.
Commuter Marc Levinson of Glen Ridge notices when he is riding on a train that is made up of different models of rail cars. “The trains tend to give you a little jerky ride because the cars seem to brake and accelerate at different rates,” he said.
|
Monorail team hit by firms’ pullout; Contractors’ decision leaves one intact bidder
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
April 20, 2004
Two major construction companies have withdrawn from a team proposal to build Seattle’s $1.6 billion monorail system, leaving for now only one intact bidder and raising questions about whether officials can stick to an ambitious timeline for the project.
Only two teams have been expected to submit bids to the Seattle Monorail Project by a mid-June deadline. The teams are led by two of the world’s largest transportation companies, monorail train builders Hitachi Ltd. and the Bombardier Transit Corp.
Now Bombardier’s team is scrambling to reorganize after Omaha, Neb.- based Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc. and Granite Construction Co. of Davis, Calif., have told Bombardier they’re withdrawing as prime construction contractors for the 14-mile system.
Kiewit withdrew, a company official said, because it already has committed extensive resources to three other major regional transportation projects: the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge, replacement of part of the Hood Canal Bridge and initial parts of the Sound Transit light rail system in Seattle. “To a contractor this is a riskier project. … There’s not a whole lot of monorails constructed across the country,” said Dave Zemek, a Kiewit vice president and head of the company’s West Coast building division.
The withdrawal of key contractors from the Bombardier team is the latest in a series of problems that have plagued the monorail project, which voters narrowly approved in 2000. Monorail officials have had to scale back the West Seattle-to-Crown Hill line because tax collections have been about one-third less than expected.
A delay in choosing a company to build the monorail could give more time to critics seeking to stop the project, including some who hope to place a monorail recall initiative before voters.
Monorail officials wouldn’t comment specifically yesterday about the withdrawal of the contractors, but said it wasn’t unusual for the teams to be in flux as the process moves forward.
In explaining why his company bowed out, Zemek said there were concerns about the monorail project’s requirement that all participating builders on a team assume liability for the system. And Kiewit, while knowledgeable about construction, wasn’t completely comfortable being responsible for a project involving a monorail system, he said. “You can better analyze the risk from A to Z in a normal situation than you can when you take on a monorail and you don’t have the internal expertise that Bombardier possesses,” he said, referring to the team’s monorail train builder.
Granite Construction did not return calls yesterday. But Tom Stone, president of the company that formed the Bombardier team, said Granite and Kiewit both have declared they wanted out as prime contractors. That leaves the companies temporarily off the group, though Stone said he thinks there’s a good chance both contractors eventually will perform some construction work if the team’s bid is accepted.
Bids from the Bombardier group, and from a second team using Hitachi trains, are due June 15. Stone said his team is “studying” whether it can make that deadline, given new design information the monorail project has asked the bidders to include.
Kiewit and Granite were two of the 19 companies on the Bombardier group, called Team Monorail, qualified by the Seattle Monorail Project to bid to design and build the system and operate and maintain it for five years once completed.
Twenty-six other companies were qualified as members of the other team, called Cascadia Monorail Co., which includes Hitachi.
It has been generally assumed the two teams would submit their bids by mid-June and have them reviewed by the monorail project in time to begin construction this fall.
The project’s management has said it wants to open the first segment of the line, between Interbay and Stewart Street, by mid-December of 2007.
Stone said he thinks that can be done even if the bid opening is delayed. He said other members of Team Monorail are discussing which of them might assume Kiewit and Granite’s share of the work, which amounted to about 85 percent of the construction. Stone said the liability issue “has been raised” and team members are still studying the requirement “to make sure it will work.”
The loss of the two contractors from the team is “certainly disappointing,” said Faye Garneau, co-chairwoman of On Track, a citizen group acting as a watchdog over the monorail project. She said the changes may reflect the fact that many details of the monorail project, including design standards and challenges to the system’s environmental impact study, are still in progress. “Perhaps they want to wait until there’s a little more certainty to the project,” Garneau said.
Stone said he would not call the loss of Kiewit and Granite a setback. “It’s a change, though, and it does require some very serious attention, which we’re giving it.” He said changes in the team should be accomplished within two weeks, though they require approval of the monorail project.
He said meeting the June bid deadline will also depend on the details included in city-approved design standards and an agreement allowing the monorail to be built on public street rights of way. The deadline can be extended by the monorail if contractors ask for it.
Tom Horkan, the monorail project’s design and construction director, would not comment on the change, saying he is precluded from talking about any issues that would affect either bid teams’ ability to compete for the contract. He said changes in the contractor makeup of either team require the approval of the monorail agency in a procedure set up because “it’s not that unusual for (contractor) teams to make changes as they go forward.”
|
Golden light-rail line OK’d; West Corridor plan gets federal backing
Rocky Mountain News
April 20, 2004
GOLDEN — Amid congratulatory speeches and a dash of skepticism, the federal government Monday approved the proposed $508.2 million light rail-line from Denver to Golden.
The environmental impact statement for the project was signed by Lee Waddleton, regional director in Denver for the Federal Transit Administration, and handed over to the Regional Transportation District.
The 12.1-mile West Corridor starts at Union Station and heads west along an old freight railroad route next to West 13th Avenue to the Federal Center in Lakewood. >From there, it parallels the Sixth Avenue Freeway to the Jefferson County Government Center.
It would be the first rapid-transit corridor to be built among six proposed new lines and extensions to three existing ones under RTD’s $4.7 billion FasTracks program.
Voters are expected to decide this fall on whether to increase the metro transit sales tax by 0.4 cents to a full penny per dollar to pay for it. If the tax passes, the West Corridor would be in operation in 2013.
The federal approval doesn’t mean the project will be built, but only that it can be built. With the approval, RTD can apply for partial federal funding for the project. It also must implement measures outlined in the study, such as noise barriers and vibration-absorbing mats under the tracks.
Four mayors — John Hickenlooper of Denver, Steve Burkholder of Lakewood, Gretchen Cerveny of Wheat Ridge and Charles Baroch of Golden — spoke about the transit benefits they say the line will bring.
Jefferson County Commissioner Michelle Lawrence, Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Arvada, and several RTD board members echoed those sentiments. “I’m a firm believer that you can’t pave your way out of congestion,” Burkholder said. “You have to offer choices.”
But it was left to Rep. Tom Tancredo, an invited guest although the West Corridor isn’t in his district, to offer a different view during the signing ceremony at the commissioners’ hearing room in Golden.
Tancredo — former president of the Independence Institute, the leading opponent of RTD’s rail expansion plans — said he is reserving judgment on whether light rail is right for the West Corridor.
Tancredo, R-Littleton, has pushed for a system called Bus Rapid Transit, in which frequent bus service operates on a separate path from clogged highways. He argues it’s less expensive and more flexible.
Bus Rapid Transit was considered but dropped in the study, and Tancredo wants to find out why before he’ll consider backing light rail. “I will be happy to get on board if it looks like this is the best investment,” Tancredo said.
|
Cleveland tabs $21 million for BRT fleet
Metro
April 20, 2004
Board members of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) on Tuesday unanimously approved spending $20.5 million on a fleet of 21 low-floor articulated coaches for its planned bus rapid transit (BRT) project.
GCRTA’s $168 million BRT project involves a plan to rebuild Euclid Avenue with new bus-only lanes and 35 prepay stations along the route for fast boarding, according to a Plain Dealer report. Work on the project will start this fall, with completion slated for 2007.
The buses, from New Flyer of America Inc., will be equipped with doors on both sides and feature hybrid-electric propulsion. In addition, the vehicles will offer 46 seats, two interior bike racks, and standing room capacity for 120 passengers.
Of the $20.5 million total fleet cost, $2.8 million is earmarked for design, engineering and construction of a prototype to be put through local and federal tests before the 20 others are built, each costing about $850,000, said the newspaper.
|
LAST STOP: PENN STATION; Managing traffic at nexus of rail lines
Newsday (New York)
April 20, 2004
Each day 1,005 trains from three different railroads must share four tunnels and a myriad of tracks below Penn Station to deliver hundreds of thousands of riders to the city and home again.
There’s the suburban commuter lines of the Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit. Penn Station is also served by Amtrak, which owns the station and the tunnels.
In the rush, trains can be running just minutes apart through the same tube. “It is not an easy job to coordinate those trains,” said Gerry Bringmann, vice chair of the LIRR Commuter’s Council. “For the most part, I think they do a fairly good job for as tight as they try and run them.”
Staffed by employees of the LIRR and Amtrak, it is the job of Penn Station Central Control, a joint entity of Amtrak and the LIRR, to coordinate the trains that travel to and from Penn each day. Central Control was set up more than 10 years ago for this purpose. “It is a centralization of all the interlockings in Penn Station, Long Island City, Harold Interlocking [in Sunnyside] and controls all the movement,” LIRR president James Dermody said.
Of the tunnels that go into Penn Station, two of the tunnels, 3 and 4, are used exclusively by the LIRR. The others, 1 and 2, are shared with the LIRR, Amtrak and NJ Transit, which stores cars in the Sunnyside yard. Tunnel 2 is primarily a westbound tunnel into New York, supporting the westbound morning rush. “There is a pre-determined set of manipulations,” he said. “Every train is assigned a … platform track and the platform track determines the tunnel that the train has to be in.”
Empty LIRR trains also either travel through Penn to the West Side Yard or return to Long Island for further use during the day.
Yesterday, the 5:42 a.m. from Ronkonkoma, filled with 1,200 commuters, was stopped inside its scheduled tunnel, Tunnel 2, when it was struck from behind by an empty Amtrak passenger train. Amtrak and LIRR trains typically run in the same tunnels with nary a problem. “I think what happened [yesterday] was abnormal,” Bringmann said. “It’s odd. You run so many trains, sooner or later you are going to have an accident.”
But, some critics of the tunnels say that the system needs to be updated with better lighting, ventilation and security. Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) who has been pushing for further tunnel security, said that yesterday’s accident illustrates the need. “It shows how vulnerable the tunnels are,” he said. “It should remind us how important the tunnels are and give more impetus to Congress to revamp them.”
|
Rail construction causing headaches
The Capital (Annapolis
April 20, 2004
In real estate, sales are said to be a matter of location, location, location.
When it comes to the double-tracking project on the Central Light Rail Line, impact could be measured by the same phrase.
Orchard Road resident Don Bender, for example, said his life has been unbearable since work began near his Ferndale home in February. From 7 a.m. each weekday morning until about 4 p.m., the noise is almost constant, he said.
One lane of Orchard Road is temporarily closed to traffic. Other changes, such as steel pilings and retaining walls being put up by workers, are permanent. To make matters worse, contractors are leaving trash and debris, he said.
What irks Mr. Bender the most, however, is the contractors occasionally leaving large, heavy vehicles on the street, making it tough for him to park near his home. “We we |
