Greenbush rail still on track, MBTA says; But red tape could push back date trains will start The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA) July 24, 2004 Despite repeated legal battles and construction delays, state officials insist the Greenbush commuter rail project remains on schedule and on budget. “At this point we’re still on schedule to begin operation in mid-2006,” said Joseph Pesaturo, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Work on the MBTA’s $479 million project, which would connect several South Shore towns to South Station in Boston, is under way along the line, but not to the extent envisioned by planners. The MBTA still lacks needed state and federal permits to perform work around and near environmentally sensitive areas in the towns along the line: Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset and Scituate. A Hingham-based anti-train group, Advocates for Transportation Alternatives, has appealed wetlands permits issued by the state Department of Environmental Protection for work in Cohasset and Scituate. A previous appeal by the group of the Hingham wetlands permit was rejected by an administrative law judge and awaits action in Superior Court. Those permits could prevent the project from staying on schedule, Pesaturo said. “Obviously, the appeals don’t help the schedule,” Pesaturo said. “And if there isn’t some action soon on these appeals, then we may have to revisit the schedule.” More than 80 percent of the line in Cohasset runs through environmentally sensitive areas. So, next to no work has been performed in that town - even nine months after the project began - because the wetlands appeal there remains unresolved. In Scituate, work has been restricted to the massive Greenbush parking lots and train storage yard. The town has been fighting with the MBTA and its chief contractor, Cashman/Balfour Beatty, over whether workers can start installing the lots’ drainage system. Work in Hingham Square has been stop-and-go as crews continue to stumble upon unexpected utility lines, granite ledge and historically significant finds. Crews are installing support walls for the eventual tunnel through the downtown area and rerouting the Town River. With 17.7 miles of new rail bed to build, Pesaturo said crews have enough work to keep them busy through any administrative delays. “Sure, certain spots have had to move slower, but there are other areas where the contractor can do work,” he said. While permits are needed to build the two Weymouth stations, crews have remained busy preparing Quincy Avenue for a new underpass for the train and rebuilding bridges. Two new bridges at Regina Road and Wharf Street were put in place this week.

Give Me Strength!; Calgary Concrete Innovation Hints At Future In Building Calgary Sun (Alberta, Canada) July 24, 2004 The delicate canopies of a new Calgary light-rail transit station only hint at the possibilities of a new type of cement, say its creators. And a Lafarge Group spokesman says Ductal — a smooth, ultra strong material that doesn’t need steel reinforcement — is coming to a home near you in everything from countertops to stairs. “What it does for architects is open the door for them to try to realize their dreams,” says Vic Perry, vice-president and general manager of Lafarge’s Ductal head office in Calgary. Ductal has starred in architectural trade magazines for its use in the construction of 24 wing-shaped canopies that form the roof over the new Shawnessy station platform. Perry said the fibre-reinforced cement outperforms standard concrete, with strength similar to steel. It can be cast in larger yet far thinner sections than regular concrete. As a result, Ductal is taking Lafarge into unchartered waters as a supplier of moulds for auto-parts manufacturers to making commercial and home countertops. Perry says the latter are already tried at a new Habitat for Humanity house in Calgary. “Ductal is priced on par with granite, but it’s better-performing in terms of permeability and scratch-resistance,” he says, noting the material can be coloured and given a marble look. Ductal is among the cement innovations featured in Liquid Stone, an exhibit at Washington’s National Building Museum till January. The show also features variations of translucent concrete, a newfangled version of the old construction standby that offers a combination of esthetics and practicality. One display at the National Building Museum is a wall of translucent concrete blocks. When someone stands in front of it and light is shone from behind, the person’s shadow can be seen clearly on the other side. “I think it’s beautiful in itself, so it might be attractive in a restaurant or a hotel,” said G. Martin Moeller Jr., the museum’s senior vice-president. “But it might also be used in an indoor fire escape where you wanted light to come through in case of a power failure. It could become a lifesaver.” The translucent blocks are made by mixing glass fibres into the combination of crushed stone, cement and water, varying a process that has been used for centuries to produce a versatile building material. The process was devised by Hungarian architect Aron Losonczi in 2001. “The idea came from a work of art I saw in Budapest,” he said in a telephone interview from Csongrad in southeast Hungary. “It was made of glass and ordinary concrete, and the idea of combining the two struck me. Then I went to Stockholm to do post-graduate work in architecture and it developed there.” One of the first demonstrations was a sidewalk in Stockholm made of thin sheets of translucent concrete. It looks like an ordinary sidewalk by day but is illuminated at night by lights under it. A company in Aachen, Germany, called LiTraCon for “light transmitting concrete,” makes translucent blocks and plans to have them market-ready this year. Andreas Bittis, in charge of marketing, said that thus far, they have mainly been used in demonstration projects, such as the Stockholm sidewalk. Bittis has many ideas for practical uses. “Think of illuminating subway stations with daylight,” he suggested in an e-mail. Or using the concrete for speed bumps and lighting them from below to make them more visible at night. Will Wittig, who teaches architecture at the University of Detroit Mercy, has developed concrete panels shown in the exhibit that in some places are only a quarter of a centimetre thick. He said he has ideas about an all-concrete building, part of which would consist of ordinary opaque concrete and the translucent kind. Inventor Thomas A. Edison had the idea of an all-concrete house almost a century ago. Though he worked on it for years and spent a lot of money, the idea never caught on.

Arizona Newsmaker Arizona Republic July 25, 2004 When Valley Metro Rail officials opened the latest edition of METRO Magazine, a national publication covering the transportation industry, there was Richard Simonetta, CEO of Valley Metro Rail, honored as one of the 50 most influential people in transportation during the past 100 years. No one was really surprised. The past chairman of the American Public Transportation Association, CEO of Atlanta’s light-rail system when that city hosted the Olympics and manager of several other transit agencies during the past 20 years, Simonetta was considered quite a catch when hired in December to head the upcoming light-rail system. 1. What will light rail bring to the Valley? Light rail will add much-needed people-moving capacity in our most heavily traveled corridors where it is the most difficult to add roads and freeways. Light rail will offer the equivalent people-moving capacity as a six-lane freeway. Light-rail corridors will attract economic development. 2. How is light rail better than a system of express buses? Light rail operates throughout the day serving many destinations with operating efficiencies that are far greater than either express or local buses. Buses do not generate economic development, while light rail attracts development valued substantially greater than the initial investment. 3. Opponents say light rail will have no positive effects on traffic congestion or air pollution. How do you respond? Light-rail opponents distort the facts and twist statistics in both of these areas. Light rail is part of a multi-modal transportation plan that will positively impact both traffic congestion and air pollution. Along the light- rail corridor, congestion levels will remain substantially as they are today: modest, with significantly more passenger trips being taken on light-rail vehicles. The non-polluting, electric rail vehicles will remove 12 tons of pollutants each day. Small increases in pollution are forecast at some park-and-ride lots, similar to what occurs at express bus park-and-ride lots. 4. What’s next for you after the first section of light rail is completed? Do you plan to remain as head of the system? I do not plan to ever move out of the Valley. The real fun is operating light rail and seeing the many benefits it provides to enhance the quality of life in the region.

Four Colors, With Many Quirks The Boston Globe July 25, 2004 The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the nation’s first public transit system and its oldest subway, does not always wear its history well. It can be a frustrating maze. It’s at times dirty and leaking, constantly under construction, and in places monstrously bleak. Still, we love it. Kind of. Though T officials have pledged to have the system fully prepped for July’s visiting delegates, there are still a host of quirks along the line that lost Charlie. Once understood, they can make maneuvering throughout the city, Cambridge, and its environs as easy as, say, winning a war without an exit strategy, electing a president, or performing an at-home angioplasty. Here, then, are some T tips to help you get around. If you get lost, just ask a passerby or one of a host of promised T ambassadors. If the Red Sox have won within the past month, you should get a polite New England answer, which may confuse you all the more. First and foremost, the T uses “inbound” and “outbound” as directions. “Inbound” refers to any train headed into downtown Boston and one of four stations: Park Street on the Red Line; State Street on the Blue Line; Downtown Crossing on the Orange Line, and Government Center on the Green Line. Within those stations, “inbound” and “outbound” are, thankfully, not used. Once you’re in the subway system, it’s a free ride wherever you want to go until you leave the turnstiles. (But not at Copley, where there is no free transfer from outbound to inbound or vice versa. Use Arlington instead. And this doesn’t apply to the Silver Line, which is really a glorified bus route anyway.���Token price: $1.25, still one of the cheapest rides in the nation. And if you’re depending on the train driver to shout out your stops in clear and concise language, don’t. The T has a notoriously lousy public-announcement system, and the PA systems on the trains are even worse, sounding like Darth Vader holding a glass to his speaker-thing while dealing with a cold. Keep your eyes on the stops and the maps posted in the cars. Oh, yeah - since Boston is the original home of the Puritans, the T shuts down early, with trains and buses making their last runs by 1 a.m. There is a Nite Owl bus service that runs above some of the system’s major subway lines, but after some recent cutbacks due to lack of ridership, the runs are sketchy at best, at times turning into buses filled with loud people swaying even when the bus is standing dead still. Better to take a cab. Green Line The only line that deals with Boston’s notoriously obnoxious street traffic, as well as one of the most popular lines in the system, the Green Line is at times a frustrating mess. It can be unbelievably crowded, street traffic often plays havoc with the schedule, and the sophisticated new cars have a history of derailing, though the problem appears to have been solved. Named the Green Line either because the subway and trolley lines connect Boston with its leafy suburbs or in honor of the city’s Emerald Necklace of parks (accounts differ), the line has four branches designated by letter: B goes to Boston College in Newton; C goes to Cleveland Circle in Brookline; D goes to Riverside in Newton; and E goes to Heath Street in Jamaica Plain. Is there an A line? There was, but the service was discontinued in the late 1960s. - On this line, nothing is standard. Some outbound service is free, you board at the front of the trolley if there’s no ticket booth, some drivers will take dollar bills, others won’t. Be patient. If you’re confused, you have two options: Ask someone for help, or continue to be confused — maybe even babble a bit — and you might get a free ride. - Since North Station will be closed during the convention, bus shuttles will be used to transfer passengers to and around the FleetCenter and to the nearest Green Line train at Haymarket. - For stops at Government Center, Park Street, Boylston, Arlington, and Copley: Take any train. - Hynes Convention Center/ICA and Kenmore (the stop for Fenway Park): Take B, C, or D train. - Prudential and Symphony: Take E train. - Coming back to Haymarket, where the line will end as a security precaution during the convention: Take D or E train. - See a train with a red line through the letter? The train only goes part-way along the designated branch. Ask the driver or a T rep where the last stop is. Red Line The line gets its color designation because, at one time, it terminated at Harvard Square (and crimson is Harvard University’s school color). It goes well past Harvard now and into neighboring Somerville and bustling Davis Square. The Red Line going outbound across the Charles River to Cambridge offers a stunning view of the Boston skyline, even for us jaded commuters. Blue Line Named because it goes underwater, the line connects Boston with East Boston, Logan International Airport (you actually have to take a shuttle bus to the airport, but the station is brand new), and Revere. - If you like betting on horses and dogs, the Blue Line connects Boston to both Suffolk Downs and the Wonderland Greyhound Park. Orange Line So named because the line once ran above Boston’s Washington Street, formerly Orange Street. It goes through the South End and into Roxbury and Jamaica Plain toward the south, and north to Charlestown, Medford, and Malden. - No stops at North Station during the convention, thankyouverymuch. The nearest place to catch an Orange Line train is a few blocks away at Haymarket.

Gold Line Celebrates Its First Anniversary Pasadena Star-News (Pasadena, CA) July 25, 2004 A year ago today, the Metro Gold Line opened with fanfare and free rides amid crowds estimated at 80,000 more suited to a sardine can than a suburban train. Now, 73,000 L.A-to-Pasadena, Pasadena-to-L.A. trips later [200 trains per day], it’s clear the honeymoon is over, with weekday ridership a rather anemic 14,425 passenger boardings per day. That is half the amount the Metro Gold Line Construction Authority predicted when the system was being planned and built. It could be argued that the Gold Line’s core constituency is bus riders whose routes were displaced by the train, not the car-commuting crowd that transportation planners covet. “You have to [allow] some time for people to change their behavior, to get used to the train,’ said Habib Balian, the Construction Authority’s interim chief executive officer . Still, authorities said they did not spend $859 million in tax dollars on a white elephant, so hope springs eternal that the Gold Line will follow the path blazed by its rail cousins, the Long Beach Blue Line and the Metro Red Line subway. “Has it been a year already?’ former construction authority Chief Executive Officer Rick Thorpe joked Friday. Now working for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Thorpe is immersed in building the Gold Line’s little brother, a six-mile extension to East Los Angeles. “It seems to be doing fairly well obviously not standing- room-only,’ Thorpe said. “The strike really hurt us bad, there’s no question about that.’ The work stoppage, last October and November, idled all MTA buses and trains, putting the Gold Line out of service for 37 days. But ridership rebounded on the Blue and Red lines after an MTA strike in 2000, and agency officials believe the Gold Line will fare as well. Both those rail systems took years to plan and build, and still more years to find their audience, or even create a target demographic that never thought of riding a train to work or school, to run errands, or get to recreation and nightlife. When the Blue Line began in 1990, it drew only 19,600 weekday boardings; since then, its fortunes have improved to 68,000 passengers per day. The Red Line has seen the most dramatic jump since its inaugural segment opened 11 years ago, luring only 13,100 riders per day. Now, with segments to Hollywood, North Hollywood and Koreatown, the subway carries an average of 106,000 passengers per day. That said, the Metro Gold Line certainly has not made a ghost town out of the Foothill [210] and Pasadena [110] freeways, which it roughly parallels. The agonizing creep of those freeways was a top reason for building the Gold Line, for turning an abandoned set of Santa Fe and Amtrak railroad tracks into a bustling, vital commuter path. But what happens if you build it and they don’t come? Rail boosters say the explanation is simple. At 13.7 miles, the Gold Line represents only a fraction of many people’s commute, so why should they leave their cars at home? Thorpe, head of the construction authority from 1999 to 2003, once said of the Gold Line: “We built the middle first.’ Translation: the Gold Line may only reach its full potential when it’s truly finished, with Pasadena-to- Montclair and L.A.-to-East Los Angeles extensions that will turn it into a 43-mile rail system. That is where Balian, shepherding the Montclair project, comes in. “I expect ridership to grow when the [San Gabriel Valley] segment is built,’ he said. Since 1999, Balian worked alongside Thorpe as the agency’s chief administrative officer, guiding the Gold Line from the MTA scrap heap, past setbacks during construction, to the celebration of opening day. “My son and I were on [the train], going back and forth, just loving it. What could be more exciting to a 7-year-old, or a 42-year-old?’ Balian said. “It’s a dream come true. You don’t get to do that more than once in your life,’ Balian said. The light rail system brought an added dividend. “You see this wonderful mix of Angelenos on the train. You go out on a Saturday night and you see people from all walks of life, who probably would never have crossed paths in their lifetime but for the ride on the train,’ Balian said. One sign of future growth: Plans are in the works to install more “traction power substations’ along the route to supply that added electricity needed to power longer Gold Line trains. And planners designed station platforms long enough to fit three-car trains, even though the Gold Line now runs two cars during the day and just one-car trains at night. Ground was broken this month on the six-mile Gold Line Eastside Extension, and an intensive environmental study has been conducted on the 24-mile Gold Line Foothill Extension to Montclair. Other positive signs are out there, according to some people. Apartments and condos are sprouting up, or on the drawing board, near several current and future Gold Line stations. Developers, and the bankers who loan them money, are betting that people will not only want to ride the Gold Line but also to live next door to it. Residential complexes are under construction in South Pasadena, a block from the Gold Line station; on Del Mar Boulevard, between Raymond Avenue and Arroyo Parkway in Pasadena, surrounding another Gold Line station; and on a seven-acre property on Avenue 26 in Los Angeles. The land next to the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park Station has been cleared and graded. “It had a bunch of old manufacturing [businesses] and warehouses that had been vacant for maybe 10 years,’ said Jay Ross, development associate for AMCAL Multi-Housing Inc. “Because there wasn’t anyone there, it became a dumping ground for trash,’ Ross said. The city changed the land’s zoning from industrial to one allowing residential development, and the Westlake Village developer qualified for tax credits to build low-income housing. The $73 million project should be ready for move-in by June 2006, Ross said. Rail-adjacent housing practically guarantees increased ridership for the Gold Line. “You’re going to see developments for the next two decades along this line. You won’t recognize the alignment 20 years from now,’ Balian said. Other bright spots of the Gold Line’s first year include huge New Year’s Day crowds that rode the train to the Tournament of Roses parade and the Rose Bowl game, and its spotless accident record, with no injuries or deaths. But unfinished business persists. “The biggest downside for me has been the continual battle with … South Pasadena,’ Thorpe said, referring to a local citizen’s group, Pasadena Avenue-Monterey Road Committee. PAMRC filed complaints with the state Public Utilities Commission over the Gold Line’s noise, speed and vibrations. The group will hold a public meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the South Pasadena Library to discuss a lawsuit alleging negligence and inverse condemnation against builders of the Gold Line, which they say has eroded quality of life and property values. Meanwhile, noise abatements that the city of South Pasadena negotiated with the Construction Authority and MTA have yet to be implemented, pending an evidentiary hearing with a Public Utilities Commission judge and commissioner on Aug. 24 in South Pasadena. The judge will issue recommendations on the South Pasadena dispute, which the five-member commission will weigh when it makes its f inal ruling about whether the Gold Line is just fine as is or should be made quieter and less conspicuous. Because the trains run 22 hours a day, the sound of crossing gate bells is particularly grating to those who live close to the railroad tracks. “The bells are now running in the 85-decibel range. The PUC requires [at least] 75. Because the sound is exponential, that’s like 10 times difference,’ Thorpe said. “We’ll have to replace [the bells] with an entirely new mechanism,’ Thorpe said. “Changing out the bells at the gate crossings and making sure they’re at the lowest possible level allowable by law … none of that can be implemented until this is resolved,’ he said. “If we’re able to change [the bells] out and run them at 75 [decibels], I think that would be a huge benefit to South Pasadena. All [PAMRC’s] doing is delaying the improvements,’ Thorpe said.

Attorney General to review new Tel Aviv-Jerusalem rail route; Three kilometers of the route are on the other side of the Green Line. Globes [online] - Israel’s Business Arena July 25, 2004 Attorney General Menachem (Meni) Mazuz will review the A1 route for the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem railway, since part of the planned route is beyond the Green Line. The Attorney General’s office will decide two questions: whether approval of the plan is consistent with international law, which bars an occupier from using an occupied country’s land, unless the country being occupied derives benefit from the development, and property ownership and financial compensation. The Palestinians oppose the plan, claiming that Israel is using their land solely in order to provide access to Israelis, while Palestinians will derive no benefit. They say that the project is Israeli, and will serve only the Israeli public. It was decided to refer the matter to Mazuz because two main objections to the plan were filed. Arab residents of West Bank cities claim that they own the land on which Yalu, an abandoned Arab village, stands, and wish to return to their land, and Jewish residents of Mevasseret Zion complain that the route is too close to residential districts. Referring the question to Mazuz for decision will delay the route. According to Israel Railways’s timetable, work on the project is scheduled to begin at the end of July. Danya Cebus (TASE: DNYA), which won the tender for the first stage of the project, was slated to begin work on July 25. The work has been divided into five sections, including a railway station at Binyanei Haooma. The work is scheduled to begin on the seven-kilometer section between the Anava junction and Shalabim. Tenders have not yet been published for the other sections. Israel Railways wishes to publish the entire route tender by the end of 2004, and the tender for the railway station in early 2005. The target date for launching commercial operation of the line is late 2008. For Israeli Railways, the worst-case scenario is a decision that the plan cannot be approved on the current route. Such a decision would pose a critical problem, since no alternative route is practical from an engineering standpoint. Acting Israel Railways general manager Yosef Mor told “Globes”, “The alternatives considered were much worse.” The difficulties involve topography and engineering limitations. According to international standards, the slope may not exceed 2.9%. Mor said that the proposed route was the only way to meet this limitation. Mor added that railway construction would cause no damage to the land, since the railway would pass through an underground tunnel in the section on the other side of the Green Line. Israel Railways asserts that the Palestinians will derive benefit from the railway. “This line is a strategic line, which in the future will serve a network of railway lines to Nablus, Ramallah, and other Arab communities, assuming, of course, that a peace agreement is achieved,” Israel Railways claims. The high-speed train to Jerusalem is one of Israel Railways’ most important projects. It connects Jerusalem and Tel Aviv by way of Ben Gurion Airport and Modi’in. The 56-kilometer route will cost NIS 3.18 billion. Only three kilometers, in the area of Mevasseret Zion and Latrun, is beyond the Green Line.

Pirates Have Killed 30 So Far This Year THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER July 26, 2004 Pirates killed 30 seafarers worldwide in the first six months of the year - the highest toll in more than a decade - and governments need to boost patrols in dangerous regions to curb the violence, a maritime group said yesterday. The 30 killings compared with 16 during the same period last year despite an overall decline in pirate attacks, the British-based International Maritime Bureau said in a report released by its Piracy Watch Center in Kuala Lumpur. Fifteen deaths were in Nigerian waters, where pirates with automatic weapons have launched 13 attacks so far this year on commercial ships and passenger ferries.��Most of the other fatalities were in Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines.

Passenger Train Hits Minibus, Killing 15 TURKEY - A passenger train slammed into a minibus rushing to cross its tracks yesterday in western Turkey, killing 15 people on the bus and injuring four, days after the derailment of an express train. The minibus - carrying 19 passengers returning from a wedding party - was trying to cross the lines before the barriers came down. The accident happened when the minibus crossed onto the rail line linking the western province of Aydin to the Aegean port city of Izmir. The crash further highlighted concerns about the safety of the country’s aging railway after the derailment Thursday of a new, high-speed train about halfway through its trip from Istanbul to Ankara. The crash killed 37 people.

Manchester Metrolink — News 2004 July 26, 2004 Light Rail Transit Association Fury at Metrolink Funding Decision On Tuesday 20 July 2004 in Parliament the Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, delivered the Government’s Statement on Transport Strategy. In this he said, “Manchester’s metro has been extremely successful. But plans for the extension have been dogged by successive cost increases. The central Government capital contribution rose from GBP282 million cash in 2000 to GBP520m cash in 2002, on top of which required annual central government payments have also risen from GBP5m a year in 2000 to GBP17m a year today — worth roughly another GBP150m.” He also referred to the Leeds and South Hampshire tram proposals. He then said, “And in each case there’s no certainty that costs won’t rise further. The NAO* was right to raise concerns; looking back over the last 20 years it has cost more to provide light rail here than elsewhere in Europe.” He continued, “No Government could accept these schemes as they are on the basis of these cost escalations. We cannot therefore approve them. We need instead to look urgently at how light rail could be made affordable, including the best approach for procurement. We will work with local authorities on the development of schemes, building on the recent NAO recommendations.” The reaction in Greater Manchester was of anger and fury. Councillors, business leaders, local newspapers and many people want to see the Metrolink extensions back on track. The Oldham Evening Chronicle reported that three local MPs met Mr Darling on Wednesday 21 July, they said, “It is the uncertainty of the costs more than the amount which is causing the problem. As far as we are concerned Metrolink is not on a red light, nor is it on green — at the moment it is on amber.” They added, “What has led to the increase is that the banks, which underwrite the tram schemes, have got cold feet about railways in general and light rail in particular.” In an interview with the Manchester Evening News published on Friday 23 July Mr Darling said, “Both the Prime Minister and I accept that the Manchester Metro is one of the most successful metros in the country.” He indicated that the way light rail projects are procured will have to be examined. Also he made it clear that he and his officials will meet the Passenger Transport Authority to discuss ways of resolving the impasse. By 26 July there have been over thirty articles in the local papers.

Panel Again Declines to Put O.C. Light-Rail Question on Ballot Los Angeles Times July 27, 2004 Rather than let voters have a say in the controversial CenterLine project, Orange County transportation leaders on Monday said they would try to build political support for the $1-billion light-rail system among local cities. For the second time in a month, the Orange County Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors killed a proposal to place an advisory measure on the November ballot as a possible way to persuade Congress to help fund the project. Instead, board members voted 8 to 3 on a plan to build a consensus in favor of CenterLine among cities interested in light-rail service for the future. OCTA is seeking about $500 million in federal funds for the project, but CenterLine has had little support among the county’s congressional delegation, except for Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove). As now envisioned, Centerline would run 9.3 miles from John Wayne Airport to the Santa Ana train station. It would travel through the South Coast Metro area in Costa Mesa and the Santa Ana Civic Center. The board first voted 5 to 4 on July 16 to keep the project off the ballot. The matter was revisited Monday to let two directors, who were absent from the earlier meeting, weigh in on the issue. “Some of us are having heartburn over expenditures for this project,” said Orange County Supervisor and OCTA board member Jim Silva, who had asked that the board reconsider the ballot measure after the first vote, which he had missed. “We are writing checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars [for lobbyists], only to be turned down in Washington.” Though Silva views a countywide advisory vote on CenterLine as a possible way “to break the logjam,” he said he decided to back instead the motion by Santa Ana Mayor Miguel A. Pulido to have OCTA work with cities to garner more support for light rail, particularly the 87-mile system in the county’s master plan. Associations of cities in western and northern Orange County have said they are interested in extensions of CenterLine if the first leg of the system is built. Supporters of the project also note that county voters already approved commuter rail lines in general when they passed the Measure M transportation sales tax almost 14 years ago. “We are at a standstill on the project,” said Cathryn DeYoung, a Laguna Niguel city councilwoman and OCTA board member who had sought to put the matter on the ballot. “We need to show support. I see the vote as a way to jump-start it.”

Capital Metro urged to add streetcars to rail plan; Downtown system seen as balm for inner city voters Austin American-Statesman July 27, 2004 A coalition of business, civic and environmental groups today will call on Capital Metro to add downtown Austin streetcars to its passenger rail plans for a probable November election. Connect Austin, which includes the Downtown Austin Alliance and Liveable City among seven sponsors, will suggest at a noontime news briefing that the transit agency ask voters for approval to build two streetcar lines in addition to the 32-mile, $60 million to $80 million commuter rail line planned from Leander to the Austin Convention Center. The streetcars, running on tracks embedded in the pavement along Third Street and from Palmer Auditorium to the University of Texas, would share lanes with cars. Adding the streetcar proposal to the November ballot might invigorate Central Austin voters, a reliable constituency for public transit that some local political veterans have said might shy away from a commuter rail proposal designed to serve the suburbs. But adding streetcars, close cousins of light rail that run on city streets and are powered by electricity, would increase the cost of what has been a bare-bones, foot-in-the-door proposal and might provide political fodder to rail opponents. “People like streetcars. People will ride streetcars,” said Mark Yznaga, a former political consultant and board member of Liveable City, which has former Council Members Brigid Shea and Bill Spelman on its board. “We think it would really enhance the commuter rail project because it would give people a way to get around downtown.” The Capital Metro board is expected to call the election at its Aug. 30 meeting and set the underlying “notice of election” that constitutes what voters would be asked to approve. The exact elements of that notice are subject to change until then. Connect Austin, formed this summer, is only one of several groups that have been sharing transit thoughts with Capital Metro in recent days. The Real Estate Council of Austin has asked Capital Metro to set aside more than $100 million for future commuter lines. The executive committee of the Greater Austin Chamber last week approved a list of “guiding principles” for reviewing the final commuter rail proposal. And the Downtown Austin Alliance has been urging Capital Metro to extend the downtown terminus of the commuter line from the Convention Center westward to Congress Avenue or to the Seaholm Power Plant. Capital Metro, in a series of community workshops this spring, got the message that its commuter line will need to have “circulator” systems at various points to move passengers to and from the stations. The most important of those figures to be downtown, where, as currently envisioned, the commuter rail line would terminate just three blocks west of Interstate 35. Capital Metro officials have indicated that they intend to have buses handy at the terminus and at important destinations such as the Capitol complex and UT. But the members of Connect Austin worry that commuters in sufficient numbers won’t be willing to go from the train to a bus and vice versa, no matter how handy. They worry that, if so, commuter rail ridership will be a disappointment, dooming future passenger rail efforts. And unless Central Austin voters see a reason to support the plan in November, even the single commuter rail line might never get off the ground. Costs of a streetcar system are a bit of a mystery at this point. The Connect Austin Web site notes that recent streetcar expansions in Portland, Ore., and Tampa, Fla., cost between $12 million and $14 million a mile, then estimates that Austin could build the 3 1/2 miles of streetcars it proposes, including the vehicles, for about $10 million a mile. But Capital Metro has not studied the proposal, which came up only in the past few weeks. And the agency, which does not have authority from voters to incur debt and does not intend to ask for it this fall, might be hard pressed to come up with that additional $35 million or more. “It’s a very good suggestion, but we couldn’t do it before the election because it’s going to be quite time-consuming (to study) and probably fairly expensive,” said Capital Metro board member Fred Harless, mayor pro tem of Lago Vista. “But I’m quite willing to look at it.”

Light-rail critic alleges cover up on traffic-delay fears Duluth News Tribune July 27, 2004 ST. PAUL - Light-rail planners knew long ago that the Bloomington-to- Minneapolis train would cause traffic delays on nearby streets but concealed that information to keep the project on track, a state lawmaker critical of the line alleged Tuesday. Republican Rep. Phil Krinkie of Shoreview released a stack of e-mails and other correspondence from top Department of Transportation officials mentioning congestion that might result in the Hiawatha corridor. Krinkie accused the department of disregarding open-records laws to keep their concerns private as long as possible. “There was a cover-up and conspiracy about the traffic congestion,” he said at a Capitol news conference. Krinkie, who has criticized the merit and cost of the $715 million project, asked Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau to investigate the actions of employees who dealt with information requests regarding congestion and possibly discipline those employees. In a written statement, Molnau said she would be willing to meet with Krinkie to examine his concerns. “It appears that his allegations stem from somewhat limited information that represents a snapshot in time in a very long planning process,” Molnau said. Approaching trains trigger traffic signals, stopping cars on cross streets. This interrupts the normal cycle of traffic signals. Since the line opened in late June, the setup has caused delays at cross streets, for drivers trying to turn off the highway and even for north-south traffic on Highway 55, which runs parallel to the tracks. Some correspondence, dating to 1999, raised concerns about the potential effect on vehicle flow on adjacent streets. In one e-mail, an official said due to the “political sensitivity” of the project, the department should avoid bringing the matter to the Minneapolis City Council. Molnau said staff members from her agency, the Metropolitan Council and Minneapolis have been working to address traffic issues. “The light-rail line is here to stay and we need to work together to ensure its success,” she said. (note: check out costs; and comments on steel)

Spans go up, but there is a pitfall; Caltrans seeks to review tower portion’s cost, which came in twice as high as expected; another toll hike may be state’s only solution Oakland Tribune July 27, 2004 Caltrans passed a major milestone Monday as the new Bay Bridge slowly rises out of the water. Slowly, almost imperceptively, two massive yellow hoists built specially for Bay Bridge work pulled a 500-ton section of bridge off a barge. By the end of a day’s work, contractor Kiewit/Manson/FCI Joint Venture, or KFM, had raised the first piece of road deck into place. About 80 observers in white hard hats gathered on a nearby jetty to witness history. Monday’s lift was the first of 452. Each 26-foot- long section of deck must make the day-long barge journey down the San Joaquin River from a Stockton construction yard. When it gets to the Bay Bridge construction site, giant hoists called SLED’s (Self-Launching Erection Devices) inch the massive V-shaped concrete pieces of bridge toward the top of a concrete column, suspending the whole thing by four bolts as thick as a man’s arm. It’s painstakingly detailed work. The awaiting structure, called a pier table, is purposely asymmetric, so when a 500-750 ton section of roadway is attached, it doesn’t topple. At first, the only sign of movement is the tightening of thick steel cables. Then the waterline on the barge emerges as the weight is removed. By the time the deck is airborne, the Portland-based barge has risen eight feet out of the water on one end and has sunken three feet on the other. Monday’s lift got off to a delicate start. Workers fussed over the hoists for an hour, making sure everything was properly balanced, after level sensors gave some questionable readings. Contractors went about their tasks like it was just another day at the office on a project that is a study in superlatives: biggest project in Caltrans history, biggest marine crane on the West Coast, biggest segmental bridge ever built. And then there’s the cost. Monday’s work was part of a record-setting $1.05 billion skyway, one of several contracts to build a replacement eastern span of the Bay Bridge. In May, when Caltrans opened a lone bid to build a unique tower closer to Yerba Buena Island, the result was shocking. Instead of $740 million, as Caltrans has estimated, the joint venture of American Bridge Co., Nippon Steel and Fluor Corp. pegged the price at $1.4 billion using foreign steel or $1.8 billion using domestic steel. With only $150 million in reserve, the result instantly confirmed what had been feared for months: Caltrans would have to find more money and the only guaranteed source was sending Bay Area tolls to $4. On Friday, Caltrans asked the American Bridge team for two more months to review bids, with options to accept the doubled cost or gamble on rebidding the work, which could come in even higher. Caltrans’ deadline to decide is Friday, unless the contractor approves an extension. “This allows time to evaluate the benefits of the May bid compared with escalating cost of material,” Caltrans spokesman David Anderson said. “We are reviewing our funding needs to complete the tower.” Steel prices have doubled in the last six months. On Monday, American Bridge executive Bob Luffy said he was reviewing the request and asking dozens of subcontractors if they can afford to hold their prices steady. “Contrary to some opinions, this is not a fat contract. We expected competition and priced it pretty thin,” Luffy said. But contractors said Caltrans has verbally affirmed that the bids look clean. Caltrans needs the time to find the money to pay for the work. “Caltrans cannot award the contract because they can’t afford it,” said Randy Rentschler, spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Caltrans is required by law to report to the Legislature how much money it needs to finish the work and how the state agency plans to find it. Anderson said Caltrans is preparing that report.

Denver puts its money on T-REX rail project; City Council backs $17.5 million to keep construction on track Rocky Mountain News July 27, 2004 The Denver City Council will make good on a promise to pay $17.5 million to keep the T-REX light-rail project moving full speed ahead. The council voted 9-0 Monday to approve on first reading a deal reached between the city and the Regional Transportation District that ends four years of negotiations surrounding rights of way, land swaps, bridge improvements and funding commitments. “This agreement wraps a number of things that we’ve been discussing for a while,” said Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie. “It’s been a long time coming. It spans four years and two administrations.” Four of the council’s 13 members are in Boston this week for the Democratic National Convention. The agreement with RTD reflects a number of trade-offs. Under its terms, Denver will pay an initial $5 million this year and $2.5 million during the next five years. The $17.5 million represents more than half of $30 million in local matching funds pledged by Denver and area cities in 2000 to help secure millions in federal funding. T-REX is a $1.72 billion expansion of highway and transit along a 19-mile stretch of interstates 25 and 225 in southeast Denver, Arapahoe County and Douglas County. It is scheduled for completion in late 2006. For its part, Denver will get a number of sought-after infrastructure improvements: - Reconstruction of the Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue overpasses. - Construction of three pedestrian bridges in the Denver Tech Center to allow easy access to RTD’s Lincoln Dry Creek and Orchard light-rail stations. - Construction of the Louisiana-Pearl Station Plaza enhancement project, which RTD will set aside $2.5 million to help fund. - RTD will transfer a sliver of land along Buchtel Boulevard to the city’s parks department to retain as open space and a nature area. Meanwhile, Denver agreed to help fund the construction of a passenger rail station at Denver International Airport and donate right of way to RTD for the proposed east corridor light-rail project Voter approval in November of the $4.7 billion FasTracks proposal would jump-start the build-out of a vast light- and commuter-rail network . Councilman Doug Linkhart called the deal between RTD and Denver long overdue. “It’s one of those items and longtime disputes we had on our plate to settle when we took office,” he said. “The mayor was able to resolve it.”

Civil lawsuit to be filed over Gold Line ; Neighbors say quality of life, property values eroded Pasadena (CA) Star-News July 27, 2004 Attorneys said Tuesday they will represent Gold Line neighbors who complain their quality of life and property values have been eroded because of the train’s noise, speed and vibrations. A civil lawsuit alleging inverse condemnation - something that hurts property values - is expected to be filed in the next few weeks. The defendants would be the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates the light rail, the Blue Line Construction Authority, which planned it, and the contractors hired to build the Gold Line, said Wayne Kreger, an attorney with the Santa Monica law firm of Verboon, Milstein & Peter. “How long will the case take It’s going to be a two- to three- year case, most likely,’ Kreger said Tuesday night during a public meeting at the South Pasadena Library. The Gold Line runs 13.7 miles, through Pasadena, South Pasadena and Los Angeles. A citizens group, Pasadena Avenue- Monterey Road Committee, has been fighting for remedies to what it describes as poor design and construction methods that created a loud train that runs through town 200 times per day, 22 hours per day. PAMRC organized Tuesday’s meeting to brief residents on the potential lawsuit. “The issue is how loud is it supposed to be, and how loud is it,’ Kreger added. He and his colleagues rode the Gold Line to see the proximity of homes to railroad tracks, Kreger said. “I could not believe that people could sleep in those homes.’ Renters and homeowners alike can participate in the case, which probably won’t be a class-action lawsuit but rather one in which each litigant could receive remedies particular to their circumstances. Lawyers told the audience of about 60 people they will take the case on a contingency basis meaning the lawyers would be paid only if the litigants win a judgment or settlement. In cost-cutting moves to keep the project on budget, the Construction Authority installed wire-link fences along the tracks instead of block sound walls in several areas where the trains travel through South Pasadena residential neighborhoods, City Councilman David Margrave told the audience. Margrave was a PAMRC founder before he won a seat on the council. Now, he also serves as a member of the Construction Authority board of directors. Meanwhile, Verboon, Milstein & Peter has a history of inverse condemnation cases. It is representing 1,100 residents who say they have been affected by noise, dust and other adverse conditions since the Foothill (210) Freeway was extended through La Verne, Claremont, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana nearly two years ago. PAMRC has filed three applications before the state Public Utilities Commission, seeking a variance from PUC rules which it says would bring relief from the sound of Gold Line horns, crossing gate bells and the vibrations from trains that reach speeds of 55 mph through some parts of the rail route in South Pasadena. Judge Anne Simon, an administrative law judge appointed by the five- member PUC, will hold a public hearing Aug. 24 in South Pasadena to listen to residents’ concerns. Further, a limited evidentiary hearing will be held the following morning in downtown Los Angeles related to the Gold Line’s noise and safety issues. “This is a chance for all of you to make your voices heard to the PUC,’ said South Pasadena resident Ernie Arnold, a founder of PAMRC. “Let’s fix the thing, so it’s not a boorish neighbor.’

BUZZ ; Monorail Seattle Weekly July 28 - August 3, 2004 Despite its repeated vow of “transparency,” the Seattle Monorail Project’s mid-August bid opening and selection process will be done in secrecy until the winner is announced months later. SMP’s take is that by shutting out taxpayers from the behind- the-scenes give-and-take, they’ll somehow be better served. Secrecy aside, here’s some of what has leaked out about the specific plans of Team Monorail, headed by Bombardier of Canada (the other bidder will be Cascadia Monorail, involving Hitachi of Japan). For starters, there’s a surprising proposal by Team Monorail: a dual guideway structure throughout almost the entire 13.7-mile Green Line, including both water crossings. Because of a tax-revenue shortfall, SMP had planned to make four miles of the line single rail. Team Monorail plans a single beam section only from Northwest 65th Street to Northwest 85th Street in Ballard, and that would be expandable to two rails. Other plans by TM: - State-of-the-art driverless monorail trains with open, walk-through capability and 360-degree views. - Final assembly of the trains by Pacifica Marine in Seattle. - An option for a station at Fifth Avenue and Stewart Street, at a renovated Times Square Building, with a direct link into the food court at Westlake Center. - A dramatic “ribbon in the air” bridge design for the Ballard Ship Canal crossing. - Smaller station designs that eliminate the need for iris-style columns, without additional property acquisitions, including a low-profile design for the station at Elliott Avenue West and West Mercer Street and a low- profile Second Avenue and Madison Street station that can be built before the Federal Reserve Building becomes available. - Columns on Second Avenue that preserve vehicle lanes and the bike path and allow a 14-foot building clearance. Tom Stone, Team Monorail bid director, wants to extend the bid deadline until the end of August (already pushed back from June), since SMP is still adding items to its wish list. But another delay is unlikely. Either way, Stone, in a letter to SMP, promises that his newly reorganized team now offers an “unprecedented level of financial strength, and unmatched design and construction experience.” However, with a closed bid opening, we’ll have to take his word for it.

1999 memo on ‘LRT Signal Operations’ Minneapolis Star Tribune July 28, 2004 Editor’s note: This e-mail, written in May 1999 by a Minnesota Department of Transportation planner, Steve Misgen, describes preemption — the preference for trains over autos at crossings — as a “show stopper” for the project. The memo is presented as written, without corrections. From: Steve Misgen To: Farraher, Beverly; Pint, Allan; Workman, Gary Date: 5/13/99 3:56PM Subject: LRT Signal Operations I have major concerns about some of the operational issues that are being made on the LRT corridor. I was at a meeting this morning to discuss some of these issues. Attending the meeting were various groups all involved with the LRT project (PB, BRW, LTK, Metro Transit and the cities of Minneapolis & Bloomington). The biggest concern I have is the use of preemption for LRT. The city of Minneapolis (Traffic personnel) and Mn/DOT Metro Traffic have repeatedly stated that preemption was not option, but all the consulting firms have been given the direction that preemption is the operation that will be used. It was expressed numerous times that the issue of preemption is a show stopper for the project and has to be resolve very soon. Joe Gladke would relay this information back to Mr. Caroon & Muktar so that they could issue Mn/DOTs final ruling. I am writing this to inform you of the concerns I have with the use of LRT preemption. I dont want to come across as anti-transit because I am not. 1. Mn/DOT has paid SRF to look at the LRT operation and concluded that a “greenwave” (greenband) could be accomplished by having the LRT vehicles move within the greenbands of the arterial. This would be done by coordinating the departures of the LRT vehicles from the stations so that they arrive at the grade crossing with the concurrent vehicle signal phase. This report was completed November 8, 1998, but its findings have been ignored. 2. The use of preemption will destroy any progression along the corridor as well as cause extreme delays for the cross street. The estimates that are presently being quoted are a transit vehicle every 3 minutes and the intersection being blocked for 40 seconds of the 3 minutes while the LRT vehicle clears the grade crossing. It will take 3-6 cycles for the intersection to get back into coordination with each cycle length averaging 140 seconds. This means that the intersection will never be in coordination. Presently many of the intersections along the corridor are close to capacity. By taking away 40 seconds every three minutes will severely cripple each intersection. There will be no progression along the corridor with extreme delays on side streets. LRT preemption would have priority over all emergency vehicles. The way LRT preemption would work would be as follows: The LRT vehicle would have to be detected a specific period of time before the grade crossing. This time would be sufficient to clear all the pedestrians from the intersection, time the yellow clearance & all red intervals of conflicting phase, plus enough time to clear any vehicles that are queued across the grade crossing. This all must happen before the crossing gates descend. This conforms to Mn/DOT Tech Memo 95-33-T-06. At some of the intersections this may take up to 60 seconds. The gate arms must be down 20 seconds prior to the arrival of the LRT vehicle (Federal Law). Once this sequence has begun it can not be stopped. So, for almost 100 seconds, an emergency vehicle will not have priority. Secondly, if the above estimates are assumed the signal will always be in this type of operation, a Right-of-Way transfer and a Track Clearance mode. 4. BRW has been hired to model certain intersections to see how they perform without LRT and with LRT using preemption. I have reservations on how they are actually going to model the preemption. Also, no one has or is modeling the entire corridor or the signal using priority. I think this should be done. This LRT project is the first of many. The decisions made here will become the standards on the next project. This is why I feel that the decision made here and now are of extreme importance. The traffic engineers through out the metro have fought long and hard to keep preemption of transit vehicles. I feel that if preemption if allowed on LRT vehicles why not bus transit vehicles. 6. All the signals in question are being operated by the City of Minneapolis, with the exception of the ones near the airport and Mall of America which are operated jointly by Mn/DOT & Bloomington. I believe that the final call of how the signals operate is the Traffic Engineer at the City of Minneapolis. Mn/DOT can not dictate the operation of the city signals. If anyone has any question please call me. Hopefully the correct decision will be made.

Light-rail property budget on mark; Tober says spending may be less than planned $39 million Charlotte Observer July 29, 2004 Charlotte has bought most of the property it needs for its light-rail line and may come in below its $39 million budget, transit chief Ron Tober said Wednesday. Charlotte Area Transit System is buying land along South Boulevard and Old Pineville Road for parking lots and other uses related to the 9.6-mile light-rail line that will run from uptown to near Pineville. CATS has already bought right-of-way for the tracks from Norfolk Southern. Consultants have completed 95 percent of the design for the $398.7 million project, Tober told the Metropolitan Transit Commission. CATS plans to file its application this week or next with the Federal Transit Administration, which is expected to pay half that cost. The state and Mecklenburg’s half-cent transit sales tax will pay the rest. The FTA will review the application in August and September, followed by a 60-day review by Congress. Tober says he hopes to break ground in October, even though FTA is not expected to announce until December whether it will pay half. Meanwhile, Tober plans to ask the Charlotte City Council in September to allow CATS to start construction on a $20 million garage for the trains. Later in the fall the council will be asked to OK a $75 million contract for tracks, bridges, a parking deck and structures, and a $33 million contract for signal and communication equipment. The garage must be ready by October 2005, when CATS’ first car arrives. In order to keep on schedule for passenger service in 2006, CATS plans to borrow money for construction costs until the federal money is approved. If the money does not come through, CATS will cancel the construction contract for light-rail cars. In other business, Tober said transit ridership increased 5.3 percent from last year, the sixth consecutive year of increases. About 16.4 million people rode in the past 12 months.

City council is pushing South Jackson streetcars Seattle Times July 29, 2004 While Seattle City Council members were putting strict conditions on a proposed South Lake Union streetcar this week, they were also promoting a different streetcar — one that would run through the Chinatown International and Central districts. Seven council members sent a letter to Sound Transit, asking the public- transit agency to consider financing an extension of Seattle’s only current streetcar line, which runs along the waterfront and up to South Jackson Street and Fifth Avenue. Council members want that line to go into the Chinatown International District and up South Jackson Street to 12th Avenue South at the least, and possibly to 23rd Avenue South. The council aims to get the South Jackson streetcar on Sound Transit’s next menu of projects submitted to voters in 2005 or 2006. Richard Conlin, council transportation-committee chairman, said he saw Tacoma’s new streetcar, entirely financed by Sound Transit, as the model for a South Jackson streetcar. “I wouldn’t say it’s a slam dunk. But it’s something the council is committed to. It’s time for us to take it seriously,” Conlin said. A $214,000 city study of possible streetcar routes concluded that a South Jackson line was the second-most-promising option in Seattle, behind only the South Lake Union proposal. The South Jackson line would “connect tourist and entertainment destinations along the waterfront, through Pioneer Square, into the busy Chinatown International District and beyond,” the study said. It would also serve workers and residents and might spur redevelopment, the council added in its letter to Sound Transit. Councilman David Della said a South Jackson extension is an “opportunity to shift the spotlight to another part of the city where a streetcar could have a clear public benefit.” Della said the city has “already put a lot of resources and attention into South Lake Union” and “we need to pay as much attention to other areas.” Councilman Richard McIver noted that people in the Chinatown International District had been asking for a streetcar extension “long before South Lake Union came along.” McIver predicted a South Jackson streetcar would work well. “The question,” he added, “is how to pay for it.” The South Lake Union line, proposed by Mayor Greg Nickels, would cost $45 million to build, with $25 million coming from property owners near the line. On Tuesday, a majority of council members unveiled legislation that would all but prohibit city spending on the South Lake Union line. The same legislation calls for spending federal and state grant money on further analysis of a South Jackson line. The city’s study showed that the South Jackson streetcar would cost $47 million to build and would have fewer riders than the South Lake Union line. The preliminary study says that 250,000 people a year would hop a train between Union Station and 12th Avenue South and that if it were extended to 23rd Avenue, two trains would be needed to assure service every 10 minutes, while adding an unknown number of riders. The South Lake Union line is supposed to start at 330,000 riders a year and eventually reach 1.1 million a year if the area grows as fast as predicted. Council members also expressed doubts a South Jackson line would attract as much private financing as South Lake Union’s. Afternoon car and bus traffic is heavy in the Chinatown International District, causing “potential conflicts” with a streetcar, the city report said. Currently, some buses to Rainier Valley hit a choke point on and around Jackson. If Sound Transit takes charge of the South Jackson streetcar route, its fate would rest with voters throughout urban Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. John Ladenburg, Sound Transit’s board chairman, said the line is worth preliminary study. He would want to know how many people are served and what employment centers are linked, since Sound Transit’s mission is to provide regional transportation. A streetcar would represent an additional technology beyond what Sound Transit is building in its express bus, light-rail and heavy commuter rail lines.

Police say many false alarms sign of ‘heightened awareness’ USA TODAY July 29, 2004 BOSTON — A forgotten baby buggy shuts down a commuter line for hours. A police bomb squad explodes a roadside package containing a tool kit. SWAT teams rush to a rooftop on reports of parachutists and find a tarp flapping in the wind. Law enforcement officials have checked out dozens of reports of suspicious activities during the Democratic National Convention. And although all have turned out to be false alarms, officials couldn’t be happier with the calls. “It shows there’s a heightened awareness out there,” said David Estrada, a spokesman for Boston Police. Boston has been an armed camp since the weekend. Thousands of police, National Guard, military and federal agents are on patrol and providing security at the FleetCenter, the convention site. Hovering helicopters are fixtures over Boston. Entrances to restaurants, hotels and party spots are surrounded by black vans and security people wearing dark glasses and earphones. Public transit riders are submitting bags for inspection. On Wednesday, a federal judge dismissed a suit by the National Lawyers Guild and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, alleging such searches were a violation of privacy. But few others are complaining. “They’re doing everything they can to make sure people are secure,” said Paul Massaron, a Democratic delegate from Michigan. “But it suggests change has really occurred in our society, and 9/11 has really had an impact.” The impact on the public has been felt by security forces, who average a dozen daily calls about unattended items or suspicious activities. One was the false alarm about parachutists on Sunday. At least four other calls have led to dramatic responses: - On Sunday, a bomb squad exploded a briefcase found on a street in downtown Boston after a scan revealed electronics inside. It turned out to be a camcorder. - On Tuesday, another package left on a roadway near the convention site got the same treatment. It was a kit containing power tools. - Also on Tuesday, authorities found a stolen car, its engine still running, parked on a bridge over a rapid transit line. A high-pressure water hose was used on a package on the backseat. The package was a disco light. - Authorities shut down a commuter rail line for several hours on Monday to check on an abandoned baby carriage. Its owner remains unidentified. Officials have not ruled out the possibility that some of the incidents may have been tests of the security system. “We have to take each incident very seriously,” said Michael Mulhern of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority.

Knappster: Taxpayers getting hammered by monorail sweetheart deals Las Vegas Mercury July 29, 2004 What the heck has happened to Paradise Road? The place is like a ghost town these days. It’s as if someone dropped a neutron bomb and wiped out all the cars, trucks and buses along this normally jammed corridor. You say you haven’t noticed any difference in the thickness of the traffic snarls along Paradise? Really? Even though the Las Vegas Monorail is up and running? And have you also failed to notice the dramatic improvement in our air quality now that so many thousands of cars are not cramming the resort corridor, thanks to the overwhelming success of the monorail? Maybe we aren’t paying close enough attention. Then again, maybe the monorail really isn’t going to make even a tiny dent in our traffic and air quality problems. Of course, that’s how it was sold to us. We were told over and over that this project was needed because it would be a transit system for the entire public, one that would relieve our traffic woes and improve our air quality. Does anyone seriously believe it will make one bit of difference? It’s a transit system for the entire public all right, so long as the entire public is traveling to a particular casino on the east side of the Strip, because this transit system only travels to and from a handful of casinos. Local media outlets have pretty much fallen all over themselves in their effusive praise of the project. Even the Review-Journal, the parent paper of the Mercury, jumped on the monorail bandwagon, largely because, in the R-J’s estimation, there are no public funds wrapped up in the project. “None,” says the R-J, which urged local officials to keep it that way when the system is expanded. The R-J should know full well that millions in federal and local dollars are already earmarked for the next leg of the monorail. And an even bigger price tag looms down the line. Anyone who thinks the public has zero money in the 4.4 miles of monorail already in service is simply and absolutely wrong. Anyone who thinks this thing is a public works project designed to benefit the population as a whole must be looking through rose-colored glasses that are as thick as a cinder block. It’s great that the public, including the officials, entertainers, space aliens, dueling Elvi and media types who crowded the train during its opening ceremonies are so giddy about the monorail, since it is highly likely that we will all own the system sometime in the near future. You think not? I am reminded of the scene in the great film Chinatown when the Faye Dunaway character blurts out that another character is “her sister, her daughter, her sister, her daughter, her sister AND her daughter.” That’ sort of how it is with the monorail. It’s private, it’s public, it’s private AND public, depending on what is most convenient at the time for the people running the show. In the beginning, project founder Bob Broadbent assured us, over and over, that this project would be entirely private, that it wouldn’t cost the taxpayers anything. Back then, the estimated cost was $250 million. The monorail eventually morphed into a quasi-public, sometimes-private hybrid. When that happened, the cost jumped to $650 million. True, no checks were written from public bank accounts to pay for it, but the state of Nevada did allow the monorail to raise money through government- backed revenue bonds. (Taxpayers might ask themselves, if the monorail is such a can’t-miss propoposition, why couldn’t its backers sell their own bonds without any involvement from the state?) But the state revenue bonds aren’t the only public stake in the project. State tax officials have granted millions of dollars in tax breaks to the monorail. They did it by declaring that the monorail qualifies as a tax- exempt charity, a decision that was made behind closed doors and with no public notificaiton whatsoever. The Las Vegas Sun reported on July 20 that the decision to grant tax-exempt status was made by the Nevada Tax Commission. Wrong. The monorail issue never made it to the Tax Commission and was never considered in a public meeting. See, in early March 2003, the decision was made to relieve the Tax Commission of the terrible burden of deciding which organizations should be deemed tax exempt. The authority was granted instead to the state’s Taxation Department. Coincidentally, just two weeks later, the issue of the monorail came up, and tax bureaucrats, meeting in private, handed away millions of dollars in potential tax revenue. (The monorail had applied for the exemption in 2001. It’s interesting to see that no decision was made until the Tax Commission, which meets in public, was removed from the picture.) There was never a public posting of this decision. It was never even mentioned on the state’s website. There was no press release from the monorail itself. Nothing. Zippo. It’s just my opinion, but a decision of this magnitude would seem worthy of some tiny mention somewhere. Oh, but that’s not all. See, to declare a monorail that only travels to casinos as an official charity, tax officials and their legal advisers had to jump through some formidable hoops. They told the Sun that the monorail qualified as a tax-exempt entity because it provides “a service that is otherwise requested to be provided” by government. There’s only one little problem with this explanation. State law doesn’t say that. To qualify for nonprofit status, the entity in question must provide a service that is “required” of local government. Not requested, required. Big difference. There is no requirement that local government provide a monorail to casinos. There isn’t even a law that requires local government to provide transportation services at all. Of course, the legal opinion that allowed tax officials to make this decision wasn’t made public either. Here’s something else that wasn’t made public. Knappster has repeatedly asked state tax officials whether any of the monorail’s contractors have requested retroactive tax refunds. Again and again, tax officials have told me there have been no requests for any refunds or rebates from any company associated with the monorail. This is also untrue. I suppose it is another strange coincidence, but it was also in late March 2003 when the project’s principal contractor, Bombardier Inc., filed a request with the state seeking a sales tax refund of $743,652.35. Not only did the state deny any knowledge of this request, but so did the monorail company. Well, I have the memos, faxed to the state from the offices of the monorail company, seeking this refund. Maybe $743,000 is such small change that it doesn’t even register with the Tax Department or the monorail company, but I’m pretty sure it’s something the taxpayers would want to know about. (State tax honchos say they will look into this but deny that any such refund was granted.) Here’s another way that taxpayers have a stake in the monorail. Tax exemptions were also granted at the local level. The monorail’s casino partners turned over a lot of property and easement rights so the tracks could be built. One monorail spokesman estimated the value of that land at $100 million. That’s taxable property that is no longer on the local tax rolls. The assessor’s office figures that exempting the monorail’s property and buildings from property taxes will cost in excess of $3 million a year. Did you hear anything about this decision? Was there a public announcement by any of the elected officials who are so exuberant about the monorail? No. I guess they figured we wouldn’t be interested. Finally, we come to the issues of salaries. I don’t begrudge anyone the right to earn a living, but there’s a funny smell surrounding how this whole thing was pulled off. See, when it comes to getting state revenue bonds, the monorail is a public enterprise. It’s also public when it comes to getting tax breaks from the state and county. But when questions are asked about who is making what, the project gets private in a hurry. The monorail’s backers fought tooth and nail against a proposed public audit of the project. As an alternative, they agreed to hand over an annual financial report to the state. The first report is packed with a lot of filler — charts and graphs and such — but somehow that first report omitted telling state officials how much all of the monorail’s executives are making. Monorail honchos say they are a private company and their pay is their own business. How convenient. Today it’s a private company. Yesterday, it was a public entity seeking favors from we taxpayers. (We do know that the Transit Management Co., which oversees the business side of the monorail, gets close to $7 million a year. We also know it has fewer than 20 employees. You do the math.) It would take readers a week to absorb the byzantine connections among the folks who are running this enterprise. In a nutshell, it all flows from the late Broadbent, the former McCarran International Airport czar whose son- in-law, Cam Walker, is now president of the transit system. Cam’s brother Todd is the chief spokesman for the monorail. They are related to Randy Walker, who succeeded Broadbent at the airport. It is worth noting that the decision to grant a 15-year management contract to Transit Systems Management, the company founded by Broadbent, was made without a lot of discussion. Oh, and it was made without accepting any other bids. Maybe that’s because, in such matters, the monorail is conveniently private. Maybe all of this will be seen as nitpicking. But maybe not. There’s a little betting pool under way at the county to guess when the public will be asked to take over ownership of the monorail. The highest estimate is 24 months. It might seem far-fetched right now, but someday soon this discussion will begin in public forums. After all, public money and public loans will bankroll the second leg of the monorail. After that, it’s only a matter of time before the whole system is assumed by the public. This timetable could be accelerated if the monorail’s highly optimistic ridership estimates are exposed as inflated hucksterism. (Despite a massive publicity buildup, the monorail’’s first day attracted only 30,000 riders, far fewer than what it needs to break even. The company says it will not make public any new ridership figures until September. There’s that pesky public-private problem again.) A monorail system that carries gamblers from one casino to the next — and nowhere else — is considered a public transportation system, a nonprofit, tax-exempt public service. A charity, under the law. Man, that’s rich, although not as rich as some people might be once the government ponies up to take over the system. One local asks the question whether she should save her ticket stubs. After all, she reasons, if the monorail is a charity, then shouldn’t she get some sort of a deduction for her ticket purchase? Guess that depends on what day it is, and whether the monorail on that day is public or private.

TriMet delivers record 91 million rides for the year; MAX & Frequent Service bus lines top ridership gains TriMet News & Info [Portland, Or] July 29, 2004 TriMet’s annual ridership reached a record 91 million for fiscal year 2004, which ended June 30, an increase of 2.5 percent from the prior year. Ridership has steadily grown since December 2003. In the past year, TriMet added service on the Red Line by extending it to Beaverton, opened the Interstate MAX Yellow Line through North Portland and added more Frequent Service bus lines. “Our service increases, coupled with an improving job market and higher gas prices have made TriMet an even more attractive alternative to our region’s riders,” said TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen. “This year, TriMet made significant ridership gains on both MAX and its Frequent Service lines.” Annual ridership record TriMet has had 16 straight years of annual ridership growth. Annual ridership trends: - Weekday trips on MAX and bus averaged 292,300, up 2.1 percent - Saturday ridership reached 176,400, a 1.8 percent increase - Sunday ridership averaged 122,400, a 3.6 percent jump - MAX ridership (Blue, Red & Yellow lines) grew 5.5 percent, to 27.5 million - Westside MAX ridership grew 10.6 percent from 28,400 to 31,400 per weekday - Eastside MAX ridership grew 1.7 percent from 48,000 to 48,800 per weekday - LIFT service for people with disabilities grew 4.3 percent to 958,244 rides. June figures June’s weekday trips averaged 304,000 rides on MAX and buses, a 9 percent jump compared with June 2003. June 2004 was the third straight month that weekday ridership surpassed 300,000.

Plan would raise parking fees ; TriMet’s financing for the proposed Interstate 205 light-rail line includes $1.25 an hour meter rates until 7 p.m. The Oregonian July 29, 2004 TriMet’s final financing plan for the proposed $494 million Interstate 205 light-rail line includes Portland parking meter increases that ruffled feathers inside and outside City Hall a few months ago. The modified parking package is expected to win City Council approval on Aug. 4 as TriMet hurries to meet an Aug. 20 application deadline with the Federal Transit Administration. TriMet’s target of $197.4 million in local funding amounts to 40 percent of the project cost. The other 60 percent would come from federal transit grants. The light-rail project includes new rails between Clackamas Town Center and Gateway, and revamping the Fifth and Sixth Avenue transit mall between Union Station and Portland State University in downtown Portland to include light-rail tracks. Portland’s share of local matching money includes $15 million in bonds to be paid off by increased parking-meter fees. In April, Mayor Vera Katz proposed the increases as part of the city’s 2004-05 budget, but Commissioner Jim Francesconi, who heads the city’s transportation department, attacked fees. Francesconi will be proposing a modified parking-fee increase as part of a city funding package totaling $45.3 million for the rail project. The proposed package would raise short-term parking meter rates from $1 to $1.25 an hour and long-term rates from 60 cents to $1.25 an hour. Meter hours would be extended from 6 to 7 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, but not to 9 p.m. as first proposed. They would take effect July 1, 2005. Francesconi said revamping the transit mall to include light-rail tracks is “the most important downtown project in 25 years.” He said it would boost jobs and housing downtown, as well as in Lents and Gateway. The revised parking-fee plan would not impose meter fees on Sundays as earlier proposed. “We heard pretty loud and clear that everyone wanted to keep Sunday as a meter-free day,” said Brant Williams, director of the Portland Office of Transportation. Williams said the meter revenue also would raise $300,000 a year to increase Portland Streetcar service from every 14 minutes to 11 minutes during peak hours, and $500,000 annually for transit-mall management and maintenance. The revenue also would make up about $300,000 a year on lost revenue from meters that would be removed from Southwest Fifth and Sixth avenues as the transit mall expands to the south. Scott Farris, a spokesman for Katz, said the argument between Francesconi and the mayor was over when the increases would take effect, this year or next. “As a general notion, this has always been a part of the plan for paying for the transit mall,” Farris said of the proposed increase in parking fees. Overall, TriMet has negotiated with several local governments to arrive at $197.4 million in local funding. The final pieces include the city’s $45.3 million as well as $20 million in tax increment urban renewal money from the Portland Development Commission. Neil McFarlane, TriMet’s capital projects director, said the transit agency can’t afford to miss the federal application deadline because local match percentages are likely to rise. He said there is “significant pressure” in Congress to raise that figure on major transit projects from 40 percent to 50 percent. “There is risk if the project is delayed,” McFarlane told the TriMet board of directors on Wednesday. “We feel some urgency to get this project approved at the 40 percent level.” Contributors to the $197.4 million local match package include Portland, TriMet, Metro, the Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland State University and Clackamas County. Portland’s component includes $17 million from a local improvement district composed of downtown properties near the transit mall and $6.3 million composed of systems development charges and water and sewer relocation work. Farris said he expects some objections to the local improvement district but not enough to scuttle the plan. As part of its federal application, TriMet also must persuade federal officials that the agency has enough money to run the new light-rail trains for 20 years. To help meet that requirement, TriMet’s board took the first step on Wednesday toward boosting the region’s transit payroll tax by .01 percent, effective in January. A final vote is expected Aug. 11. TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen said the increase would generate $2.3 million a year. He said the added revenue would be devoted to new transit service only. An increase in the payroll tax from 0.622 percent to 0.632 percent would raise the annual tax on a $50,000 salary from $311 a year to $316. Some business advocates questioned whether the economy is strong enough to bear additional taxes. Jackie Babicky, a Portland Business Alliance representative, asked the TriMet board to hold off for a year. “We do not think the economic recovery is sufficient at this time,” she said. “It’s still fledgling and fragile.” Last year, the Oregon Legislature authorized TriMet to raise the payroll tax as much as 0.1 percent, but with the increase spread over a decade.

Train, malpractice make ballot St. Petersburg Times (Florida) July 30, 2004 Voters in November will decide the fate of Florida’s bullet train and two medical malpractice proposals pushed by trial lawyers. The amendments, which qualified for the ballot Thursday, bring to eight the number of constitutional questions voters will face in the general election. The bullet-train measure will be the second chance in four years for voters to demand or reject high-speed rail links to the state’s most populated areas. The repeal measure, led by Gov. Jeb Bush and Tom Gallagher, the state’s chief financial officer, obtained 499,610 verified signatures on petitions, more than the 488,722 needed for an encore appearance before the voters. Almost immediately, lawyers for C.C. “Doc” Dockery, the millionaire Lakeland businessman who spent $2.7-million of his own money in 2000 to win approval for the constitutional amendment mandating construction of the bullet train, filed an action challenging the signature drive. Dockery’s attorneys argued that Derail the Bullet Train, the group fronting the effort to repeal the amendment, broke state laws in its petition drive. They filed three complaints with the Florida Election Commission, saying DEBT should pay a $1,000-per-signature penalty. “There have been multiple allegations of voter fraud in the collection of signatures for the DEBT petitions stemming from the use of paid petition circulators,” said attorney Robert Aranda. “The allegations of voter fraud include paid petition gatherers forging the signatures of the voters who provide their signature for a different initiative petition onto the DEBT petition.” Dockery, who was traveling Thursday, could not be reached for comment. Fred Dudley, the Tallahassee lawyer who is chairman of the Florida High Speed Rail Authority, said he is not surprised that the repeal effort was certified. “They had an awful lot of money to buy all the signatures they needed,” said Dudley. “This is the right place for it. Put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.” He said Bush and Gallagher should tell the voters what their vision is for Florida’s transportation future if not high-speed rail. “If they think that building a lot of lane miles of new roads is the answer, then many of us would like to know that so we can move out of the state before it catches up with us,” Dudley said. Gallagher said if the repeal fails, he thinks the governor and the Legislature have a responsibility to carry out the people’s will. But, he added, more roads are a better alternative. “People want to take their cars,” Gallagher said. “The cost of high-speed rail versus cars is 122-to-1. Think of the roads you could build for the money it would take to buy the train.” Whether Dockery will spend more of his own fortune to beat back the repeal effort was unknown, but Dudley said he didn’t think there was any legal reason that he couldn’t, although he holds a seat on the Rail Authority board. Opponents of high-speed rail say it is a nice dream but too expensive. The first leg, from Tampa to Orlando, is projected to cost about $2.6-billion. The construction proposal calls for the state to provide $75-million annually for 35 years, with an eventual payback of $526-million from a revenue-sharing plan. The amendment to build the train was the sleeper of the 2000 election, a citizen drive given little chance to succeed that managed to pass with 53 percent of the vote. In the Tampa Bay region, Hernando was the only county with a majority voting against. Although the petition drive to undo the 2000 vote has been characterized as a grass-roots effort, its $1.3-million in financing came mostly from organizations whose interests are not served by high-speed rail. A road builders’ lobbying group chipped in $330,000. SeaWorld Orlando and Universal Orlando donated a combined $470,000 after they lost out to Disney for a passenger station on the first leg of the train’s route from Tampa to Orlando International Airport. Ironically, as the repeal measure was certified by the Division of Elections, Bush was on a trade mission in Canada seeking business investment in the state. Bombardier Inc., one of Canada’s most-respected companies, is the lead partner in the consortium chosen to build Florida’s bullet train. But from a distance, Bush applauded the success in getting the repeal measure certified. “Now that the enormous costs are well-known,” he said, “I am confident the people will remove this boondoggle from their Constitution in November.” SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REPEAL OF HIGH SPEED RAIL AMENDMENT: This amendment repeals an amendment in the Florida Constitution that requires the Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor to proceed with the development and operation of a high speed ground transportation system by the state and/or by a private entity.

UTA gets 30 rail cars from Chicago — free Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City July 30, 2004 In an effort to prepare for the anticipated commuter rail system from north Ogden to Salt Lake City, UTA officials have acquired 30 used commuter train cars from Chicago. The price tag: free. Sure, the Utah Transit Authority will still have to shell out $1,600 to ship each car and about $500,000 to $750,000 to refurbish the 30-year-old cars, but compared to about $2 million for one new car, that’s a deal, said commuter rail project manager Steve Meyer. “We can’t argue with free,” said UTA spokesman Justin Jones, standing outside the UTA commuter rail “Warm Springs” service depot near Beck Street, where 10 of the 30 trains have arrived. Walking down the aisle of one of these “gallery cars” the green tint of the windows throws a strange mood on the orange vinyl seats. The seat backs swing on metal levers so passengers can sit in either direction. Despite patches of rust, the cars are relatively clean for being more than 30 years old. “These were in service a month an a half ago,” Meyer said. “This is an opportunity to have these cars. Granted, they aren’t the new beauties, but we can fix them up.” Advertisements for recent Chicago events were still displayed in the cars. Meyer said UTA routinely talks to other transit agencies across the country to share ideas and news. Last spring, Meyer said they caught wind that Chicago’s Metra rail system was replacing its train cars with new ones. When they heard they were offering UTA the cars gratis, Meyer said they jumped at the chance. Other cars were snatched up by agencies in Virginia and Nashville. The cars will be used as backup cars, when commuter rail ridership exceeds the capacity of new trains that officials plan to purchase. Meyer said projections by UTA indicate that when commuter rail is up and running — as early as 2007 — it may exceed popularity expectations, as did TRAX. Although UTA plans to have commuter rail running within five years, officials say it all depends on Congress and the White House to approve the federal funding needed to match state dollars for the $500 million system. Jones said how much work and money will go into refurbishing the 30 used train cars has not yet been determined. Meyer said at least one issue UTA needs to deal with is making the cars compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. UTA General Manager John Inglish said the cars will become part of a “strategic reserve” to be used during peak commuter hours, as well as for special events, such as LDS General Conference and the winter holiday season. Meyer said he hopes commuter rail will bring cities between Ogden and Salt Lake City closer together, so people feel free to catch a performance or event using commuter rail to get to another community. Already the arrival of the used cars has generated excitement among local train fans. Meyer said UTA may consider train rides on existing UTA lines, before the system is completed, possibly to include discussions of Utah’s railroad history.

Crippling Commuters; MTA May Close Lines; Citing Expected Deficit Exceeding $1 Billion For 2006, Agency Mulls Shutting Three Lines And Cutting Some Weekend Service To Save $30m Newsday (New York) July 30, 2004 In addition to a 5-percent fare hike and service reductions for Long Island Rail Road riders next year, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is considering more draconian and unprecedented service cuts for 2006. To offset growing debt service and a 2006 deficit of more than $1 billion, the MTA is looking at closing the Oyster Bay, Greenport-Ronkonkoma and West Hempstead branches and removing the tracks for salvage. They also propose eliminating weekend service on the Far Rockaway and Port Jefferson branches. Ticket windows at all stations except for 10 hub and terminal stations would be shut and trains combined during the rush hour as well. The actions would save nearly $30 million. Some sources close to the MTA privately say the extreme proposals for 2006 are merely scare tactics for the state to pony up more money for mass transit, but others believe at least some of the cost-cutting measures could come into play. “I think they are basically out there stating the problem and somebody has to come forward and say you can do this and you can’t do that. There are going to have to be some choices made,” said Beverly Dolinsky, executive director of the LIRR Commuter’s Council. “They are showing the worst case scenario.” One MTA official said the financial picture could improve, but added that the agency, which has strengthened its disclosure rules, had to present its budget forecast now. Also, the MTA had to provide details to have enough time to launch required environmental review of proposals. But Michael J. Canino, general chairman of the LIRR’s United Transportation Union, said that the state needs to step in and that the railroad is already cut to the bone. “Let them abandon branches,” said Canino, who also serves on the MTA Board. “Before the riding public would stand for those drastic cuts, they would turn every elected official in the state of New York out and rightfully so.” Representatives from the office of state Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) said yesterday the state and city are hard-pressed financially and the MTA needs to work harder before making such extreme service sacrifices. “Those are very frightening alternatives and certainly they are not anything the senator thinks should be among the list of viable alternatives,” said Tom Dunham, an aide to Skelos who sits on the MTA Capital Review Board. Kevin Quinn, a spokesman for Gov. George Pataki, said, “The governor has always been against fare hikes and he wants to see other options and alternatives explored before any decision is made. He also supports additional public input and more study of any proposals that would affect fares or service.” At the budget presentation yesterday morning, MTA Executive Director Katie Lapp outlined next year’s $8.3 billion operating budget, which includes a deficit of less than initially thought. In February, the deficit had been budgeted at $870 million but because of better than anticipated subsidies from petroleum and real estate taxes, that number has shrunk to $436 million. Still, the rising debt service and increasing pension costs have led the MTA to propose trimming service for the LIRR in 2005 and possibly raising ticket prices an average of 5 percent. Debt service in 2005 is projected to be $1.2 billion compared to $916 million this year. Debt service is expected to climb to $1.4 billion by 2006. The board is also looking to cut MetroCard discounts, raising the price of the 30-day unlimited ride card by $6 and the 7-day unlimited by $3. Even with discounts, the cost of an average subway or bus ride will rise from $1.26 to $1.33. The actions will leave the MTA with a $31 million surplus in 2005. The MTA Board voted to authorize public hearings, likely to be held in mid-September, on next year’s budget. A final budget will be decided in December. Fair hikes could go into effect between January and March of next year. In the budget, the railroad is also looking to cut back on car cleaning, station cleaning and eliminate some ticket window selling positions. Low ridership trains would be either canceled or combined, but the railroad has not publicly identified which trains or routes. The MTA has borrowed extensively in the past to support its capital program, from purchasing new cars to rebuilding tracks. “When they had proposed borrowing all this money, we had testified over and over again that fares are going to be unaffordable and now that’s happened,” Dolinsky said. In an effort to find savings, one board member sought yesterday to resurrect a long-stalled plan to merge the two commuter railroads, the LIRR and MetroNorth. The MTA had sent the proposal to state legislators last year, but it never went anywhere. “We would have liked the Legislature to pass that. It’s sad, but it won’t stop us,” said MTA chairman Peter Kalikow. “After this election cycle, we’ll go back.” MTA officials also unveiled the 2005-2009 capital plan, which includes $4.2 billion for expansion projects such as a third track for the main line and East Side Access. It also includes $191 million for a yard on the Port Jefferson branch. But Skelos had harsh words for the overall capital plan, which also includes $17.4 billion for infrastructure and fleet enhancement, calling it a “Cadillac” plan without any recognition of the costs involved or the means of funding. “With blatant and growing structural deficits, vast revenue deficiencies and service reductions, this fundamentally flawed plan is both unsustainable and ill considered,” Skelos said yesterday. “The MTA must go back to the drawing board [and] refocus their efforts.” Tightening the belt The MTA has proposed $467 million in cuts and hikes to bring the agency back into the black. Some of the proposed new fares and other charges: LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD (For 2005) Raise fares an average of 5% Cancel or combine low-ridership trains Close some ticket windows Reduce emergency bus services (provided when trains become unavailable) by 25% Reduce car and station cleanings LIRR (For 2006, highly conjectural) Close Oyster Bay, Greenport-Ronkonkoma and West Hempstead branches Eliminate weekend service for Far Rockaway and Port Jefferson branches Close ticket windows except at 10 major stations Eliminate total of 30 trains during rush and nonrush period BRIDGES AND TUNNELS $4.50 Major crossings, including Throgs Neck and Triboro Bridges and Queens Midtown Tunnel (up from $4) $2.25 Minor crossings (up from $2) $1 Monthly fee for E-Zpass users SUBWAYS $76 30-day MetroCard fare (up from $70) $24 7-day MetroCard fare (up from $21) Other proposals: Close 164 booths (115 part-time and 49 full-time) Terminate G line at Court Square on weekends, nights BUSES $6 Express bus fare (up from $4) METRO-NORTH RAILROAD Raise fares an average of 5% Reduce station cleaning, maintenance Revise service plan Where the $467 million would come from $219 million Fare and toll hikes $91 million Mass transit service cuts $157 million Administration and other internal cuts

T Quietly Ran Trains For Delegates; Move Is Defended As Safety Measure The Boston Globe July 30, 2004 The MBTA quietly provided special Orange Line trains for people exiting the FleetCenter on all four nights of the Democratic National Convention, opening the otherwise closed North Station so that some 3,200 delegates, journalists, and others with convention credentials could be whisked to Back Bay Station, free of charge. Five to six of the special trains were swept for bombs at a rail yard and then pulled into North Station, starting at about 10:30 each night. The trains departed regularly, and each made an express run to Back Bay until about midnight, primarily as a security measure to clear the FleetCenter area quickly, said Joe Pesaturo, spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Regular trains ran in between the special trains, so there was “no impact on service,” Pesaturo said. People on the platforms at the five stations between the FleetCenter and Back Bay “saw a train full of people go by, but there was a train right behind it” to pick them up, he said. Still, word of the special service did not sit well with T riders who have had to put up with baggage inspections and forced transfers to shuttle buses. “It seems like they’ve overlooked the people of Boston and regular commuters,” said Susan McLay, 23, of Billerica, who takes commuter rail and the Orange Line to the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute of Health Professions in Charlestown. North Station has been closed to everyone but the conventioneers, she said, which has caused major disruptions in daily routines. “That doesn’t smell very good to me,” said Julianne Ture, an Orange Line rider who took the week off. “The whole convention has been such a fiasco.” Pesaturo staunchly defended the special trains and scoffed at the idea that regular riders were given short shrift. “Anyone who understands public safety wouldn’t be critical of this,” he said. “We did this to move people safely and quickly from the high-security zone to their hotels. We were pleased to offer it and pleased that our offer was accepted. We’re a public agency, and if we could make a contribution to enhance security, we’ll do it.” MBTA General Manager Michael Mulhern came up with the idea more than two months ago, and convention organizers readily agreed to it, Pesaturo said. The special service probably would have been canceled if word got out about it, he said, because a train full of delegates would have made too tempting a target for terrorists. There was a dearth of information offered about the plan. Mulhern replied “no, nothing” when asked by a reporter Monday if there were any special plans for the Orange Line. The T came in for criticism in the weeks prior to the convention for not providing more services for delegates. The Massachusetts congressional delegation had asked Mulhern to provide free weekly passes to delegates, but Mulhern said no. The T also backed away from an early promise to provide shuttle buses for delegates. Pesaturo said the special service did not cost extra because the Orange Line was “running at rush-hour levels anyway.” No extra personnel was put on the schedule for the service, he said. The T did miss out on collecting fares from the estimated 3,250 people who took advantage of the special trains 750 Monday night, 900 Tuesday night, 1,300 Wednesday night, and another 1,300 expected last night which adds up to more than $4,000. But Pesaturo said that many of the delegates and others with credentials had purchased weekly passes, at a cost of $16.50. “You can’t put a price on safety,” Pesaturo said. “And no one’s trip was delayed as a result of this service.” Jeremy Marin, a member of the Rider Oversight Committee, a watchdog panel of T customers, said he thought it was a good thing that the conventioneers were put on a train, because the alternative was to pile into shuttle buses, taxis, and limousines, which add to congestion and pollution. But Marin said the T should be going out of its way for all its 1.1 million daily riders, making permanent the service improvements instituted for the convention, such as clearer signs. “People who use the T every day want the best service possible, and that’s not going to end tonight,” he said. “People want top-notch service, not just during the convention, but 365 days a year.”

Southern cities get on board with streetcars and trolleys USA TODAY July 30, 2004 Las Vegas may command the transportation spotlight this year with its new 21st-century monorail, but in a growing number of places the people- moving trend is heading in the opposite direction — toward vintage trolley systems. Four cities either are inaugurating, reviving or extending their streetcar lines this year, bringing to 25 the number of metro areas in North America that are keeping alive the early 20th-century approach to mass transit. Among the latest places to hop on board: - Charlotte. On June 28, the city opened an extension of its trolley line to provide daily service from the historic South End neighborhood to the new Convention Center and the city’s center. This fall, three vintage replica cars will be added to the fleet, which now consists of one restored car from 1927. - New Orleans. After a 40-year absence, streetcar service was restored to Canal Street in April. The line runs the length of the street along the edge of the French Quarter and includes a spur to the New Orleans Museum of Art in City Park. Unlike the cars on the famous St. Charles Streetcar Named Desire line, the Canal Street cars are air-conditioned and handicapped-accessible. - Memphis. In March, the city opened a 2-mile extension to its downtown trolley loop that runs along Madison Avenue and serves the new FedEx Forum. - Little Rock. The city gets its first streetcar line in early October, the 2.5- mile River Rail route that crosses the Arkansas River and connects the city with North Little Rock. Stops for tourists include the River Market entertainment district, Alltel Arena and the Statehouse Convention Center. Late next year, the line will be extended to the new William Jefferson Clinton Library. In addition, Philadelphia has finalized plans to revive its long-dormant Gira rd Avenue trolley line, which connects North Philadelphia with West Philadelphia; currently the project is being held up by a local political dispute. And more systems could be coming: The Web site heritagetrolley.org lists 39 North American cities where projects are ‘’under active consideration.’’ Some of those systems, like the existing ones, will have vintage-style cars while others will opt for a sleeker modern style. But in either case, the larger goal of all trolley systems is to revitalize neighborhoods, says Jim Schantz, chairman of the Seashore Trolley Museum in Kennebunkport, Maine, who has served as an adviser to several projects. ‘’Cities want to attract tourists and attract people to live near the lines,’’ he says. ‘’Streetcars represent a simpler time and approachable technology. With the heritage trolleys, there is a quaint oldness and real craftsmanship that appeals to people. They provide a comforting atmosphere.’’

A Desire Named ‘Streetcar’ Austin Chronicle JULY 30, 2004: As Capital Metro gets down to the details of a long-range transit system featuring commuter rail and prepares to put a rail plan on a November ballot a “broad-based community effort” dubbed Connect Austin has kicked off a campaign to ask Cap Met to bring back a downtown streetcar system as part of that plan. The streetcar idea has picked up a lot of steam ever since Capital Metro’s All Systems Go! initiative kicked off this spring with its suggestions of commuter rail service to the Convention Center (along the “Red Line” looping through East and Northwest Austin up to Leander) and to Seaholm (along the Union Pacific line), but not necessarily between them. Though planners and leaders both at Capital Metro and the city acknowledge the value of a downtown connection between the lines, the challenges of building a rail corridor along Third or Fourth street to replace the tracks relocated from the area in the 1980s are both financially and logistically daunting. A major downtown construction project also opens up Cap Metro to the same sort of opposition it encountered along South Congress that helped derail its 2000 light-rail bid. But a streetcar system, says Connect Austin, would provide a win-win alternative more popular and efficient than downtown circulator bus service (like the current ‘Dillo system), but less expensive and disruptive than a light- or heavy-rail link. Streetcars, as envisioned by Connect Austin, would be ultra-light rail trolley or tram vehicles comparable in size to Cap Metro’s typical buses, with curbside stops instead of “stations.” But they would have “fixed-guideway” routes i.e., rails in the ground which planning pros often argue is essential if a community hopes to see a new transit system spur redevelopment along its routes. Connect Austin also envisions an electrified system, producing less noise and smoke than even the cleanest Cap Metro buses. Even a limited streetcar system would not exactly be cheap about $10 million a mile, Connect Austin speculates and the 3.5-mile route the group suggests (from the Convention Center to Seaholm, and from Palmer Auditorium to UT) would significantly add to the $60 million figure Cap Metro has floated as a start-up cost for its commuter rail line. But that’s still small change compared to the $1 billion line proposed in 2000, and Connect Austin intends to gather signatures to show broad public support for the streetcar plan. Members of the group include Liveable City, the Downtown Austin Alliance, and the Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association.

The End of the Roads; The toll plan takes us down the right path, but there’s still a long way to go Austin Chronicle JULY 30, 2004 Let me start off by apologizing to those readers who felt my column last week went over the top that it was mean and personal and in poor taste. This was not my intent, and it appears other readers understood that, but still. I have no strong opinions about certain local leaders’ personal attractiveness, and I realize full well that the clash over toll roads is between philosophies and constituencies, not individual players. I do feel, strongly, that the toll road battle has two fronts, not just one, and that any tactical alliance between progressives and road-warriors is misbegotten. I’ve heard too many claims over the last three months by the conservative opposition that progressives should vigorously oppose, not accommodate. But no, it’s not personal. But “over the top” seems to be the designated locale for much toll road rhetoric, so I must be in good company. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard so much total bullshit so passionately defended as “fact” in a public debate, at least on the local level. But this doesn’t really surprise me, having covered transportation as long as I have. There is no subject where people’s perceptions of what is true, or what is right, are so thoroughly distorted by their own needs and choices and circumscribed frames of reference. As a whole, I’ve found that citizens understand a lot more about planning, or policing, or environmental protection, or fiscal policy than decision- makers often presume; even the most NIMBY neighborhoods are pretty good about considering their hot-button issues from perspectives other than their own. But on transportation, most people, most of the time, really don’t get it nearly as much as they think they do. Unfortunately, they bridge with anger the gaps in their understanding. This applies to me, too. For example, if it were up to me, Capital Metro would spend more than it does, and most of what it has, on high- frequency inner-city bus service, because that’s what would best meet my needs. I don’t necessarily feel “entitled” to have those needs met, but I spend a lot of time on the bus and next to none on South MoPac, and I’ve chosen for reasons that have a lot to do with transportation to live and work in the urban core. So my perspective reflects that. Even after years of covering this beat, I’m still at least partially convinced that this should be a compelling mandate from a regional perspective, especially if we want to encourage more people to make the same life- and-work choices that I did. Obviously, some leaders among the anti-toll contingent which would like to strip Cap Metro of those revenues to pay for road projects now slated for tolling have a completely different point of view, which to them is likewise self-evident and “true” because it meets their needs. So any decisions to the contrary must be idiotic or corrupt. It’s easy to fire off the tribal flame-thrower here, but I’ve found that most people regardless of their color or class or political persuasions or ZIP codes have a hard time seeing more than one square inch of the very big transportation elephant. Unfortunately, this is not a “fact” many people are willing to believe. Demons, Right and Left Now, on toll roads, my loyalties are clear: I don’t think that the dire impacts and consequences predicted by anti-toll conservatives are really so dire, or the injustice they think is being perpetrated here is really so unfair. Cap Metro collects enough tax revenue to operate its entire existing system and then some, but I still have to drop two quarters in the fare box. The city of Austin has paid, or is paying, for its surface streets with tax revenues, but I still have to pay a fee on my utility bill to fund ongoing street maintenance (which is a “user fee,” and not a tax, only in the most abstract sense). Why are highways different? Why is it so outrageous to toll existing road miles which, as has been so often pointed out, the plan just adopted by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization does not propose? (It depends on what your definition of “existing” is, I guess.) And if the “double tax” argument fails, then what, exactly, is the conservatives’ problem with this plan? It offers more local control, not less, than the status quo; however “unaccountable” the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority is, it’s a hell of a lot more accountable than the Texas Transportation Commission. And why are the protesters so sure that the alternative to this plan would be new free roads for all, rather than no new roads at all? The progressive side, on the other hand, projects consequences that really would be dire, if they were inevitable. But as often as it’s been explained to me by people whom I trust and respect, I still don’t get the inexorable connection between the just-adopted road plan and the horrors of untrammeled sprawl. If we’re going to take seriously the ostensible mandate of Envision Central Texas that we as a region accommodate twice as many people on roughly the same amount of developed land as we now have then we must increase the capacity of the infrastructure that currently serves that land. We need not double the size of the current road network, and the toll road plan does not propose doubling it. But nor can we bridge the entire gap with transit systems and more responsible land use, as essential as these things are. Look, it’s no secret that there are people in this town who would like to roll out Toll Road 2.0 at the earliest opportunity perhaps next spring, when the latest incarnation of CAMPO’s long-range regional plan comes up for adoption. But that is a separate decision that can be made on its merits or, in my view, the lack of them at that time; if those road warriors had the political, institutional, or financial support to build a bigger road network, they would have asked for it. Despite the large price tag, the CTRMA plan is really a fairly modest proposal, already constrained by the strength of the progressive cause. If the CAMPO 2030 plan proposes a bunch of new lanes in places where they, and attendant development, should not go, it should be rejected. It is not inevitable that approving the CTRMA plan will lead to an unsupportable CAMPO 2030 plan. We can add enough capacity to support current needs and future density consistent with ECT (particularly east of I-35, where most of the plan’s new lane miles would go, though you’d never know that from the Southwest-centric debate on the subject), and can bring the regional highway network to a long-term stopping point. Only by moving forward with something like this limited, equitable, focused on the current urbanized area can we finally get to the end of the road wars. We don’t need any more than this, but we need this. If there is a way to build roads without sprawl, this would be it. We don’t know because we’ve never tried it. But I keep getting cajoled and harangued by progressives whose positions reflect equal measures of received wisdom (roads create sprawl, QED), hypothetical fears (gasoline price spikes will make the whole toll-financing scheme go bust), and conspiracy theory (the CTRMA and CAMPO can’t possibly be trusted). None of the demons thus conjured are invincible, if they arise at all. And I don’t think shooting down the toll road plan, really, does anything to keep those demons in check. It just prolongs this debate for years, while our mobility problems get worse and our land-use pattern grows more inequitable and unsustainable, and the chances for any solution that might actually work roads, transit, land use recede further into the mist. From the progressive perspective, doing nothing presents just as great a risk as doing something. Many Miles to Go The CTRMA is already on notice that it can’t botch implementation of its plan, or go off the reservation with wild road-warrior fantasies not because of the supposedly intimidating strength of toll road opponents, but because of the amendments attached by the centrists on CAMPO, who are now being branded sellouts for their trouble. Two of the three Austin City Council members on CAMPO who voted for toll roads Will Wynn and Brewster McCracken have already drafted a letter to the CTRMA calling for “complete and unconditional” effort to implement those amendments. That means immediate progress, they say, on sound walls for North MoPac, water-quality controls on South MoPac, improving existing bottlenecks in the MoPac corridor, and other provisions in the amended plan. Without that progress, they say, the CAMPO 2030 plan, if it indeed calls for further expansions of the CTRMA system, will get a very dim reception and, indeed, a possible effort to roll back what’s already been approved. “The first toll road is set to open in March, so we’ll have an opportunity to review CTRMA and TxDOT progress on implementing the amendments before we consider the CAMPO 2030 plan” in April, says McCracken. “We also expect the RMA to engage in a public education process to unite the community and to get input from the community to continue to make the plan better.” Unlike the blanket objections of toll opponents, the amendments address specific issues raised by specific roads MoPac, Loop 360, balance between the east and west sides. If you deal with those issues regularly as a citizen, they are anything but “window dressing.” But yes, it’s true that they do not, in themselves, mean the toll road plan will lead to the positive outcome I believe it could produce. The toll road plan will not do much good though it will not do as much harm as progressives seem to think unless we have both a real, effective urban transit system, which means one that includes at least some measure of rail, and land-use policies (not just in Austin but around the region) that encourage density and discourage sprawl. Neither of those things is within CAMPO’s purview; transit is up to the voters in November, and land use is up to the city councils and county commissioners. Those are far more worthy uses of progressive time and energy than fighting the toll road plan, which after all seeks to finance roadways that CAMPO approved years ago. (This is one of those irreconcilable differences between the progressive and conservative protests the right thinks these roads are already paid for, while the left wants them to never be paid for, because they think that’s the only way they can stop them from being built.) So far, frankly, the progressive record on supporting Capital Metro and urban infill, when it’s come down to cases, has been a bit less than stalwart. Yes, Cap Metro’s current rail vision is dinky, but unlike the toll road plan, it need not be a final step; the agency is hardly irrational for wanting to play it safe until it gets voter approval and can show success with an up-and- running line. And even a dinky line can be enough to support dense, transit-oriented development from Leander to Robinson Ranch to Mueller to Saltillo that will make a huge difference in showing that the ECT vision is not a load of lefty bilge, but a practical, financially viable, and popular alternative to the same old model of highway strips and suburban cul-de-sacs. If you’re going to see that model replicated in places where rail cannot or will not go like, say, Southeast Travis Co. then you need roads (used by buses as well as cars) to support it, which brings us back to the CTRMA plan. Right now, it’s the lack of both transit and inner-city road capacity that perpetuates the land-use path of least resistance. The toll road plan does not take us backward, but it only gets us part of the way down the path we need to travel. We have a long journey ahead. n

Trolleys Bid Farewell To Flagman Tampa Tribune July 30, 2004 TAMPA - Getting streetcars across railroad tracks soon won’t be a three- person job, thanks to an insurance deal approved Thursday by the Tampa City Council. Liability concerns led to the use of a streetcar supervisor and a flagman positioned at the intersection to help streetcar drivers cross railroad tracks in Ybor City. After about a year of negotiations, the agreement with CSX Transportation, which operates the railroad, calls for the streetcar line to get $100 million in insurance to cover accidents at the intersection. The first $2 million would be self-insured by the line, potentially with city help - which raised council concerns. ``It’s deplorable that CSX is not a better corporate citizen,’’ Councilman John Dingfelder said. CSX needs protection, spokesman Gary Sease said. ``We’re glad we could reach an agreement with Tampa and glad this important community project can continue.’’ CSX required $500 million in insurance, almost derailing streetcar plans before trolleys started rolling between the Channelside entertainment district and Ybor City in October 2002. In a compromise, streetcar officials agreed to pay about $300,000 a year for CSX to post a flagman at the intersection to verify streetcar drivers checked for trains. Communication mix-ups last summer threatened to bring trains and trolleys too close and led to a requirement for a supervisor to ride with trolley drivers for crossings.

Tourist trolley foe