South Pasadena may not get pot of Gold; Gold Line dispute could cost city

Pasadena Star-News September 23, 2004 Thursday, September 23, 2004 — SOUTH PASADENA — The city could lose $1.8 million in Gold Line surplus funds, and risk being sued by the train’s builders, if it doesn’t stop trying to get more improvements to the light rail from a state judge. That was the message Wednesday night from Paul Little, chairman of the Blue Line Construction Authority board of directors, after a board subcommittee’s closed-door meeting with Mike Estrada, the authority’s attorney. On Thursday, however, lawyers for the city, the construction authority and the MTA held lengthy discussions to try to head off a battle that could jeopardize the three parties’ hard-fought plan to cut down noise along the light rail’s path, including the mostly residential stretch in South Pasadena. “We agreed to continue talking. I’m fairly confident that we can reach some sort of resolution,’ said attorney Ron Frank, handling some Gold Line proceedings for South Pasadena. The city ran afoul of the construction authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority by saying in a legal brief written by another of its lawyers, Mike Montgomery that it would welcome additional measures to quiet the trains. South Pasadena and the two rail agencies had already negotiated several proposed changes to fix Gold Line problems, and that settlement is awaiting state approval. Lawyers for all three sides filed closing briefs Monday with Administrative Law Judge Anne Simon of the Public Utilities Commission, the state agency that regulates railroads. The judge will consider that documentation, along with months of hearings, testimony and evidence, before recommending to the five- member PUC board the best solution for cutting Gold Line noise without compromising rail safety. “The idea of a settlement is (these issues are) resolved, and raising new ones undermines the whole notion,’ Little said Thursday. South Pasadena is scheduled to receive $1.8 million in funds left over from the Construction Authority budget to build the Los Angeles-to- Pasadena Gold Line, which opened a year ago. However, a clause the board adopted a year ago set some criteria to collect that money. “If any entity was in litigation or potential litigation against the authority, that entity wouldn’t be eligible to receive any surplus funds,’ said Little, also a Pasadena city councilman. The leftover money was to be split between Pasadena, Los Angeles, MTA and South Pasadena, with the first two cities getting the largest chunks. Authority board members Little and Vivien Bonzo, the subcommittee that issued the warning to South Pasadena, asked the city to retract the portions of its brief that seek additional changes to the Gold Line. A proposal to withhold South Pasadena’s $1.8 million would be put on the board’s October meeting “if the city continues to act in what we consider bad faith to undermine the settlement agreement,’ legal counsel Estrada said Thursday. Instead, that money would be used to pay legal fees to fight South Pasadena, Little said. “The parties entered into a settlement agreement. If one of the parties then says ‘That’s not enough we want more’ … then what’s the PUC going to think?’ Estrada said. Terms of the three sides’ proposed agreement include: lowering the volume of the Gold Line’s crossing gate bells; shortening the time that the bells ring; lubricating the tracks to reduce friction that creates a loud grinding sound from the train wheels rubbing against the railroad tracks; building more sound walls, plus “privacy screens’ to block views from trains into homes next to the tracks; and adding soundproofing at homes where noise levels are highest. “The city wants to achieve the streetcar we desire, rather than the streetcar we were given,’ Frank said.

DEATH ON THE TRACKS; Amtrak Pays Millions for Others’ Fatal Errors

New York Times October 15, 2004 It is no mystery why, one spring day two years ago, an Amtrak passenger train jumped the tracks near Crescent City, Fla., and skidded to a stop on its side, killing 4 people and injuring 142. Investigators concluded that the track, owned by the big freight railroad CSX, had not been properly stabilized and that management’s oversight of maintenance had been lax. But when millions of dollars in damage claims arose from the crash, it was not CSX, a multibillion-dollar corporation, that paid them. It was Amtrak, the perennial money loser that survives only with regular infusions of cash from American taxpayers. Three months later, it happened again. Poor track maintenance by CSX caused an Amtrak train to derail in Maryland, investigators said, injuring nearly 100 people. Again, Amtrak covered claims against CSX. In accident after accident, in derailments and grade-crossing collisions, CSX and other major freight railroads have used Amtrak to shield themselves from tens of millions of dollars in liability, an examination by The New York Times has found. For three decades, Amtrak has been paying these liability claims, regardless of fault, as a condition for using the freight lines’ tracks. Not only do these payments shift the burden of paying for negligence from profitable corporations to taxpayers, they remove an incentive for railroads to keep their tracks safe. There has never been a full accounting of these payments. Even Amtrak officials could not say how much the arrangement, known as indemnification, has cost the railroad, which needed $1.2 billion in government subsidies this year to stay afloat. But an analysis by The Times of records obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act found that Amtrak has paid more than $186 million since 1984 for accidents blamed entirely or mostly on others. In each instance, freight railroads were accused of playing the major or a contributing role in causing those accidents, which killed 53 people and injured nearly 1,300, according to court records, government investigators and lawyers for crash victims. Most of those accidents were not covered by Amtrak’s insurance, an Amtrak spokesman said. And the $186 million reflects only part of Amtrak’s costs stemming from accidents. The figure does not include payments made before 1984, outstanding claims from recent accidents, settlements of less than $100,000, the cost of repairing damaged Amtrak equipment and legal bills for defending the freight railroads in court. These indemnity agreements represent another way in which some of the nation’s freight railroads side-step responsibility in accidents. In July, The Times reported that railroads had destroyed, mishandled or simply lost evidence in grade-crossing accidents and had also failed to properly report hundreds of accidents to federal authorities. Freight railroads have long had the political muscle to insist that Amtrak, which is beholden to Congress for its survival, indemnify them for accident claims. In 1997, after a federal judge questioned the legality of granting railroads blanket immunity, Congress rose to the defense of the freight railroads, passing a bill that, among other things, reaffirmed Amtrak’s legal right to indemnify the freight lines. Two years later, Amtrak officials said they had no choice but to cover $63.8 million in punitive damages, including interest, after CSX was found to have caused a fatal Amtrak crash in Lugoff, S.C. A judge called CSX’s negligence “borderline criminal.” “It’s a bitter pill to swallow,” said an Amtrak spokesman, Cliff Black. “It hurts our bottom line. It hurts our treasury.” Amtrak says it has received about $8 billion in government support over the last decade, and last year alone paid about $100 million to use their tracks. The freight railroads say indemnification merely protects them from risks they would not face if Congress had not insisted that Amtrak, which owns little track of its own, use their rails. Congress, CSX said in a statement, “balanced that demand on private property by calling upon passenger railroads to bear the costs of insuring against potential liabilities.” The freight lines also pointed out that indemnity agreements are common in the rail industry, since companies sometimes run their trains on another’s tracks. And they dismiss the idea that such agreements discourage attention to safety. “We suffer great economic harm when our freight trains have accidents, and we go to great lengths to prevent accidents of all types,” said Kathryn Blackwell, a spokeswoman for Union Pacific. But those arguments do not sway Angelica Palank, who received the $63.8 million payment after her husband, Paul, a police officer, was among eight people killed in the South Carolina crash in 1991. A faulty CSX track switch caused the accident. Ms. Palank said she gave eight years of her life to legal warfare against CSX. After raising her two children alone, suffering depression and enrolling in law school so she could better understand the case, she believed that justice had finally been done after the judge in her case upheld the jury verdict, calling CSX’s carelessness and greed “the functional equivalent of manslaughter.” She believed that CSX, chastened, might not misbehave in the future. But several weeks ago, a Times reporter told her, for the first time, that the money she received by wire transfer had not come from CSX, but rather from Amtrak. First came disbelief, then anger, and finally tears. “I’m mortified,” she said. “Everything I’ve been living under is a lie. I was feeling on a personal level at least I did my part, and now I find out I didn’t.” Origins of an Obligation Amtrak’s obligation to pay for the mistakes of others dates back to its first days. Created by Congress in 1970, Amtrak preserved passenger travel by allowing railroads to unload this money-losing service — which the railroads had been threatening to drop — onto a semipublic corporation. But Amtrak still had to negotiate the terms for using tracks it did not own. The American Association of Railroads, the freight lines’ trade group, made it clear that its members wanted no liability for passenger deaths and injuries even if they caused them. Amtrak, on the other hand, worried that such an agreement might be fiscally unsound and potentially unsafe for passengers, records show. It wanted liability assigned on the basis of fault. Neither side appeared willing to budge. Then, just before the matter was to be turned over to arbitration, Amtrak tried negotiating with just one railroad, Burlington Northern, rather than the association, records show. Soon, Amtrak relented and signed an indemnity agreement that became a model for the industry. Amtrak backed down, records show, after Burlington Northern argued that its tracks were safe and that disputes over fault might inflate the cost of settling claims. Ultimately, Amtrak agreed to cover accident claims from its own passengers and employees. The freight railroads were responsible for their own employees should they be injured by an Amtrak train. How vigorously Amtrak pressed its case is open to question. Records show that when negotiations began, Burlington Northern was in a position to exert influence over Amtrak’s affairs. Not only did its chairman, Louis W. Menk, sit on Amtrak’s board, along with two executives from other freight railroads, but Burlington Northern also owned about 3.3 million shares of Amtrak’s common stock, which it obtained in exchange for giving Amtrak rail equipment. Other railroads were also given shares. Although the government owned the controlling shares in the corporation, the railroads did initially have a say in picking three of Amtrak’s directors, with the government picking most of them. “Was the fox in the hen house?’’ said Thomas M. Downs, who served as Amtrak’s chief executive two decades later, from 1993 to December 1997. “Of course.” The negotiations over indemnity, Mr. Downs said he believed, were not conducted at arms-length among equals. “There was barely a railroad to negotiate with on the Amtrak side,” he said, adding that Amtrak was dependent on the freight railroads to keep its passenger trains on schedule. “Freight railroads had all the marbles.” At the time, Mr. Black said some members of Congress believed that Amtrak would merely be a stepping stone to getting rid of passenger service. “Many observers thought it would just go away,” he said. But it did not, and indemnity agreements has haunted Amtrak for years, said Mr. Downs, who now runs the Eno Transportation Foundation, which seeks to improve different modes of transportation. “It was one of the things that always gave me heartburn in my dealings with the freight railroads, because there was no accountability.” Questions of Costs Amtrak’s indemnity payments stemmed not just from derailments but also from accidents at grade crossings. Such was the case on Sept. 26, 1999, when an Amtrak train came barreling through tiny McLean, Ill. Two high school honor students, Stuart A. Curtis and C. Dannen Latherow, did not realize a train was approaching because an employee for Union Pacific, which owned the tracks, had accidentally disconnected the warning lights and gates, according to an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. Both boys were killed. Amtrak paid $4 million to their families. Amtrak paid considerably more — $32 million — after a jury concluded that Union Pacific bore prime responsibility for an August 1997 grade-crossing accident in Missouri. The jury said Amtrak played a minor role in that accident. Local residents had complained about the difficulty in seeing approaching trains, partly because of overgrown vegetation. A state judge concluded that Union Pacific knew or should have known that the crossing was dangerous. In fact, another Amtrak train had killed a motorist there just four months earlier. And Amtrak paid for that accident, too — $1.7 million. Mr. Downs said he had been concerned enough about having to pay for the mistakes of others that he called Union Pacific’s chairman, Dick Davidson. As Mr. Downs recalls the conversation, “He said, ‘That’s not our job, that’s yours. That’s the price for carrying passengers on our railroad.’ “ A spokeswoman for Union Pacific said that Mr. Davidson did not recall that conversation, and that it “would be inaccurate to quote him in this manner.” Last year, Amtrak paid the freight lines about $100 million for using their tracks. That figure is so low, according to the Association of American Railroads, that its members should be upset with Amtrak, not the other way around. The association sent The Times a copy of its own study for 2001 that said that the freight railroads actually gave Amtrak about $243 million in indirect subsidies by discounting the cost of using their tracks. But Harvey Levine, a former economist for the railroad association — who now testifies on behalf of accident victims — said the association study ignored the fact that Amtrak was already shouldering nearly $1 billion in losses each year, losses that the railroads themselves would have faced had Amtrak not stepped in and assumed the burden of carrying passengers. An Amtrak official said it was “completely bogus” for the association to suggest that Amtrak was not paying its fair and agreed-upon share. If the freight railroads could prove Amtrak was underpaying them, the official said, they would make an issue of it. But they have not, he added. In fact, the inspector general for Amtrak, Fred E. Weiderhold Jr., said that over the last 10 years he had questioned about $54 million in billings that the freight railroads submitted to Amtrak. Those billings relating to track use were either unjustified or unsupported by records, Mr. Weiderhold said. Amtrak, he added, negotiated settlements with the railroads for about 30 percent to 40 percent of the disputed amount. Most of Amtrak’s accidents are not covered by insurance. Since 1995, Amtrak itself has had to pay all claims of up to $10 million for a single accident; before that, its deductible was $25 million for collisions and derailments, an Amtrak spokesman said. Told of the size of some of Amtrak’s indemnification payments, Frank Clemente, who runs the consumer group Public Citizens Congress Watch, said, “I think if the public knew this it would be up in arms.” Questions of Safety Government officials in recent years have expressed concern about the safety of America’s 200,000 miles of railroad track. Federal statistics show that in 2003 there were slightly more derailments than a decade ago, though train accidents over all have been dropping. The effect on Amtrak has been a particular concern. In October 2002, worried about CSX’s track-related accidents, particularly those involving passenger trains, an official of the federal Department of Transportation wrote a memorandum urging regulators to form a special task force to monitor CSX’s track-safety programs, records show. That memorandum, from the department’s inspector general’s office, cited repeated attempts by the Federal Railroad Administration, dating back to the mid 1990’s, to bring CSX’s tracks up to standard. In its statement, CSX said it had “invested more than $5 billion in track, signals, training and inspection programs over the last five years to make a safe railroad even safer.” At the same time, CSX said that “it is not only false, it defies logic” to suggest any relationship between indemnity and CSX’s, or the entire industry’s, attention to safety. “The industry has dramatically improved safety since the type of Amtrak agreements you question were put in place in the 1970’s,” the statement said. Still, the question of such a relationship was at the center of the most serious challenge to Amtrak’s indemnity agreements. On Jan. 4, 1987, an Amtrak train crashed into a Conrail train in Chase, Md. Sixteen people were killed and more than 174 were injured. Just before the crash, the Conrail engineer had used marijuana and had intentionally disabled an audible warning device in his cab. The engineer later pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sent to jail. Amtrak argued in federal court that Conrail’s wrongdoing was so egregious that any indemnity payments would violate public policy. The judge, Oliver Gasch of Federal District Court in Washington, agreed — in part. He wrote that Amtrak officials who negotiated the original indemnity agreement “were deeply concerned about the maintenance of safety” and did not intend for the agreement to “deprive the traveling public of its reasonable expectation” that Conrail would operate safely. To insulate Conrail from punitive damages, he concluded, “would render meaningless” the obligation of Conrail to meet safety standards. Even so, Amtrak ended up paying compensatory damages of $9.3 million. Judge Gasch’s decision caused considerable unease among the freight railroads, said government officials. Concerned that their liability protection was being chipped away, the freight railroads turned to Congress for help. In 1996 and 1997 alone, records show, the freight railroads spent $35 million lobbying Congress on different issues, including indemnity. And eventually, Congress put its weight behind the indemnity agreements, passing the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997. Biggest Payout Yet Two years after enactment of the 1997 law, CSX used the indemnity agreement as a shield against the biggest payout yet — the $63.8 million in punitive damages, including interest, paid to Mrs. Palank. Arthur J. Franza, the judge in her case, was harshly critical of CSX for eliminating too many maintenance workers. “Although cost-cutting measures may have saved defendant over $2 billion, society paid the cost with eight human lives,” Judge Franza said. Mrs. Palank said she had pursued the punitive damages with the understanding that CSX, not Amtrak, would pay it. And for years, she said, she believed that CSX indeed had. For good reason, according to one of her lawyers, F. Gregory Barnhart, who said records show that Mrs. Palank’s money was sent to her by CSX. Her other lawyer, Christian D. Searcy, said he had even asked Amtrak officials to state in writing whether they had reimbursed CSX. “They said no letter will be forthcoming,” Mr. Searcy said. Mrs. Palank said the jury was never told that CSX would escape the sting of its verdict. “It’s so secretive, so manipulative,” she said. “Someone in the federal government needs to answer for this, because there was no legal justification for them to be paying for somebody else’s wrongdoing.” Mark Geistfeld, a law professor at New York University, said indemnification, a form of insurance, has its limits. “Certainly, you cannot get insurance for criminal fines, for example,” Professor Geistfeld said. “It’s against public policy. No court would enforce it.” But, whether Amtrak should have paid in this case depends on what kind of behavior you are talking about, he added. Mr. Downs, the former Amtrak chief, said that after the railroad’s lawyers told him Amtrak could not escape paying the punitive verdict, he called John Snow, then CSX’s chief executive, to complain. Mr. Snow, now President Bush’s treasury secretary, said in essence that a deal was a deal, Mr. Downs recalls. Mr. Snow declined to discuss the conversation or the case. CSX also declined to comment specifically on Amtrak’s payment of punitive damages. Amtrak’s obligation did not end with the $63.8 million payment to Mrs. Palank, though. It was also responsible for $24 million in compensatory damages to her and other crash victims, for a total of $88 million. For causing the accident, CSX paid the Federal Railroad Administration the maximum fine — $20,000. “It’s very difficult to convince railroads that the carrying of people has a higher standard of operating discipline and safety than, say, coal,” Mr. Downs said. “And the reason I think that is, is that they are immune from any cost.” At about the same time that the Palank case was working its way through the courts, in fact, CSX was working on a different front to soften its litigation costs. It played a prominent role in a business coalition that helped persuade the Florida Legislature in 1999 to change liability laws in the state, imposing limits on punitive damages, for example. “We, like many other companies across the country, support a civil justice system that is fair and balanced,” said Adam Hollingsworth, a CSX spokesman. CSX, said Mr. Hollingsworth, who has since left the company, wants to make sure “that those responsible for injury pay their portion of fault.”

Airlines in a precarious spot; Delta’s troubles are emblematic of industry’s bind

Houston Chronicle October 16, 2004 Is a bankruptcy filing for Delta Air Lines in the cards? Some say it’s not a matter of if, but when — especially after the Atlanta company’s announcement on Friday that it will have considerably higher third-quarter losses than originally expected. Delta’s bleak financial situation — the 75-year-old carrier has lost almost $6 billion in the last four years — highlights the vulnerability of the nation’s entire airline industry. While Delta’s management may hold out hope of cutting costs enough to skate around bankruptcy court, analysts warn that the increasingly high price of oil and jet fuel is taking its toll on Delta and all other airlines at a time they already were in trouble. Particularly ominous was a recent warning by the Business Travel Coalition urging Congress to prepare for a “catastrophic failure” in the airline industry within the next 12 months. The coalition defined that failure as the likelihood that two or three major network airlines would be forced to liquidate. “It is likely that by Oct. 31, some 50 percent of airline industry capacity will be operated under bankruptcy court protection, increasing to perhaps 70 percent by mid-2005,” the coalition said. Risky business Operating an airline has long been a gamble. Since 1978, when the airline industry was deregulated, 170 carriers have filed for bankruptcy protection, some twice, Transportation Department statistics show. But the landscape is even more treacherous today. One reason is that the price of jet fuel has risen 75 percent this year. Some believe the real question for Delta isn’t will it file for bankruptcy, but rather will it come out of this painful process in a relatively short time and be able to compete against low-fare carriers. Delta may have bought time by extending a deadline to pay holders of certain bonds until Nov. 18. The original deadline was Thursday, but Delta is revising terms, hoping some creditors agree to cheaper payoffs. Delta’s pilots also have presented management with a new contract proposal, but some analysts question whether it is enough. In a Securities & Exchange Commission filing Friday, Delta said it could have a net quarterly loss of as much as $675 million, or $5.39 a share, compared with last year’s third-quarter loss of $164 million, or $1.36 per share. “We are increasing our Chapter 11 probability from 70 percent to 85 percent,” JP Morgan analyst Jamie Baker wrote Friday. Delta itself said even if it doesn’t file for bankruptcy this fall, it might have to next year because of the need to raise $800 million in new financing. Some carriers are successful after emerging from bankruptcy. Houston-based Continental is an example. Those that aren’t run the gamut from Eastern Airlines to Pan Am to Braniff. Continental has survived Continental has been in bankruptcy twice in the last two decades, but experts don’t expect it to have to go back anytime soon — primarily because the past bankruptcies have helped it achieve a lower cost structure than many of its competitors. Other major carriers are trying to lower their own cost structures. Several days ago, United Airlines — which has been in bankruptcy court for two years — issued a long-awaited announcement that it would cut capacity domestically by 14 percent. The move by the Chicago-based carrier would mean about 20 percent fewer aircraft operating domestically than it had in 2002, according to analyst Jim Higgins of Credit Suisse First Boston. For an airline, the major expenses are labor costs and fuel, in that order. Citigroup Smith Barney airline analyst Daniel McKenzie said based on what Citigroup is hearing from its labor sources, pension issues may force Delta into bankruptcy. The Atlanta carrier already has slashed thousands of jobs and shuttered its hub in Dallas. If Delta announces it will file for bankruptcy protection, it will follow United and US Airways. A host of other air carriers also recently have been in bankruptcy court. Those include a diverse set of carriers ranging from Air Canada to Hawaiian Airlines to Atlas Air Worldwide. Atlas, which is a cargo carrier, could be viewed as a model of sorts for handling some airline bankruptcies. That carrier, represented by Houston-based lawyers for Haynes & Boone, emerged from bankruptcy protection last summer, even though the case was only filed in late January. Haynes & Boone attorney Lenard Parkins said the quick turnaround only was possible because of all of the work that was done in the months beforehand. He said the lawyers made preparations for some two years before actually filing the bankruptcy petition, getting some major creditors to agree to terms. Then they set up time lines that had to be met and told others involved in the case that they could either climb on board or get left behind, Parkins and colleague Kenric Kattner said. Delta appears to have been in ongoing talks with creditors for months, but Friday’s SEC filing suggests it is seeking just $125 million in relief from vendors and creditors. “In our opinion, Delta is not adequately addressing its debt burden,” said J.P. Morgan’s Baker, noting the adjusted debt burden exceeds $21 billion. Bankruptcy lawyer Joseph H. Smolinsky, a partner in the bankruptcy group of Chadbourne & Parke, said planning is critical in bankruptcy because it smooths the transition of the company into Chapter 11. It also minimizes disruptions and helps accelerate the exit from bankruptcy protection. Atlas’ restructuring program resulted in discharging more than $600 million of pre-petition debt, along with better profitability through reduced operating costs and elimination of capacity, the company said. It also was able to restructure aircraft-related debt and leases. ‘Prepackaged’ plan The cargo carrier was following the “prepackaged” Chapter 11 plan, Smolinsky said, which is the quickest. The next best is the prenegotiated plan, and then there is the “free fall” bankruptcy. “That is where the debtor doesn’t have a lot of time,” Smolinsky said. “That type of case usually takes a lot longer and has a period of uncertainty and crisis.” As if airlines didn’t have enough to worry about, the biggest concern now could be oil prices, analyst Ray Neidl of Calyon Securities said. “If the price of oil continues to remain at the $50 mark without an increase in ticket prices,” Neidl wrote recently, “we believe that all of the legacy carriers could have the eventual risk of having to file for bankruptcy protection.”

Response to criticism of Capital Metro’s rail plan

Public Transport Progress 16 October 2004 In the ‘Austin American-Statesman’ of 5 October 2004 (see above), conservative commentator Ashley Sanchez presents a diatribe against Capital Metro’s rail transit plan. The following provides responses to some of Sanchez’s contentions, in hopes that these may be useful to other transit advocates and agencies encountering similar criticisms. Sanchez argues: By Capital Metro estimates, about 1,500 to 2,500 people would ride rail initially. That’s less than 1 percent of Travis County commuters riding a rail line that would cost $60 million in initial capital expenditures and $5 million per year to operate. Rail opponents insist on measuring a relatively tiny rail project in a single corridor against the traffic or demographics of an entire region, metro area, or, in this case, county. This is approximately equivalent, for example, to declaring Austin’s water-supply system inadequate and a waste of money because it’s a minuscule percentage of the water consumption of the state of Texas. In fact, any big highway project costing many tens of millions of dollars could probably be shown to carry a volume of commuters amounting only to a tiny fraction of the total in the county or region. As with any major transportation project, rail transit lines should be evaluated by their impact on the CORRIDOR they serve. To assess this for the Capital Metro project, it’s useful to contrast the projected rail transit ridership for 2027 (17,000 per day) against an estimate of the total jobs projected in the corridor for that year. The bottom line: The Capital Metro rail line by this analysis would carry work commuters equivalent to about one-fourth (actually, 26%) of the total future workforce in the corridor. Methodology: One can assume approximately half the ridership (1/2 X 17,000), or 8,500, as the number of actual passengers. Then assume that 70% of these would be work commuters, or about 6,000. For the corridor, this analysis assumed a 2-mile-wide corridor (one mile either side of the rail line) for the outer 11 miles, a one-mile-wide corridor for the middle 11 miles, and a half-mile-wide corridor for the final, inner 10 miles. This comes to a corridor of about 38 sq. mi., or about 1.8% of the total area of the two counties. (Some of this area is covered by water. However, a high proportion of the Austin metro area’s total regional employment is concentrated in this particular corridor, a circumstance which may compensate for this. ) Total employment in 2027 for Travis and Williamson Counties is projected at 1,341,000. As a rough estimate of the population in the rail corridor, this analysis took 1.8% of this, or about 23,000 jobs (i.e., commuters). The 6,000 commuters using the rail line thus equals about 1/4 of this total. Other options to improve mobility might include …High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. But these can be a substantially more expensive option. For the corridor in question, with a relatively constricted freeway plus highly congested arterial HOV/HOT lanes would probably have to be specially constructed, not created by striping existing lanes. These could be considerably more expensive than Capital Metro’s rail proposal. A 1998 document from the EPA, “High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes”, indicates that the cost of such lanes could range from $8 million per lane- mile to as much as $24.5 million — in 1998 dollars. In 2004 dollars, that’s a range of $9.8 to $30.1 million per lane-mile. That would seem to be several times the project cost per route-mile of the proposed CMTA rail project.

Return on light rail; It’s all aboard as viability and funding a goer

Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia) October 16, 2004 A $360 million light-rail network linking the city’s major western suburbs to Southport, Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach has been put back firmly on the agenda by the Beattie Government. A much-awaited feasibility study into the light-rail network has revealed that it is economically viable and would move up to 55,000 passengers a day by 2011. The Queensland Government has concluded that it is prepared to part-fund the project, through a public-private partnership, similar to the deal done with Jupiters Ltd to build the convention centre. Proponents of the light rail say it can be funded and built and be up and running by late 2008. But there is expected to be no firm answer on light rail for at least another year, which means the Gold Coast City Council will now press ahead with completing stages two and three of the Surfers Paradise traffic makeover. Transport Minister Paul Lucas this week outlined the findings of the feasibility study to Mayor Ron Clarke and senior bureaucrats. It is understood that Cr Clarke argued against the wisdom of proceeding with a light-rail network — a pre-election pledge — suggesting that Surfers Paradise would not cope with the extra trams. Cr Clarke argued that light rail slowed down vehicular traffic unless their tracks and stations were separated from roads. He said trams were OK in pedestrian malls or with 40m-wide boulevards, but where every lane of roadway was needed ‘they are just too inflexible and take up too much space’. Instead, he believes the Gold Coast needs a rapid bus transport system. Mr Lucas is expected to soon take the findings of the feasibility study, jointly funded by the state and federal governments, to Cabinet. Cr Clarke said yesterday he could not comment on the meeting. “Cabinet has to see it and so too does the Federal Government,” he said. “He (Mr Lucas) has agreed that trams (light rail) remain a possibility but there are other options also being looked at. There is a firm commitment to look at a huge extension to the bus system.” The Bulletin understands the feasibility report concludes that there is ‘a demonstrated need to improve public transport on the Gold Coast’. It recommends light rail as the preferred mode. The light rail would service areas such as Gaven, Pacific Pines and Parkwood and link them to the Griffith University campus, Southport CBD and medical centre, Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach. It would link the western suburbs to the beaches. The report says improved public transport was essential to the Gold Coast’s future liveability. It would help with road congestion, preserve travel times, and reduce adverse tourism, environmental, social and economic impact. The report said a light rail would ‘add to the city’s image’ and help influence development. “Light rail was found to be the most appropriate mode of transport,” said the report. Former mayor Gary Baildon, the city’s most vocal supporter of light rail, said yesterday the results of the report ‘do not surprise me’. “I hope it is done and the sooner the better, otherwise the city faces gridlock,” he said. “I’ve supported it all along because that’s what the experts said was the best bet.”

HEAD TO THE MED FOR LESS; Lille we go: train fare bargains are available throughout France

The Independent (London) October 16, 2004 French Railways has started aggressively to promote its cut-price deals for its train a grande vitesse (TGVs), with a new website: www.tgv.co.uk. The site, which is run by SNCF’s British subsidiary, Rail Europe, is selling the 500-mile journey from Paris to Marseille for pounds 15 each way. Short-term deals from the French capital to other destinations are also available; past candidates have included Paris to Grenoble at pounds 15. Other bargains on the website include Lille to Bordeaux for pounds 19 each way. As The Independent has reported, cut-price deals on the core Paris-Marseille route have been available for more than a year through the French domestic website www.sncf.fr — though knowledge of French is required. The new site is much more straightforward, and has some bargains that actually undercut those available to travellers in France. For travellers who are flexible enough to take advantage of the lowest fares, and who can find a London-Paris return ticket for pounds 59 return, the new site reduces the total cost of a London-Marseille return trip to pounds 89. This undercuts the lowest rate available from Eurostar, and is — in real terms — an historic low for rail travel between Britain and the Mediterranean. A series of test bookings, however, reveals that many of the cheap seats are sold out shortly after they go on sale, which is 60 days before departure. As with airlines, once the cheapest tickets have sold out, fares rise — apparently in increments of pounds 15, judging from our tests. To benefit from these low fares, you must buy at least two weeks ahead of travel. If you fail to make this deadline, other fares are available on the website. French Railways is quietly changing its approach for long-distance non-TGV services. The organisation is gradually refurbishing its “classic” Corail carriages — the standard long-distance rolling stock — and re-branding them as Teoz. Standards of comfort are higher, but the ability to travel on any train without formality is being withdrawn: as with TGVs, you must have a reservation. Another trend is towards using standard seating carriages for long-distance overnight journeys such as Paris to Lourdes or Nice to Toulouse. These are usually available at lower cost than day services, but must be reserved in advance. They are not replacing the traditional couchettes (low-cost bunk beds) — indeed, the rolling stock serving the key Paris- Nice link has been refurbished.

Comment: ATD tax will not reduce congestion

San Antonio Express-News October 17, 2004 A permanent increase in the sales tax for transportation is on the November ballot. If it passes, San Antonio would be the only city in Texas to have a dedicated sales tax for highway projects. Despite proponents’ claims to the contrary, don’t expect to see any congestion reduction or regional economic benefits from this tax. Instead, this proposal to create an advanced transportation district is designed to divert one-half of the money needed for transit to road building. If building more highways reduced congestion, our average commute time in San Antonio would have shortened between 1990 and 2000. During this period, the region increased the lane miles of freeways per capita, but the average commute time lengthened by 11.4 percent. We need more accountability in our transportation program, not more taxes. What highway building does is stimulate, or induce, more driving. A study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that “the induced traffic component can double or even triple the amount of traffic using a new highway facility.” Proponents warn that the average local commute could be 68 minutes in 2030 if we don’t pass this tax. That’s funny, because in the last census, the Los Angeles region — with 10 times the people and less than half the lane miles of freeway per capita — had an average commute of only 28 minutes. If you encounter freeway congestion daily, such as that on U.S. 281 or Loop 1604, there is nothing in the advanced transportation district plan for you. Your commute will lengthen because of unplanned sprawl. Building more highways causes more sprawl and congestion. Increasing sprawl requires greater car ownership, which leads to even more driving and reduces the amount of personal income. Sprawl reduces the effectiveness of other forms of transportation, such as walking or mass transit — resulting in more driving and an increased demand for more roads. This, in turn, leads to more sprawl. This cycle is great if you are in the land-development, gasoline, tire, vehicle sales and repair or road-building businesses, but it has a negative impact on the overall economy of the area. If highway building stimulated the economy, we would be the wealthiest metropolitan area in Texas. San Antonio already has more miles of highways per person than any city in Texas. But our low per-capita personal income puts us sixth in Texas and 169th in the United States. Our highway-oriented transportation system has made us seventh in the United States for amount of driving. If our driving matched the typical per- capita mileage in large U.S. cities, we would save about $800 million a year in transportation costs. The Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. General Accounting Office and policy think tanks on the right and left have all concluded that the claims of job creation and economic benefits from highway building are inflated. This year, a study in the Journal of Urban Economics found that “annual returns from highway investments have fallen to less than 5 percent during the 1980s and 1990s.” This means people would be smarter to put their money in a savings account rather than spending more to build highways. We could better spend the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars going into transportation every year in this region. We should provide more transportation choices, improve air and water quality, reduce our dependence on costly foreign oil, increase personal wealth and create a more livable, walkable community. Our region ranks 169th in the United States in personal income, 220th in auto ownership and fifth in miles of highways per capita. The last thing we need is a new sales tax for highway projects.

Clearing the Air About Light Rail

Valley Metro website October 17, 2004 Below is information to dispel common misinformation about the METRO 20-mile light rail initial line, which is scheduled to open in December 2008. $12.49 Cost Per Rider Figure The assertion that every light rail passenger will cost $12.49 per ride is NOT TRUE. The actual cost per rail rider will be less than $2. The $12.49 cost per new rider figure included in the METRO project’s FY 2005 Annual New Starts Report is not the cost of every passenger on the light rail system. The $12.49 estimated cost per new rider figure is actually the annualized capital and operating cost of every new rider on the entire public transit system as a result of building light rail and making planned improvements to the bus system through the year 2020. The figure is calculated using both the annual operating costs and capital costs of both the rail and bus system, including the purchase of approximately 1,600 new buses and facilities. Because the figure includes all costs of the system and no fare revenues, and only accounts for new riders to the transit system — not all rail passengers, the $12.49 figure is not a cost per rider on light rail. The cost per new rider is a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) calculation that compares cost effectiveness of new rail projects seeking federal funding. The METRO initial 20-mile line compares favorably with other new rail projects nationwide in cost effectiveness. The project has been recommended for a Full Funding Grant Agreement in the President’s FY 2005 Budget. Congestion Valley Metro rail documents show that light rail will reduce overall regional congestion. Data in the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) shows that light rail will reduce traffic congestion by significantly reducing the number of congested roadways. The data shows that if we don’t build light rail, in the year 2020 we will have 630.1 miles of congested roadways during morning rush hours and 639.6 miles of congested roadways in the evening rush hour. Light rail will reduce the number of congested roadways during the morning peak hours by 237.4 miles — or 38 percent —and 304.9 miles — or 48 percent — in the afternoon peak periods. In addition, computer forecasting predicts significant annual travel time savings of up to 585 hours per year for many Valley residents living near the planned light rail route — as well as those living as many as 15 miles away. Light rail will significantly reduce congested roadways in the Valley and provide a reliable alternative to traffic congestion, which is expected to increase dramatically with regional population and travel growth. Air Quality Valley Metro Rail’s documentation shows that light rail will decrease unhealthy pollutants by more than 12 tons per day. Official documents show a decrease in overall pollution due to light rail. Light rail is electrically powered and is virtually emission free. The project’s FY 2005 Annual Report on New Starts shows an overall reduction in emissions of more than 12 tons per day as a result of the light rail project. The project’s environmental impact statement (EIS) — the one which critics say shows light rail increases pollution — indicates that while emissions are projected to increase very slightly at some locations on or near the route as a result of cars traveling to light rail park and ride lots and stopped at intersections, emissions at those sites are projected to be lower in the future than they are today. Most importantly, the EIS shows there are NO existing or projected violations of the federal carbon monoxide standards at those locations, meaning predicted emission levels at these locations are so low it’s erroneous to suggest that these sites are unhealthy or polluted. The Federal Transit Administration has given the Valley’s light rail project its highest rating in the environmental category in its annual evaluation of rail projects nationwide. The Environmental Protection Agency has also approved the Valley’s light rail project. Travel Times Light rail will provide travel times competitive with automobile travel during peak periods today, and, unlike auto travel times, light rail travel times will not increase as more people crowd our roadways. Based on sophisticated computer modeling simulations, Valley Metro Rail staff predicts an average travel time of 22 miles per hour, including stops at stations and signals. We predict that rail travel will be competitive with automobile travel times during peak periods today. Capacity Light rail will add critical people-moving capacity in our most heavily traveled corridors, where existing roadways and freeways cannot easily be added or expanded. The light rail initial line will have an initial capacity of up to 7,200 passengers per hour, and is expected to carry approximately 3,500 passengers per hour during peak periods. Light rail has the equivalent people-moving capacity of up to 15 lanes of arterial streets or a six-lane freeway, but will use only two lanes of arterial streets.

Corp. Rail Deals On Track In Europe

Business Travel News October 18, 2004 Corporate relationships with rail companies in Europe are blossoming as British rail companies have implemented their first meaningful corporate contracts, international rail giant Eurostar restructures its corporate deals and German national rail company Deutsche Bahn provides new automated booking and ticketing links. A few pioneering British travel buyers established volume-based deals for domestic U.K. rail, prompted by new access to management data. Meanwhile, Eurostar has eliminated volume-based negotiations in favor of marketing agreements that require travel managers to promote the rail company to travelers. These deals interest many European buyers, because rail is quickly growing as a transport option for business travelers. There were 3,260 kilometers of high-speed rail track in Europe in 2002, a number that is expected to more than double to 7,000 kilometers by 2010. The consulting firm UIC forecasts revenue passenger kilometers on high-speed lines to grow from 65 billion to 116 billion during the same period. The impetus for the domestic U.K. deals comes from Thetrainline.com, an Internet rail booking site that includes a corporate version making rapid inroads among British travel buyers. About 10 percent of all domestic U.K. rail spending is booked through Thetrainline, but for inter-city rail travel — the core of the business market — the figure rises to 30 percent. Thetrainline said it has 350 corporate customers, of which 50 are actively managed, national accounts. “This is significantly better data than anything that was around previously,” said Adrian Watts, sales director for Thetrainline. “That puts corporate clients in a much better position to negotiate deals.” Toby Withnell, head of group travel for Barclays Bank, which has a deal with one U.K. rail company, endorses Watts’ claims. “You have to have data,” he said. “The rail companies won’t listen to you without it. They also have to understand you can switch your business elsewhere. Thetrainline data has been very good. We get information like city pairs and types of tickets. It is far more sophisticated than it used to be.” Asked what buyers need most to see a rail deal through, Withnell said, “Patience. It’s a struggle. The rail companies are not overly enthusiastic about giving out deals.” However, by putting comparable rail and air data in front of the train operators for the first time, Withnell prevailed, especially when his data analysis revealed that — contrary to common perception — rail by no means always is cheaper than air. Thetrainline has 10 clients with negotiated rail deals. According to Watts, about the same number had deals last year, but the nature of the agreements has profoundly changed. “Previously, when corporates approached train operating companies for a deal, the operator put in a token discount to keep the relationship,” Watts said. “Now that clients have management information, and are showing how much more business the operator could win, they are getting much better deals.” Watts would not comment on levels of discount, but said, “Rates are loaded that were not available a year ago.” Watts said buyers need to show they are willing and able to support the deal by implementing or amending their travel policy. The other imperative is to ensure they are driving all rail bookings through Thetrainline to maximize data consolidation. Given that many travelers usually buy their tickets on departure, this requires a significant cultural change. Thetrainline has achieved high adoption rates very quickly — including 80 percent at the British Broadcasting Co. and 90 percent at Barclays — but preventive measures also are needed to stop leakage. Among the steps recommended by Watts were scrutinizing expense claims and card statements for evidence of purchases on departure and communicating to ensure travelers understand the value of buying through a single distribution channel. Communication to travelers also plays a significant role in the new sales policy of Eurostar, which includes detailed marketing agreements with corporations. These agreements may comprise such initiatives as travel fairs on the client’s premises, e-mail promotions by travel managers to travelers and the promotion of Eurostar leisure deals. “It makes sense to be up-front about the marketing commitments,” said Louisa Bell, Eurostar’s head of business sales. “Otherwise, travel managers can say they haven’t got the time to do it.” The Channel Tunnel passenger rail service has reconsidered corporate agreements, partly because of the landmark fine the European Commission imposed on British Airways in 1999 (BTN, July 19, 1999).BA incurred the fine for setting incremental sales targets in a market it dominates. Since Eurostar now has a dominant share of combined air and rail sales for the London-Paris and London-Brussels markets, 66 percent and 57 percent respectively, Bell said this has given Eurostar “slight nervousness” about demanding spending targets. Bell said a marketing-led approach works better. “If we can use a travel manager to promote to 1,000 travelers, then that is 1,000 fewer travelers we have to spend our time reaching,” she said. On that basis, Eurostar gives net fares to “corporates that really want to work with us and have the volume.” Eurostar also has found a novel way to sell to smaller corporate clients. It has arranged what it calls “cluster deals” with one dozen travel management companies to sell net fares to an agreed selection of their customers. “There are a small number where it is not working, but the majority are giving us an improvement in volume and market share,” Bell said. “In some cases, it is a phenomenal rise.” Corporate rail deals, where they exist, in the rest of Europe are much more limited and rigid because the operators are state-run monopolies. Competition from other modes of transport, however, especially low-cost carriers, is forcing a re-evaluation. In Germany, Deutsche Bahn offers corporations discounts on a fixed volume scale, starting at 3 percent for expenditures over E5,000 and rising to a 10 percent rebate for expenditures over E5 million. Some of the biggest corporate spenders have privately negotiated discounts far in excess of that, according to informed sources, up to 30 percent in one case. Deutsche Bahn also is opening up to deals because it is capturing more spending information and lowering transport costs through an online booking and ticketing system that has rolled out over the past year. It is giving its best deals to clients that commit to book through the Deutsche Bahn portal. Tickets can be collected from 3,000 ticket machines that have been installed at mainline stations. Other benefits of automation include the ability to credit unused tickets to customer accounts. Some difficulties remain, however, including a continuing discrepancy between volume figures held by buyers and those held by Deutsche Bahn

COTA MAINTAINING HOPES FOR LIGHT RAIL ; Better bus service remains priority

Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) October 18, 2004 Twenty years ago, the Central Ohio Transit Authority was riding high. It had a $68 million surplus and was considering investing $40 million in the first leg of a countywide light-rail system. Somewhere along the line, COTA hit a roadblock. It has lost 11 million riders, seen operating deficits mount and there still are no light-rail trains in Franklin County. Michael Wilkos, a Downtown advocate and a light-rail activist in the mid-1990s, hasn’t given up hope. “I think people today understand the benefits that light rail will bring to Columbus,” Wilkos said. “It has become an issue of how will we pay for it in a time of lack of financial resources.” The five general managers COTA has had in the past two decades have all addressed the issue of light rail, and one asked the public for financial support. A levy was shot down in 1999. Newly hired COTA President and CEO William J. Lhota acknowledges that the latest effort to bring light rail to Columbus is in jeopardy. He has recommended that the proposed North Corridor Light Rail project, which calls for light rail between Downtown and Polaris by 2010, be reevaluated next fall. That is when the next phase of the project’s preliminary engineering is expected to be completed. “At that time, we will decide whether to go forward, stop the project or consider some other option,” Lhota said. COTA is expected to finish the year with a deficit of $1.5 million, and deficits are forecast for the next several years. That will put a drain on COTA’s reserves of about $11.2 million. In addition, COTA has cut bus service six times during the past three years and ridership is at about 15 million, down from 26 million in 1984. Building a light-rail system along the north corridor is expected to cost $545 million. About $136 million would have to come from local funding. Lhota has made it clear COTA must demonstrate it can operate within its budget and improve its bus service before it can ask taxpayers again to support light rail. “If we can’t demonstrate that, what makes us think the community is going to say ‘OK, you guys can’t run that operation, but I am going to trust you to run a bigger one like light rail?’ “ Some proponents of light rail are concerned. Two Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission committees recently passed resolutions encouraging COTA to continue light-rail development. David Hull, chairman of one of the committees, said there were fears that Lhota would recommend shutting down the project. “This option keeps the project alive,” Hull said. So far, $8 million, mostly in federal and state funds, has been spent on the latest project. Bill Habig, executive director of MORPC, has been around for many of the past attempts to bring light rail to Columbus. “There have been general recommendations made in the past, but this is the first time COTA has taken a project this far,” Habig said. The North Corridor project is one of 10 nationally that have received a recommended rating from the Federal Transit Administration. The rating puts the project in line to receive 50 percent federal funding for the project. “I think if we and COTA and the community show good faith that we are continuing the work and there is this established target to finish by a certain date, I think we have a good chance of getting continued federal support,” Habig said. Part of that good faith is local funding. Lhota said that he won’t ask the public for financial assistance for at least a year. He also stressed that any levy money also would go to bus service, not just light rail. Some community leaders say it will take some convincing. “I just think any time you go to the voters for a tax increase, you have to have a well thought-out plan for how these additional resources are going to be utilized to advance a whole region and community,” said Ty Marsh, chief executive of the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce. “In the past ballots, they just have not been convinced that is where they want the money to go.” The business community generally has been supportive of COTA and previous light-rail plans, Marsh said. “But we also feel that the action (Lhota) is taking to focus on the core mission of COTA and look at the light-rail system is appropriate and prudent,” he said. Since COTA first announced plans for light rail, a number of cities have financed and built systems. The MetroLink in St. Louis has been in operation since 1993. Originally 17 miles, the rail has been extended twice and a third leg is in the works. While securing the money wasn’t easy, the system provides transportation alternatives and a catalyst for economic development, said Cathie Farroll, project communications manager. “I think it really helped us in terms of our tourism and convention business because we have a direct connection from the airport to Downtown,” she said. About 15 million people ride the system a year. Like COTA, other transit authorities have struggled. Jeffrey Boothe, of the Washington D.C.-based New Starts Working Group, which advocates support for new rail projects on behalf of transit authorities, said many communities have gone to the voters more than once to get local funding. “Don’t feel bad; you have joined a very large club of communities that have been unsuccessful the first time out,” Boothe told COTA board members at a recent workshop.

LET’S TRACK THE WAYS WE PAY FOR LIGHT RAIL

Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) October 18, 2004 How have you paid for light rail until now, before the FasTracks proposal that’s on the ballot in two weeks? I’m gonna tell you just so you’re up to speed on the system you’re being asked to expand. The three transit lines that have opened over the last 10 years, plus the one under construction in the T-REX project, were built with the Regional Transportation District’s current pocketbook, federal grants, bonds and local and private funds. The first light-rail line opened 10 years ago this month. It’s a 5.3-mile segment through downtown that’s now called the Central Corridor from the Broadway Station at Interstate 25 to 30th Avenue and Downing Street near Five Points. While some folks wistfully think that one was paid for in cash, that’s not correct. Bonds covered a portion of the $116.5 million cost. What made it possible to do that without a tax increase was an unexpected windfall in revenue thanks to a Colorado Supreme Court decision. The court ruled in the late 1980s that RTD could collect “use” taxes along with sales taxes, just like most entities that rely on sales taxes. A use tax is a form of sales tax that businesses pay on goods they use in the course of their business, but on which they hadn’t already paid a sales tax. This ruling gave RTD a new stream of revenue that was used to underwrite $34.2 million in 10-year bonds. But RTD still is paying for the Central Corridor. The bonds were refinanced in 1997 to take advantage of lower interest rates, but they were extended to 15 years. They’ll be paid off in 2012, and $28.2 million in bonds are still outstanding. The next line opened in July 2000, the 8.7-mile southwest extension to Littleton, at a cost of $174 million. It’s paid for. RTD got a federal grant for $120 million, and state and local funds made up the rest. RTD borrowed $31.3 million to buy the new rail cars, but it paid off the debt in 2001. The most recent line to open, in April 2002, is the two-mile spur to Union Station through the Central Platte Valley. It cost $47.8 million, and it’s paid for. RTD used its cash reserves and congestion relief funding from the Denver Regional Council of Governments, plus $5 million from Denver and $4 million from private parties. They include the Denver Broncos, Colorado Rockies, Pepsi Center, Six Flags Elitch Gardens and others whose properties are served by the line. The final line is T-REX, a 19-mile light-rail extension along I-25 and Interstate 225 that as of today costs $915.6 million out of T-REX’s $1.73 billion cost. RTD has issued $563.4 million in bonds and other debt to help finance T-REX. It also received a $525 million grant from the federal government, but RTD had to issue more bonds upfront because the grant is paid over nine years, while the money was needed now. T-REX’s bond payments go on until 2024, one reason RTD says it’s current cash flow is tapped out and that it wouldn’t be able to build another line for 20 years if voters reject FasTracks.

US DOT: FRA announces first ever use of locomotive mounted cameras to study highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention

M2 Presswire October 19, 2004 The Federal Railroad Administration will partner with the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway in a $482,000 federally funded research project using locomotive mounted digital video cameras to capture real-time data of actual highway-rail grade crossing collisions and trespass incidents. The project will collect video of thousands of miles of railroad operations and analyze both accidents and near misses. This type of data has never before been available for research purposes. The grant funding announced today will be used for examination and analysis of the data collected. North Carolina DOT has installed video cameras on its Piedmont passenger train that operates daily between Raleigh and Charlotte. Norfolk Southern has video cameras on about 850 freight locomotives that operate in 22 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. The study will determine what human factors are involved in grade crossing collisions and trespass incidents. It also will evaluate the performance and effectiveness of current safety improvements made as part of North Carolinas Sealed Corridor Initiative, an aggressive effort to eliminate grade crossing hazards along a proposed future high-speed passenger rail route. FRA data shows that about 96 percent of all rail-related fatalities each year are due to vehicle-train collisions or railroad trespass incidents. The project results will be used to develop more effective safety measures to better protect lives at grade crossings and prevent trespass incidents throughout the country, said Acting FRA Administrator Betty Monro. “Norfolk Southern has been the rail industry leader in the development and implementation of locomotive video technology,” said Dr. John M. Samuels, Norfolk Southern’s senior vice president Operations Planning and Support. “RailView technology has tremendous public safety benefits, and the Federal Railroad Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation should be commended for their participation and support.” North Carolina has long emphasized improvements in railroad safety, said North Carolina Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary David King. Through pro-active initiatives such as our Sealed Corridor program and partnerships with communities across the state to close or consolidate crossings, we have significantly reduced the number of deaths and injuries in the past decade. Monro also announced a $795,000 grant to support the design and construction of a pedestrian underpass in the town of Clayton located southeast of Raleigh. It will provide a safe, secure, and convenient path for pedestrians from a residential neighborhood to reach the downtown area with its grocery stores, shopping, jobs, and government offices. The underpass will be used as a model of how a smart investment can dramatically improve rail safety. Not only will pedestrians be separated from train traffic along a section of track that has a history of trespass incidents, it also will increase safety at other locations by allowing for the closure of three additional grade crossings. These projects are just the most recent examples of efforts supported by the FRA to improve safety at the nations 251,000 public and private grade crossings and reduce trespass incidents. Since 1994, there has been a 41 percent decrease in the number of train-vehicle collisions and a 47 percent reduction in the number of grade crossing fatalities.

Frustrated motorists are increasingly opting for rail commutes. In the last year, ridership on Metrolink lines has jumped by 9%.

Los Angeles Times October 19, 2004 There was a time, not long ago, when telling Rosie Acosta to stop driving her car would have drawn a laugh. The lifelong Angeleno simply could not have imagined it. Even though she intensely disliked congested freeways. And even though she spent up to two hours every morning and another two hours every evening commuting between her home in La Puente and her job in Glassell Park. “My son kept telling me to take the train … but I refused to take it. I thought it was a waste of my time. I felt like I had to have a car,” said Acosta, a receptionist for a construction materials company. “Boy, was I wrong.” These days, Acosta has cut her commute time in half by joining a growing number of Southern Californians who ride Metrolink to work. Over the last year, ridership jumped by 9%, to 39,262 trips on an average weekday, according to the commuter rail agency. In the three years prior, from July 2000 to July 2003, ridership grew by 2.4%, 5.1% and 3.8%, respectively. Some Metrolink trains have grown so packed this year that riders have been standing in the aisles or sitting on the steps between the upper and lower compartments. The agency has ordered new trains, but they may not arrive for more than two years, officials said. To ease crowding in the meantime, Metrolink recently leased 12 rail cars and one locomotive from Seattle’s Sounder commuter rail agency. The addition brings Metrolink’s total fleet to 155 cars and 39 locomotives. Metrolink has not conducted a survey to explain the recent surge in its popularity. But agency spokeswoman Sharon Gavin, who commutes by train and talks with riders every day, has some theories. The high price of gasoline could be a factor. Population growth in the Inland Empire might also be playing a role. Some of the most crowded trains have been on Metrolink’s San Bernardino and Riverside lines, both of which run to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. But more than anything else, Gavin said, riders increasingly seem to despise driving to work. “They’re tired of dealing with traffic,” Gavin said. “It’s more of a lifestyle choice than anything else.” According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the average commuter in the Los Angeles metropolitan area — which has the worst congestion in the nation — spent an additional 93 hours sitting in a car in 2002 because of traffic delays. Mary Noel, who lives in Glendora, tries to ride Metrolink to work whenever she can because it’s more comfortable and cheaper, she said. When she uses transit, Noel drives to Metrolink’s Covina station, takes a westbound train to Union Station and transfers to the Metro Red Line subway, which has a downtown station a block from her office. The trip takes 45 minutes, she said. A few times a month, when the parking lot at the Covina station is full, she drives 1 1/2 hours through stop-and-go traffic to work. “And you pay for parking downtown, and your gas,” said Noel, a technical assistant for an insurance company. Aware of the parking shortage, the city of Covina — which provides parking for its Metrolink station — is building a garage at the parking lot, with more than 600 spaces, twice the current capacity, Gavin said. Metrolink, which opened in 1992, runs seven lines over 388 miles of tracks in Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties. The average Metrolink trip is 36.4 miles. About 65% of riders previously drove alone or in a carpool, according to a passenger survey. Acosta’s conversion came about suddenly. Two months ago, she was driving home through rush-hour traffic on the San Bernardino Freeway, when a big rig rear-ended her, she said. Now she drives the five minutes from her home to the Metrolink station in Baldwin Park. “It takes all the stress from me,” she said. Her only regret is not having a car at lunchtime to run errands or go to the mall near her work. But, she said, when she looks out the train’s window, she thinks: “I’m so glad I’m not out there — all those poor people in traffic!”

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FASTRACKS

FasTracks Yes! Website October 19, 2004 On any major issue there will be opposition. Below are some statements by critics that misrepresent the FasTracks plan. The “truth” responses should be helpful as you do your own review of the issue. “After FasTracks is finished, only 2% of total trips will be on transit.” TRUTH: Transit, like our major highway system, is designed principally to deal with commuting trips — getting employees and business together during peak travel times. Included in the 2% of total trips are local trips to the convenience store, soccer practice, and pizza deliveries over 24 hours. FasTracks is a plan that addresses week-day rush hour travel. Our current experience shows how successful transit is for these trips. For example, on the southwest light rail line, 19% of rush hour trips use transit. When construction of the T-REX southeast rail line is complete in 2006, 38,000 people per day will use transit in that corridor. By 2025, with FasTracks, 22% of peak hour trips in the nine FasTracks corridors are expected to be on transit. That will be a lot of vehicles off the highway. RTD uses very conservative ridership projections. The three existing light rail lines are carrying 40% more passengers than were originally estimated. “Light rail is too expensive.” TRUTH: Light rail lines are similar in cost to adding highway lanes — but rail has more capacity. For example, on T-REX, the I-25 highway component cost is about $17 million per mile. The light rail component is about $24 million per mile. But the light rail cost includes 34 light rail vehicles and a maintenance and operations center. And one line of light rail can carry approximately 4 times the capacity of one highway lane. By increasing the frequency of trains, capacity can more cheaply and easily be expanded compared to building more highway lanes. “Transit requires large subsidies.” TRUTH: Mass transit requires public investment. Highways also require public investment for initial cost, maintenance, and repair, traffic control and policing. However transit, unlike highways, can recover some of its costs through user fares. For the FasTracks light rail corridors, this cost recovery will increase from 26% today to 46% with FasTracks. “If FasTracks passes it will take away funds from highway repairs.” TRUTH: The funding for highway maintenance comes from the gasoline tax paid at the pump, state appropriations and the Federal Highway program. FasTracks will not tap any of this revenue. Further, FasTracks will bring $865 million in federal dollars to the region that would otherwise go to projects in other states. This is almost 20% of the cost of FasTracks. “Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is better than light rail. We should just do BRT.” TRUTH: The Denver Metropolitan Area is extremely diverse. One size doesn’t fit all. Each FasTracks corridor went through extensive analysis of alternatives, including BRT. Community inputs as well as technological considerations have shaped the FasTracks plan. BRT is being employed in the U.S. 36 corridor, light rail and commuter rail for others. Each is tailored to the specifics of the corridor and its needs. For example, along 6th Avenue, if dedicated lanes for BRT were added, it would disrupt established communities and require the demolition of 180 homes. “Bus Rapid Transit in high occupancy lanes is cheaper to build than light rail.” TRUTH: The North Metro HOV lanes that run along I-25 from U.S. 36 to downtown Denver opened in 1994 and cost $17 million per lane mile. The central Corridor light rail line opened in the same year and cost $11 million per track mile. These HOV lanes also carry a tiny fraction of the number of rush hour travelers as light rail. “Buses are cheaper to operate than rail.” TRUTH: The operating costs per rider are significantly higher for bus than light rail today. LRT costs $2.98 per rider vs. $3.58 for bus. The higher operating costs for buses are largely because they are much more labor intensive than LRT. “Rail won’t work because it doesn’t go where you want to go. Notice all lines go to downtown Denver.” TRUTH: The success of the existing rail lines demonstrates that they do go where people want and need to go — 35,000 passengers per weekday. The new lines connect every quadrant of the metropolitan area and major employment centers throughout the region: The Federal Center on the west, Boulder and the US 36 corridor on the north, Fitzsimons on the east, and the Denver Tech Center on the south. Denver’s location in the geographic center of the region makes it a logical and efficient connection and transfer point. In addition, expanded and new suburb to suburb bus service and timed transfers will significantly enhance travel throughout the region. “The sales tax is a 67% increase.” TRUTH: Voters deserve to know what this is going to cost them. It will be 4 cents on every $10 taxable purchase — and does not include groceries, prescription drugs, gasoline, or residential electricity and heating costs. It will be the first RTD tax increase in over 20 years. Without it, RTD cannot build another corridor for twenty years. Every year we delay increases the cost of the plan by $160 million. “Buses are faster.” TRUTH: Buses in regular traffic are as slow as automobiles. The DRCOG 208 review report makes it clear that over the next 20 years travel on rail transit in the FasTracks corridors will be significantly faster than driving. BRT in dedicated lanes can also provide many of the benefits of rail. This is why the FasTracks plan includes the construction of the first phase of BRT along the US 36 corridor. However, there has been no analysis that suggests that BRT in Denver in the other FasTracks corridors would be any faster, or take any more vehicles off the road than the FasTracks proposal. People want choice — where to live and work and how to get there. FasTracks is tailored to the Denver region’s needs and desires. It is not an “off-the-shelf approach.” “We can have far better service without a tax increase.” TRUTH: This assumes we could have BRT with new HOT lanes construction everywhere and that the tolls would cover all of the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the system. This statement cannot be supported. It is made without economic analyses, community input or local considerations. “Rail projects always have cost overruns.” TRUTH: All of RTD’s light rail lines have been built on time and on budget. The T-REX, southeast rail line is scheduled to open in 2006. It is on time and on budget. Opponents take selected statistics from the DRCOG Review and use them to argue that FasTracks is a bad proposal. TRUTH: The DRCOG conclusion section of the report lists extensive benefits of FasTracks including:

• FasTracks will provide travel time, accessibility, and environmental improvements.
• Employment accessibility will be improved for all residents.
• Accessibility for low-income and minority residents will be significantly improved.
• FasTracks is likely to provide substantial community benefits.
• By 2025, peak hour travel times will be considerably shorter by rapid transit than by automobile in the FasTracks corridors.
• The report found FasTracks financially sound and supportive of the region’s growth and transportation plans.

How to get around crazy cities

USA TODAY October 19, 2004 Business travelers may cringe when contemplating getting around big, increasingly congested cities. A car service or a cab may ease the pain. But limos get stuck in traffic, and cab fares can get pricey. In some cases, subway, bus, light rail, ferry or other means of public transit may save time and money for the business traveler. Veteran transit riders in some of the country’s biggest, most congested cities share transit-riding tips: San Francisco: Jack Lucero Fleck, acting city traffic engineer for the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, says short-time visitors can get up to speed with some research and planning. Transportation options include cable cars, historic streetcars, subways (BART), buses, trolley buses and light rail. Fleck, a transit user himself, says fare information and route maps are available online. He says the best view of San Francisco Bay and downtown is on the bus coming into the city on the top deck of the Bay Bridge. Buses let you sit up higher than cars. At $3, it’s a bargain, he says. New York: In New York City, Citigroup investment banker Philip Neidoff makes his half-hour commute from Manhattan’s Upper West Side to Tribeca via the often-crowded New York City subway. Says Neidoff: “It’s definitely faster than taking the bus, but sometimes it’s like that Jell-O commercial: There’s always room for one more subway rider. My advice is to let one or two crowded trains go by before getting on.” Don’t worry too much about the subway being scary, Neidoff says. “There are always lots of people around — normal, everyday people. It’s comforting.” Chicago: Chicago Public Radio general manager Torey Malatia acknowledges that driving to work is easier and more direct, but he prefers taking the train and bus because “it’s saner, more restful and actually inspiring.” After spending one too many mornings waiting for buses that never arrived, Malatia offers two words of advice: planning and flexibility. It allows him, for instance, to occasionally give up the wait for a direct bus to his destination in favor of a two-route strategy involving a transfer. Travelers who research and print out potential bus, subway and train routes before arriving in a new town will have an easier time, Malatia says. “It’s great, and somewhat cinematic, to see people of various backgrounds making a trip through the city.” Washington, D.C.: Lynn Chadwick, a program officer for the U.S. Department of Commerce, echoes Malatia’s advice about researching alternative routes. “I know five buses that can get me a block or two away from my regular destinations,” Chadwick says. Chadwick makes a point of staying away from certain Metro subway stops when they’re likely to be congested with tourists. It’s easier to get out at a stop a few blocks away and walk, she says. Cabs in Washington are plentiful and inexpensive. Fares for trips within the District of Columbia are determined by the number of taxi zones crossed, not by meters. But Heather Dahl, managing editor of the Capitol Hill Bureau radio service, finds the Metro subway faster and less expensive than cabs. Dahl warns: “Don’t get caught eating on the Metro. They’re fast to ticket folks who are snacking.” Boston: Snack fines aren’t a big problem on Boston’s MBTA, or “T,” subway system, says Judy Jacobson, deputy director of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. But Jacobson and her office mates agree that the system can seem unfriendly to out-of-towners. Their tips include:

• Get your bearings: Park Street is the hub of the radial, hub-and-spoke subway system. “Inbound” subway trains mean inbound to Park Street. Getting anywhere from Park Street anytime between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. is a nightmare.
• The B and C Green Line trains are free going outbound once the trains are above ground on Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street.

Getting around after getting there Ready to give local transit a try? Find additional resources at the Web sites of most cities’ convention and visitors bureaus. Also, information booths at airports and train stations. Some helpful links: Atlanta: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, www.itsmarta.com Dallas/Fort Worth: Dallas Area Rapid Transit, www.dart.org Denver: Regional Transportation District, www.rtd-Denver.com Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, www.mta.net Miami: Miami-Dade Transit, www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/transit/ New York: Metropolitan Transit Authority, www.mta.nyc.ny.us Philadelphia: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, www.septa.com Seattle: King County Metro Transit, transit.metrokc.gov

Serco joint venture signs Northern rail train operating franchise

AFX News Limited October 19, 2004 Serco Group plc’s (“Serco”) 50:50 joint venture with NedRailways BV today has signed a contract with the Strategic Rail Authority and five Passenger Transport Executives to operate the Northern rail train operating franchise. This new franchise will provide inter-urban commuter and rural services throughout the north of England. Scheduled to start on 12 December 2004, the franchise will run for up to eight and three quarter years, with the final two years dependent on achieving performance targets. The Serco-NedRailways contract is expected to have a turnover of approximately 4 billion over the eight and three quarter year period. After initial mobilisation, the service is expected to be earnings neutral for Serco in 2004 and both earnings and cash positive from 2005. Building on the success of its other operations in the UK, Serco-NedRailways is focused on delivering year-on-year improvements in train punctuality and performance, modernising ticketing systems and improving the availability and reliability of the rolling stock. Serco Chief Executive Chris Hyman said: “Serco’s Integrated Transport business is going from strength to strength. Its track record of successfully delivering improved services to passengers can now be extended to millions of people across the north of England through Serco-NedRailways.” Serco, twice winner of the UK’s National Rail Operator of the Year award, has extensive experience of rail passenger services and change management through operating Docklands Light Railway, Manchester Metrolink, Copenhagen Metro and Great Southern Railways in Australia. Serco-NedRailways operates Merseyrail, having taken the concession over in July 2003.

Making transit more attractive

The Toronto Star October 19, 2004 If transit is such a great idea, why are people lining up to buy SUVs instead of lining up to take streetcars? People in Ontario are talking a lot about transit these days. Money for transit, dedicated transit lanes along major roads, transit plans for areas such as York Region. Municipal official plans are filled with good words about encouraging transit and building communities that make it easy and convenient to take transit. The Ontario government, in its discussion paper on a growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, insists transit will be the priority for moving people in the urban parts of the region. All well and good, but it is just talk. Transit’s market share is declining, most major roads are still clogged with cars, and research shows our current development patterns will lead to increased traffic congestion in future. Why is this? If transit is such a wonderful idea, why aren’t people lining up to take streetcars instead of lining up to buy new SUVs? One, often overlooked, reason is that many of the areas where jobs are located are poorly served by transit. Attention has tended to focus on transit in residential areas, but we need to turn our attention to the location and design of the places where people work, particularly industrial and office parks in the suburbs. Most are not transit-friendly. Consider the GO Transit system. Most people travel from their homes to suburban GO rail stations by car. When they arrive in downtown Toronto, they walk or take the subway to work. Also, Union Station is set in a walkable area filled with shops, restaurants, theatres and services. Think about the trip in the opposite direction. Suppose you work in say, Oakville or Oshawa. No matter how easy it might be to get to a GO station from your home, when you get out in Oakville or Oshawa, what do you do? There is no cluster of workplaces around the station that you can walk to. There are few bus connections to take you to an office park or business district. And there is hardly anywhere to shop or eat near the station. People will take transit if it takes them right to their workplace and if the stop at each end is in an interesting area that offers them more than a parking lot, a waiting room and a vending machine. It should be an area in which they can run other errands on their way to or from work. Yet, at present, little is being done to make the areas around suburban transit stations livelier. A second reason for the failure to make transit an attractive alternative to the car is that for years we have been building communities that require people to use automobiles — no matter what our official plans and policy documents say. Urban designers and planners have churned out stacks of guidelines on how to make transit work in new developments, but these guidelines are routinely ignored. We’re good at talk and poor at action. We have created, and are still creating, communities that will be very difficult to retrofit. If energy costs rise steeply, and if an aging population boosts the demand for transit, it will be a huge challenge to recycle what is already on the ground. We need to start now to enforce guidelines that allow transit to work in all communities. A third reason is that we are at least two decades behind in constructing transit infrastructure. We won’t catch up immediately. But the base is there, at least within the City of Toronto. The big question is: Are we willing to make the investment necessary to catch up? Transit demands a long-term commitment. The first few, short-term improvements we make won’t appreciably change the status quo. It will take stamina and patience on the part of policymakers and the public to see through a transit plan that would effectively serve most residents of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Governments tend to be much more enthusiastic about short-term stopgaps. For example, the Ontario government displays an earnest, if misplaced, faith in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to reduce traffic congestion. Unfortunately, research shows HOV lanes tend to take passengers out of buses rather than drivers out of cars. HOV lanes can reduce congestion in areas where transit is simply not feasible, but they don’t do much to promote transit. We can talk about transit, or we can build it. Building it means taking it seriously, by planning the location of jobs and services carefully, by enforcing the community design guidelines we already have, and by starting to build the needed infrastructure today. As the government ponders a growth strategy, we have a unique opportunity to get things right. It’s not rocket science, but it does take political will, money and stick-to-it-ness. Dr. Eric Miller is a civil engineering professor who is director of the University of Toronto Joint Program in Transportation. He is also a specialist in long-range transportation planning who has conducted research for the Neptis Foundation, an independent organization that conducts research on urban regions and regional growth in southern Ontario.

Streetcar may be Salt Lake City’s, Ogden’s desire

Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) October 20, 2004 A streetcar system may not only efficiently move people around Salt Lake City’s and Ogden’s downtowns, it could also spur residential and retail development. Transit officials say it works for Portland, Ore., which is why mayors from both Utah cities are traveling there today. As guests of the Utah Transit Authority, the mayors, some of their employees, UTA board members and others will ride Portland’s $ 57 million street-car line and learn how that city gained $ 1.5 billion in private investment in return. UTA is studying the feasibility of such a system — or some other inner-city circulator — for Salt Lake City and Ogden. In the capital city, streetcars could carry riders on a downtown loop from Main Street to 400 West and from South Temple to 700 South. It might run on the existing light-rail line, with new track being built to complete the downtown circuit. Streetcars are smaller than the light-rail cars and service neighborhoods rather than several cities, as TRAX does. In Ogden, Mayor Matthew Godfrey has suggested a gondola line — like skiers and snowboarders ride high in the mountains — from the northern Utah city’s downtown transit hub to Weber State University on its east bench. “If you’re looking to foster inner-city, high-density kinds of development, yeah, I highly recommend it,” said Vicky Diede, project manager for Portland Streetcar. She will be meeting with the Utah group. UTA spokesman Justin Jones said UTA is paying for the one-day trip, though he didn’t know the total cost on Monday. Streetcars are “cheaper than light rail, and [pose] less impact on the community during construction,” Jones said. “It’s something very important for these city leaders and transit professionals to gain the actual experience of what we’re talking about.” Godfrey said UTA is trying to sell him on the street-car technology, though the gondola system appeals to him. Still, “I fancy myself a very open-minded person.” Diede has hosted officials from several states since Portland Streetcar started in 2001. The city built 4.8 miles of track with financial help from adjacent property owners. The line runs from a hospital through the Pearl District to Portland State University. Another 0.6-mile extension for $ 18.2 million will open next year. The Pearl District was an old railroad yard. Now, it’s a trendy hot spot with restaurants, lofts and art galleries. Most of the 5,295 housing units and 3.7 million square feet of commercial space that have sprung up along the streetcar line since 1997 happened in that district, Diede said. Such a boom was the goal when Portland built the streetcar system. It wanted to add 15,000 new housing units and 75,000 new jobs in the central city over two decades. “If you’re going to do that you better be providing them with a really high quality means of transportation or you’ll kill your streets. The streetcar was our way of helping to foster that kind of development,” she said. Salt Lake City has a similar ambition. Mayor Rocky Anderson announced earlier this year that he wants to add 15,000 residents to the city in the next seven years. D.J. Baxter, Anderson’s senior aide who is also traveling to Portland, said 400 West is “ripe for [residential] development” and a streetcar line could help spur it. He said such a system would also be a key to moving commuters around once they get downtown via light rail or the planned commuter rail.

Time to rethink petrol subsidies

New Straits Times (Malaysia) October 20, 2004 I WAS staggered the other day when estimates came in from various sources about the likely amount in petrol subsidies that the Government will be paying for this year. A sum of RM9 billion is large by any standard. What galls me is that RM9 billion could have been used for so many other things. It is worth some RM391 for each of Malaysia’s 23 million people, or RM900 for each of the 10 million working Malaysians. It is worth 180,000 low-cost houses of RM50,000 each, four more LRT lines at RM2.25 billion each, 150,000 taxis at RM60,000 each, and 18,000 public transport buses at RM500,000 each. It could have been used to make our tap water cleaner, provide more electricity in remote areas, provide welfare for the less fortunate, hire more policemen, upkeep and design better and safer roads, provide more loans for entrepreneurs, provide more scholarships, and the list goes on endlessly. The frightening thing is that the subsidy is likely to continue growing, as increased demand globally will cause oil prices to remain stubbornly high, if not resume its upward climb. What really gets to me is the fact that the subsidy is based on consumption. This means that those who use more petrol and diesel get more of the subsidy. This being the case, there can be little doubt that those who can afford to own and drive big, petrol-guzzling vehicles get more of the subsidy. Need I point out that the poor in the country, dependent as they are on small motorcycles and mass public transport, get very little of this subsidy? Shouldn’t those who can afford to consume more pay more for their consumption, while receiving less as subsidies and not the other way around? Perhaps this inequity should be corrected by removing the subsidy. Perhaps the time has come to impose a consumption-based tax on petrol purchases, as other countries have done. Goodness only knows what other goods and services that such a petrol tax could have bought for Malaysians on top of the public goods and services have been foregone by the subsidies. I agree that a sudden removal of the subsidy could cause adjustment problems. Hence, I would leave it to the wisdom of the Government to decide on the timing. One thing is certain: petrol subsidies must end. Malaysians should be prepared to pay the full cost. Intelligent choices need to be made. Waste must be eliminated to the extent possible.

Two-city streetcar line proposed

Los Angeles Daily News October 21, 2004 A Burbank councilman wants the city to join Glendale in studying a streetcar system that could connect the two municipalities. The last streetcar passenger line in Burbank and Glendale stopped operating in the mid-1950s. Officials in both cities believe they could receive federal funds to revive the transportation system. “Anything where we can add a level of connectivity to reduce congestion generated with Glendale I think would be very advantageous and beneficial to both communities,” said City Councilman Todd Campbell. On Aug. 31, the Glendale City Council voted to spend $100,000 to study a streetcar system through downtown. The issue is scheduled to come before the Burbank City Council on Nov. 2. “All the most vibrant cities, Boston, New York, San Francisco, even L.A. is now considering their own system. These are all cities that have benefited greatly from a trolley system or a streetcar system,” Campbell said. Building a streetcar system is expected to cost millions of dollars, although Burbank and Glendale officials have not drawn up any potential routes or cost estimates. “It would take at least four to five years to even hope to see it,” Campbell said. Glendale Mayor Bob Yousefian said the city is considering using an electrically powered streetcar system that transfers power to the cars through a “third rail” placed between the two rails the car runs on. That eliminates the need for unsightly electric overhead wires. The system is in use in Europe, he said. It also allows for additional cars and transformers to be plugged into the system. “We figure if we’re going to spend the millions of dollars that we’re going to spend on this thing, that we might as well design a system that can be added on as time goes on,” Yousefian said. Burbank and Glendale had Pacific Electric rail service starting in the early part of the 20th century. In 1953, all P.E. passenger service was sold to Metropolitan Coach Lines, a company headed by an opponent of electric railways, and in 1955 the Glendale-Burbank Line was shut down, according to the Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California. Yousefian said Glendale is not considering a “novelty” system, but a commuter system to reduce the 93,000 daily car trips into the city.

Cleveland Breaks Ground for Long-Awaited Transformation Along the Euclid Corridor

PRNewswire Oct. 21 A project that has been talked about for 50 years is finally becoming reality. Euclid Avenue — Cleveland’s historic main thoroughfare — is getting a $200-million facelift. In the late 1800s, prominent travel writer Bayard Taylor called Euclid Avenue, “one of the most beautiful streets in the world,” with many homes built by millionaires. Today, Euclid Avenue connects downtown with a prosperous entertainment district, two major universities, world-class medical centers and museums, and cultural institutions in the University Circle area. Officials have long sought a method to tie improved public transportation to the revitalization of this important Corridor. That idea was the key focus Oct. 19, as elected officials from every level of government gathered to break ground for the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is the lead agency in the Project, which will transform Euclid Avenue from storefront-to- storefront for more than seven miles. With the help of more than $80 million in New Starts money from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Project will use a pioneering mode of travel called “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT) to move more than 20,000 people a day along Euclid Avenue. BRT combines the best features of bus and rail, and is more cost-effective than light rail. The new service will be called the Silver Line. Keynote speaker, Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, signed a Full Funding Grant Agreement with RTA CEO Joe Calabrese and RTA Board President George F. Dixon III. The Cleveland project is historic because: — It is the first BRT project in the nation to be funded from the federal New Starts pot — a much sought-after pool of money that usually goes to fund rail construction. — It is the first project in the nation to utilize all the features of BRT. Other cities have built transit improvements with only partial BRT features, and even then, ridership increases have exceeded expectations. Project description By 2008, Euclid Avenue will be rebuilt from storefront-to-storefront for 7.07 miles. The new streetscape will be totally ADA accessible and pedestrian- friendly with wider sidewalks, a dedicated transit lane in each direction, and a median strip where 36 bus stations will be located. About 2.31 miles of adjoining streets will also be improved. Hybrid-electric, articulated 60-foot Rapid Transit Vehicles will serve the stations every five minutes. Customers waiting at uniquely-designed stations will enjoy state-of-the-art signage with real-time service information. Because of off-board fare collection, larger vehicles, fewer stops, dedicated lanes and signal preemption, trip times will be reduced by an estimated 26 percent. This will increase RTA’s efficiency and lower operating costs Economic benefits More than $400 million in new projects have already been completed along the Corridor, and many more buildings are under construction or in the planning stages. Officials expect to see an eventual capital investment of $1.3 billion, with 7.9 million square feet of commercial development, more than 5,400 residential units, and $62 million annually in new local taxes. Officials expect a 9.6 percent increase in population along the Corridor. About 4,000 construction jobs will be created, with 9,000 more jobs created later. Officials project significant ridership increases along Euclid Avenue, which already sees more than 20,000 riders each day. Funding $ 82.2 million FTA New Starts $ 50.0 million Ohio (TRAC funds) (1) $ 16.6 million RTA $ 10.0 million NOACA (2) $ 8.0 million City of Cleveland $ 0.6 million FTA Rail Modernization $168.4 million BRT portion of Project (1) Transportation Review Advisory Council, part of the Ohio Department of Transportation (2) Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency In addition, the State is contributing $21 million, and the City $17 million, for related work. They said it: “In a city that is almost synonymous with urban renaissance and rebirth, this new, state-of-the-art bus rapid transit line will breathe new life into the area.” Norman Y. Mineta, Transportation Secretary “Today signals the start of a new era of transit in Cleveland.” Bob Taft, Governor, State of Ohio

Scott Wilson’s Athens Diary

UK Newsquest Regional Press — This is The NorthEast October 21, 2004 While first impressions of Athens centre on the old the more time you spend in the city the more your eye wanders towards the new. It might be the cradle of civilisation but Greece’s capital is also becoming a thoroughly modern metropolis. The juxtaposition of the ancient world and the 21st century creates glaring contrasts that take some getting used to. The ruins on the Acropolis are accompanied by giant cranes helping to preserve the ancient religious centre of the city while gleaming new thoroughfares run alongside the ancient Agora where democracy and philosophy were born. But while the beauty of Athens was once shrouded in a fog of pollution and traffic fumes now the city is able to breathe more easily in its tree-lined streets and fountain-enhanced squares. Inner-city development is a global phenomenon but rarely can the entire fabric of an area have changed as dramatically or as quickly as it has in Athens. The city has undergone a complete overhaul in the last two years and the reason has been simple — the Olympic Games. Hosting the Games seemed a long way off when Nicos Dabizas left an under-developed and under-pressure Athens to join Newcastle United seven years ago. But since then the city that gave the world some of its finest architecture more than two millenia ago has finally started to build for the future. “Athens is a different city after the Olympic Games said the centre-half. People who visited the city in the past will be amazed at how things have changed. It’s a different world. Everybody knows about the ancient Greek sites such as the Acropolis but the new Athens is just as important. There are new bars and restaurants springing up everywhere and the city has never been so vibrant.” More than 1 400 buildings were renovated before the start of this summer’s Games with 7 500 trees 30 000 bushes and 600 000 flowers planted to add colour. But by far the most impressive overhaul was carried out on the city’s decaying transport system. Two new lines and more than 50 extra kilometres were added to the Metro system a brand new tramway was built to the coast and a new suburban railway was created at the edge of the city. “The infrastructure is finally in place said Dabizas. Now you can get from one place to another efficiently and easily. It’s been a long time coming but it’s been worth the wait. Athens is a much better place in which to live work and play.” Hosting the Olympics meant that Athens had to improve its rotting transport network — perhaps winning the Games is the only thing that can prompt a similar change closer to home. I have now spent two days travelling around the Greek capital and last Sunday I spent what seemed to be as long trying to get to Charlton and back to cover Newcastle. Our capital has replaced Athens as the worst city to get around in Europe. Could the Olympics work similar magic in London’s East End? After their summer success in Portugal football is currently massive in Greece although Panionios it seems have slipped below the radar. There wasn’t a strip or scarf in sight in Athens’ numerous sports shops with pride of place going to the city’s big three — AEK Panathinaikos and Olympiakos. Apparently it was like asking for a Gateshead top in Fenwick’s — just with less former Byker Grove cast members showing you round.

Just ask the passengers if the tram is a success

Nottingham Evening Post October 21, 2004 Mr Phillips (Letters, October 13) doesn’t have to take my word for it that NET Line One has been a success. He can ask any of the 20,000 passengers it carries every day. He might even try it himself and see why people like it so much. Mr Phillips misses the point about the tram line’s relationship to other forms of transport — we are trying to emulate the successful European model of integrated transport here in Nottingham, and judging by the 40% of tram passengers using joint ticketing options and a very healthy take-up of Park and Ride (a 50% increase in the tram corridor), NET seems to be playing its part in this regard. Also, initial indications suggest that public transport usage overall is up 25% so it is wrong to assume that passengers have simply been poached from other services. Anyone would be naive to assume that 11 million passengers would be using NET from day one but this is the target figure we are working towards which has been quite properly used in publicity material. The question about where local contributions for NET Phase Two might come from has been answered so many times on the Post’s letters page that I will not subject readers to it again. Finally, Mr Phillips can pick over the semantic differences between my confidence and optimism if he wishes; we have presented a robust case for NET Phase Two which meets Government requirements. We’ll have to wait to see if my confidence or optimism were well placed.

RTC panel begins review of fixed guideway plans

LAS VEGAS SUN October 22, 2004 A specially formed Regional Transportation Commission steering committee on Thursday began reviewing the agency’s plans for a proposed fixed guideway system that could link Henderson and North Las Vegas. The committee, formed in September to study the possible 33-mile route, includes educators, business people and representatives from gaming companies and environmental advocacy groups. Gary Johnson, an advertising executive for the embattled Las Vegas Monorail, chairs the committee. The committee will study four technologies — two forms of light rail and two diesel bus systems — before making its recommendation to the RTC next summer. The group can also recommend the RTC take no action on the proposal. Jacob Snow, general manager of the RTC, presented an overview at the two-hour meeting at the RTC offices. Fixed guideway service includes both light rail and any kind of bus system that uses a dedicated travel lane, according to the RTC. If approved by the RTC, the new system would run from the Nevada State College at Henderson to downtown Las Vegas and could be completed by 2008. A second phase, which officials have previously predicted could be finished by 2014, would extend the route from downtown to a planned UNLV satellite campus in North Las Vegas. It would run on a little-used rail line now operated by the Union Pacific Railroad, which would sell the route to the RTC, Snow told the committee. The system, which would include stops on the west side of the Strip, would help alleviate congestion along Interstate 15, which now carries more than 200,000 cars a day, Snow said. Officials have estimated the cost of a new system at $700 million — about $20 million a mile — but it could be as much as $2.1 billion, depending on what type of system RTC members approve.

White says city needs to put transit focus on cost, service; Forum examines 8 presentations from firms that offer varying high-tech methods

Houston Chronicle Oct. 22, 2004 Metro should consider abandoning light rail for another transit mode if it could provide better service or cost less, Houston’s mayor said Thursday at the second day of a forum examining 11 alternative systems. “If it doesn’t meet one of those two criteria, then strike it off the list,” said Mayor Bill White, who supported the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s successful referendum last year authorizing 65 more miles of light rail by 2025. White gave a speech at Thursday’s gathering, where Metro officials, a panel of 11 transportation experts and other interested parties heard presentations from eight firms touting the benefits of their technology. Modes discussed Thursday included existing services such as high-speed commuter rail as well as conceptual designs for systems that would run through elevated tubes or move people in personal capsules gliding along beams. The mayor told an audience of about 80 that if any city can develop a new and better transit mode, it’s Houston. “We are a new city that is willing to innovate and entertain new ideas,” he said. After his talk, White said Metro needs to focus on “getting the most mobility value out of the taxpayers’ dollars” and ensure whatever system it selects “gets people as quickly as we can from place to place.” He praised the authority for reducing the number of train-vehicle collisions along the Main Street light rail line, which opened Jan. 1 and is likely to set national records for such incidents this year. Crashes have dropped from a high of 11 in March to three in September, although the number of trains has doubled. “The public is learning to live next door to a train,” White said. “The trend is in the right direction.” Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, speaking to traffic reporters at an unrelated luncheon later Thursday, said it’s clear Metro must come up with another transit mode for its future corridors. “I am opposed to taking the same system, the same technology that runs down the middle of streets, throughout the region,” Eckels said. “We’ve learned it’s a mistake to have the trains in the middle of the streets. They need to get out of the lanes of the roadway and into grade-separated corridors.”

Sandy opens rail-corridor trail

Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City) October 22, 2004 It’s not exactly a walk on the wild side, but it is a bit unusual for Utah. Sandy residents now can walk the length of their city, from 8400 South to 11400 South, on a trail beside the Utah Transit Authority’s TRAX light-rail corridor. The new “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality” trail was officially dedicated Thursday at a ceremony near the 10000 South TRAX station. Sandy becomes the first city to enjoy a pedestrian/bike path along the rail corridor. But it won’t be the last if UTA, the Utah Department of Transportation and the Wasatch Front Regional Council have their way. Those agencies joined with the city to provide the state’s first rail-corridor trail, and they would like to see more trails like it in the future. “It’s a good thing there are dreamers. And it’s a good thing they don’t let go of their dreams,” UTA general manager John Inglish said of the people who came together to make the trail a reality. “It’s a very clear statement about the value of partnerships. . . . The benefits and advantages that have come from that (working together) are substantial.” City and agency officials hope Sandy residents will use the trail not just for recreation but as an alternative to reaching light-rail stations, schools, businesses and parks without driving a motorized vehicle. “I hope it just isn’t a park, a trail where you just see a few people every now and then,” said Sandy City Councilman Scott Cowdell. “I hope it’s crowded.” The need for non-roadway methods of transportation has become more obvious in recent years as Utah’s growth has outpaced its ability to create new transportation infrastructure. For example, I-15 at the Sandy intersection of 10600 South carried 92,560 cars per day in 1996. Now, an average of 134,694 vehicles daily travel that same stretch of freeway. The trail was primarily funded through a $770,000 grant from the federal CMAQ fund. Sandy chipped in $80,000, and UTA contributed three miles worth of right-of-way. “This would not have happened without the cooperation of UTA,” Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan said. The CMAQ trail follows the TRAX corridor, which goes north and south through Sandy at roughly 200 East. For the first 16 blocks, from 8400 South to 10000 South, trail users will have the occasional company of a passing train. South of 10000 South, the current TRAX terminus, the walk is more solitary — but UTA and regional planners hope light rail eventually will be extended south into Draper. Cowdell noted how the area surrounding the TRAX station has changed since he was a kid. In high school, Cowdell and his friends used to go there to “spotlight rats and shoot rats, jackrabbits, birds,” he said. “Hopefully, this is a better use of the property,” he added. “It’s taken an eyesore and turned it into a nice area . . . that will serve Sandy city for many years to come, I hope.”

Ferry operator warns of route cuts; NY Waterway cites cash-flow problems

The Record (Bergen County, NJ) October 22, 2004 NY Waterway, the nation’s largest privately owned ferry service, is having cash-flow problems so severe that it may have to cancel “certain routes” to lower Manhattan, the company said Thursday. In addition, it told the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey last week that if the problems are not solved, the ferry operator may shut down altogether and liquidate its assets in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, a Port Authority source said. NY Waterway President Arthur E. Imperatore Jr. said in a statement that the company “is in discussions with the Port Authority to identify measures to address this situation and maintain continuity of ferry service to lower Manhattan.” NY Waterway officials denied that the company would go out of business and said it is facing only “short term liquidity” problems. “It’s nothing serious,” one official said. Imperatore blamed high fuel prices, a “diminished job market in lower Manhattan” and the resumption of PATH service to the World Trade Center site for the lack of cash, “despite recent price increases.” NY Waterway increased fares in June on most of its routes by 50 cents to $1 each way. Included in those increases were the routes to lower Manhattan. The latest increases came just 10 months after the last fare hike in September 2003. The company runs service from the Hudson County waterfront in Hoboken, Weehawken and Jersey City to Pier 11 near Wall Street and the World Financial Center downtown. Company officials did not identify which routes were on the list of potential cuts given to the Port Authority, but the ferry operator had already announced this week that it would stop midday service from Port Liberte in Jersey City to Manhattan because of low ridership. The move by Waterway to contact the Port Authority prompted the agency to reach out to other ferry service operators, including NY Water Taxi, to see whether they can help shoulder the load. NJ Transit has also been notified to make contingency plans in the event of a substantial change in service or a shutdown, a source said. NY Waterway’s daily ridership has plummeted in the past year. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the company almost instantly doubled the number of passengers it shuttled between New Jersey and Manhattan to more than 60,000 a day. But that number was nearly halved when PATH service was restored to lower Manhattan in November. The PATH system takes about 35,000 daily riders to the World Trade Center. Company officials have been questioned during the past year about NY Waterway’s solvency and repeatedly have said the company is not in financial trouble. In May, officials said NY Waterway was continuing to expand its routes where profitable. The company runs about 40 boats in the region’s waters and offers charter service and sightseeing cruises up the Hudson. Customers have been in an uproar over the fare increases, and a group of commuters dubbed Ferry Friends led a boycott of service in September. The group also has asked passengers to stop buying coffee and other items from Waterway shops and to forgo eating in restaurants owned by Waterway’s sister company. “We’ve noticed that the ferries themselves are obviously much lighter in passengers,” said Deborah Jack, a Ferry Friends organizer and Pier 11 commuter. “The day before our boycott they were … handing out free tickets. They have been aggressively handing out fliers giving people 10 percent discounts on tickets, as well as ferry passes. When business is good, you don’t really have to give things away.” In addition to trying to keep fares in check, Ferry Friends started an online petition to push for a government takeover of the service. More than 4,000 people have signed electronically. Waterway is being investigated by the Justice Department over what some parties interviewed by investigators say are possible overcharges to the federal government for services provided after Sept. 11 and alleged anti-competitive activities. Company officials have said they fully cooperated with any request from the federal government for information and deny any wrongdoing. Waterway commands more than 90 percent of the Hudson River ferry market and is on the verge of solidifying its stake with new ferry terminals on both sides of the river. For instance, at Port Imperial in Weehawken, the state is funding a permanent ferry terminal to replace the aging temporary digs. Waterway will repay the state at least $600,000 a year through a lease agreement and will operate and maintain the terminal. The Port Authority is also spending millions to build a ferry terminal at the World Financial Center to replace the floating dock that now serves as a departure and embarking point. And NJ Transit is overseeing a $125 million project to renovate the Hoboken Ferry Terminal. Waterway was started nearly 20 years ago by Arthur Imperatore Sr. as an offshoot of his real estate and development businesses on the Hudson County waterfront. Those businesses were started as offshoots of his highly successful trucking company, APA Transport. APA Transport shut down in February 2002.

After a loyal RT rider is booted from the bus, paint him perplexed

Sacramento Bee October 22, 2004 Bus stop: Roberto Ramirez has been riding public transportation in Sacramento since 1947. He loves it. He knows bus timetables and route numbers by heart. He has a lifetime Regional Transit pass. Roberto, 81, had never been kicked off a bus. Until now. He was bounced off the No. 38 bus at 65th Street the other day, ordered into the street because he was carrying a fresh can of paint from Home Depot. “He was going to paint his bathroom,” said Martin Chavez, Roberto’s brother. “The paint was sealed up and still in the bag. He doesn’t hear so well anymore, so he really didn’t know what was going on.” The driver was using executive privilege, sort of like a ship captain. Yet Regional Transit rules don’t prohibit paint. Explosives, flammables, acids and toxics are banned. Not paint. “We want to apologize,” RT spokeswoman Jo Noble said. “We had a new operator who wasn’t aware or misinterpreted the policy. We feel terrible about it.” Roberto walked home with his paint,