Toronto: St. Clair streetcar reservation project gets green light

Light Rail Now! NewsLog 11 October 2004 For many months, an effort by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to place the St. Clair streetcar (light rail transit/LRT) route on a reservation (dedicated right-of-way) on St. Clair Avenue West. The TTC proposes to do this in connection with a long-overdue overhaul of the existing tracks and street scheduled for 2005. An environmental assessment (EA) has already recommended the streetcar reservation as its preferred alternative. However, store owners on a section of the route have mounted a vigorous campaign against any change, even though the TTC’s upgrade proposal keeps on-street parking (except during rush hours), adds some off-street parking, leaves one lane for cars at all times, and has two lanes for cars in each direction during rush hours — promising what one would think this would be a win-win situation. The TTC’s proposal for the St. Clair streetcar reservation is modelled on the spectacular success of a similar project on Spadina Ave. some seven years ago. The 6.7-km (4.2-mile) Spadina project prompted sharp controversy at the time — hailed by some merchants and residents along the line as boon to the area, but bitterly resisted by others as a disruptive intruder. [Toronto Star, 18 Sep. 2004] Yet, seven years later, the Spadina streetcar line with its mid-street reservation is recognized as a huge benefit. For example, a survey of about 60 area merchants conducted for the city and TTC showed that 34% believed their business had improved since the line opened, while only 19% said it had declined. About 47% believed the project had had little or no impact on their business. The same study found major positive economic impacts in the Spadina corridor compared with the rest of the city. [Toronto Star, 18 Sep. 2004] In addition, the TTC found that the LRT streetcar attracted significantly higher ridership than the previous bus service on Spadina. Ridership on the new Route 510 streetcar soared to about 35,000 a day, compared with about 26,000 on the previous Route 77 bus. [Toronto Star, 18 Sep. 2004] The TTC’s proposed St. Clair “streetcar right-of-way” (reservation) would upgrade the existing St. Clair streetcar line, currently running in mixed traffic, for 6.7 km (4.2 miles), from Yonge St. to west of Keele St. — an improvement expected increase the streetcar service’s speed (6 minutes per end-to-end trip) and safety, and to attract significantly higher ridership. The projected cost of Canadian $65 million (US $52 million, or about $12 million/mile) includes replacing the line’s worn trackage, construction to rehabilitate crumbling infrastructure, plus streetscaping, parks, lighting, and other urban amenities added to win public approval. [Toronto Sun, 30 Sep. 2004; Eye, 29 May 2004] Coalescing supporters of the St. Clair project has been undertaken by the SCRIPT group (St. Clair Right-of- way Initiative for Public Transit), described as “local residents who support improving transit and the quality of life along St. Clair Avenue West by creating a right-of-way for TTC streetcars.” More information on SCRIPT and the St. Clair project ban be obtained on their website: http://www.script2004.ca/ The efforts of SCRIPT and other supporters of the St. Clair project have evidently paid off. In mid- September, a joint session of the City’s planning and transportation committee, works committee, and TTC voted 20-1 in favor of the reserved alignment. Then, at the end of September, the Toronto city council voted 36-7 to give the plan the go-ahead. “With this approval, the city has made public transit a priority” observed a reporter for the Toronto Sun. [R. J. Halperin, 18 Sep 2004; Toronto Sun, 30 Sep. 2004]

Subway’s last hurrah; Council’s transit advocates say subway expansion is dead and cheaper light-rail transit is the wave of the future

NOW — Toronto OCT 14 — 20, 2004 — VOL. 24 NO. 7 When the Toronto Environmental Alliance issued the city’s 2004 Smog Report Card this week, it was full of congratulatory remarks about the many “clean air initiatives” Mayor David Miller and his left-leaning council have adopted. There were kudos for a new energy efficiency program, the purchase of bio-fuels and hybrid vehicles for the municipal fleet, the political rejection of an expanded island airport, the recent adoption of a harmonized tree bylaw and the approval of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way along St. Clair West. “Toronto has become a real leader in fighting smog,” Keith Stewart, TEA’s lead climate change campaigner, told a news conference at City Hall on Tuesday, October 12. In just 12 short months, the city managed to improve its grade from a dismal C- to a respectable B+. And the mark would have been even higher (an A) had the powers that be at 100 Queen West gotten around to implementing the TTC ridership growth strategy the previous council approved in March 2003. “Better transit is the missing piece,” said Gord Perks, TEA’s transportation guru. “We need to stop talking about ridership growth and start doing it.” TTC commissioner Joe Mihevc couldn’t agree more. “The status quo is not acceptable,” the Ward 21 (St. Paul’s) councilor says. “We have seen automobile traffic increase by 3 or 4 per cent since about 1970, and we have a lot of lost ground to make up. If we really are interested in improving the economy, cleaning the air and developing our official plan, then we have to get into an expansion mode and put some resources into transit-oriented development. That’s the new biblical text that has to govern City Hall for the next while.” To Mihevc, the recently approved St. Clair streetcar right-of-way “shook some people up” and may spark an important debate about the overall future of transit. “We’re at the beginning of asking the question: ‘Is this the rebirth of streetcars in Toronto?’ We had a very sophisticated light rail transit (LRT) network before we fell in love with buses and subways, and I believe the time for rethinking that is now. What we need is an LRT master plan.” Mihevc spent three days in Atlanta this week at the American Public Transit Association conference with TTC chair Howard Moscoe and came away convinced that light rail transit is making a comeback in the United States. “The Americans are getting it,” he says. What makes streetcars travelling on dedicated right-of-ways so attractive is their relative low cost compared to the construction of new subway lines. Laying a kilometre of LRT track costs $10 million compared to $100 million for an equal length of subterranean steel. Add on the expense of building underground subway stations and the costs really start to snowball. As the mayor, himself a TTC commissioner, is quick to point out in an interview this week, it would cost between $4 billion and $6 billion to complete a subway beneath St. Clair from Yonge to Keele. The bill for the new streetcar line along that route — complete with major street improvements — will be about $65 million. “They’re a way to bring very high-quality transit at a reasonable cost to neighbourhoods that don’t have it,” Miller says. “I think people will look back on the St. Clair experience and see that it was the start of a way to provide excellent transit right across Toronto.” Like Mihevc, the mayor sees a number of major transportation corridors identified for intensified redevelopment in the Official Plan as prime candidates for future streetcar lines or reserved bus lanes. “Eglinton, particularly in Scarborough, is ideal for rapid transit,” Miller says. He even suggests it may make economic sense to have a streetcar route along Sheppard to Scarborough Town Centre rather than continue the subway line there (at a cost of $2 billion) from where it now ends at Don Mills. Mihevc offers Finch as another possibility for light rail track to and from the Yonge subway line. The Kingston Road streetcar route could also be extended from where it now ends at Victoria Park all the way to the city’s eastern boundary, the councillor says. And the waterfront east of Yonge along Queens Quay and beyond would also be ideal for light rail. “My hope is that we start to develop some of these lines so that we prompt the next generation of streetcars to be developed earlier than the current 2015 target date,” says Mihevc. “These streetcars we have now? They’re not streetcars. They’re tanks that hold a lot of people, 2.5 times the weight of the sleek European-designed low-floor, wide-door models. What we’re aiming for here is an above-ground subway.” Is the councillor dreaming? He doesn’t think so. “The reality of the TTC is that we’ve had to be obsessed with keeping the system we have in a state of good repair. We haven’t allowed ourselves the luxury to dream,” Mihevc says. “But now, with the gas tax coming from the province and the feds, we can hopefully start to think beyond state of good repair and bring our ridership growth strategy in line with our Official Plan.” And get Toronto an A on the next smog report card.

All systems should go with proposed Capital Metro rail

Austin American-Statesman October 23, 2004 Give the Capital Metro credit for offering a commuter rail system that is hard not to like. This time, Republicans and Democrats are supporting it; environmentalists and developers are backing it; and once-vocal critics, such as state Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, are endorsing it. The handful of critics who have emerged are trying to sink the Nov. 2 initiative by linking it to toll roads. It’s a specious argument. The commuter rail initiative is a big improvement over its predecessor and answers concerns raised by voters in 2000. We urge Austin and Leander voters to support it as part of a mix of options to address future transportation needs The Austin area is now home to more than 1 million people who need multiple modes of transportation to deter further congestion and erosion of Austin’s environment and quality of life. Commuter rail that would take people out of traffic should be part of the transportation mix — along with more roads, rapid bus service and high occupancy vehicle lanes. Capital Metro got the message voters sent in 2000 and responded with a sensible passenger rail line that would work in concert with improved bus service and more roads. A look at the proposed commuter rail initiative shows why it’s so appealing and better than the 2000 plan that was narrowly rejected by voters: • Cost. The proposed commuter rail system will cost $60 million, which will be financed by Capital Metro’s sales receipts and federal dollars with no tax increase on residents. In 2000, the cost of the proposed light-rail system was $1.9 billion, much of which would have been debt-financed via transportation bonds. • Size and scope. The commuter rail line would run on 32 miles of existing railroad track from Leander to downtown Austin through one of the region’s fastest-growing corridors. Because Capitol Metro owns the track, its trains will take priority over freight trains that use the railroad track. • Noise and neighborhoods. If rail is approved, Capital Metro wants to buy a quiet type of clean-burning diesel locomotive that would make a stop in Leander and eight stops in Austin, flashing past neighborhoods in seconds. In 2000, the agency pushed for light-rail trains that would run off electricity on nonexisting tracks, requiring a lot of disruption and construction to put in overhead wires and new tracks. • Accountability. By using existing railroad tracks and sales receipts, voters would be able to gauge the benefit of commuter rail and Capital Metro’s management of it with very little risk. In 2000, Capital Metro asked voters to write a huge check for a largely unspecified project. Critics have tried to confuse voters by saying that the money spent on passenger rail could instead be used to build proposed roads, and therefore reduce the need for toll roads. But the money for rail, particularly federal dollars, isn’t transferrable to road construction. And if it became available, the amount in question, $60 million, would be enough to build only about 2 miles of highway. Passenger rail works for commuters who want a stress-free ride to work, seniors who want to shop but not drive, and people with disabilities who are unable to drive but want to enjoy downtown. What isn’t working is the roads-only approach. This year, Austin was again rated among the top medium-sized cities in the United States for road delays. Traffic congestion in Austin — now more than 7 hours a day — has doubled since 1982, according to Texas A&M researchers. Congestion won’t immediately abate when and if passenger rail starts up. But we’re not building the system just for today. It’s an investment in the future. In about three years, the region is expected to have about 1.5 million people. Waiting until that future has arrived before getting started on a solution hasn’t worked in the case of building roads. We can ignore growth, but it won’t ignore us. Capital Metro has the tracks, the money and the expertise. What it needs is the permission of voters in the Capital Metro service area. Let’s give them the green light.

BART tax wins over its foes

Alameda Times-Star (Alameda, CA) October 23, 2004 Measure AA is not about whether BART is vulnerable to earthquakes. It is, and dangerously so. Nor is it about how much it will cost to fix the problem. The $980 million bond request has withstood scrutiny. Measure AA is all about how to pay for it. The key question before voters in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties next month is this: Do property owners who never ride BART derive a benefit from its service, and should they pay a tax to keep it running after the Big One? The same question was posed two years ago, and a BART revolt in Contra Costa County sank the measure. Taxed, trainless and traffic-clogged east county refused to pay more until BART ponied up money of its own. BART’s critics diluted the overwhelming support of two other counties so much that the measure failed the two-thirds mark, even though a majority in Contra Costa voted yes. BART is making the same request again, with a handful of notable tweaks. It got $143 million from bridge tolls. It lowered its tax request about $200 million. It leaves open the need for BART to find $50 million on its own, although transit officials can’t say how. This time, BART’s engineers have a more precise handle on what the work entails. The electorate, engrossed by presidential stakes, is expected to flock to the polls in record droves. In liberal Alameda and San Francisco counties, high turnout puts the two-thirds threshold in reach. The changes have turned the major taxpayer watchdog groups in Alameda and Contra Costa counties from foes to supporters. But not all of them. “Instead of spending money on maintenance and strengthening the Transbay Tube they spent it on salaries and benefits,” said Ken Hambrick, with the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, the most vocal critic in 2002. “They haven’t done anything about this since the 1989 earthquake and now all of a sudden in 2004 the tube is going to collapse.” The submerged Transbay Tube is BART’s doomsday scenario. It sits in a trench of loose soil, prone to liquefaction. When a major quake strikes, the soil will turn to jelly, buoyancy will rupture the tube and under high-pressure, the in-rushing Bay water will flood all the downtown San Francisco stations, seismic experts warn. It’s one main reason earthquake experts are joined by just about every major politician in the area supporting Measure AA, plus business, labor, environmental and public safety leaders. “The very economy and life of the Bay Area is at stake,” said Bay Area Council President Jim Wunderman. “BART has proved itself to be the lifeblood of the region, and we have to do the right thing. BART is a central part of what makes this region function.” “This is safety work that must get done. If Measure AA fails, I fear that we’ll be forced to compete with other critically needed projects,” said BART Deputy General Manager Dorothy Dugger. Hambrick counters that a “no” vote doesn’t stop the retrofit. It forces BART to be more efficient with its money. He argues that an initial 19-cent surcharge on tickets would be enough to pay for the work. The numbers don’t add up, though. BART’s 91 million annual passengers would raise $17 million a year, nowhere near enough over the life of a 30-year bond to complete the work. Measure AA would ask each property owner to pay $7.04 per $100,000 of assessed value. BART did raise fares in the mid-1990s to pay for $1.2 billion in systemwide renovations. It paid for refurbished trains, new ticket machines, repaired escalators and new platform signs. Dugger said it will take another 25 years to pay off the debt. “Our fares are already the highest in the region and 80 percent of our riders have a choice. They can drive. Pricing ourselves out of the market by placing that kind of burden on them would be counterproductive. We would make the system safe, but nobody would ride it,” Dugger said. She and her allies say it’s in property owners’ interests to pay. They point to studies released in the last month, including one paid for by BART, that show some Bay Area commutes taking three hours if BART stopped running. Coincidence? Hambrick doesn’t think so. And voters may have cause to be skeptical of seismic retrofit projects. At one time the new Bay Bridge was pegged to cost $1 billion. It is now estimated at $5.1 billion. BART’s chief engineer James Dunn is confident that won’t happen with BART. The elevated tracks are being repaired in much the same way Caltrans strengthened hundreds of overpass columns. The tube will be repaired using the techniques that strengthened the Webster and Posey tubes. It’s proven technology, and most of the uncertainties have been studied, he said.

Experts offer 4 light rail alternatives; But forum closes with no consensus on a system to use for the next routes

The Houston Chronicle October 23, 2004 An expert panel concluded Metro’s three-day technology forum Friday by identifying four modes as potentially feasible alternatives to light rail for development in future transit corridors. The 11-member group, made up of local and national experts in transportation and related fields, selected Automated People Mover, Mini Metro, monorail and urban magnetic-levitation trains as systems that could compete with expansion of the existing light rail line on Main Street. Eight other modes were presented Wednesday and Thursday as the Metropolitan Transit Authority, under new leadership, reconsiders whether light rail is the best form of rapid transit in the Houston region. People-movers are small, automatically driven vehicles commonly used to connect terminals at major airports, including Bush Intercontinental in Houston. Mini Metros, used in medium-size European cities such as Copenhagen, Denmark, are smaller-scale subways that operate short trains on a frequent schedule. The other methods, monorail and maglev, are both trains that glide along an elevated beam. A monorail has wheels underneath that drive along the beam’s side while a maglev uses electromagnetic suspension to float the train along an iron rail. All four modes operate either above or below ground, removing conflicts between cars and trains — a key distinction from the 7 1/2 -mile Main Street line, which has experienced a high crash rate. By eliminating grade conflicts, the four could travel much faster and allow for the possibility of computer-controlled operation. Panelists had different opinions when pressed by Metro Chairman David Wolff to select their top choice for the Northline and Southeast rail routes now under design. “Light rail is by far the most appropriate one for those extensions, plus it would be comparable with what you already have,” said Vukan Vuchic, professor of transportation and city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania. “Introducing a new technology is something you try to avoid.” Mark Cover, senior vice president of the real-estate development firm Hines, said the Northline route to Bush airport poses a separate challenge because of its long distance. “The fact we have light rail here and working very well is a compelling reason to want to do more of that,” he said. “But for the airport, you have a demand for not only serving the neighborhoods, but a demand for speed. A maglev or something like that there could be a good technology.” Frank Russo, a project manager with transportation consultant DMJM+Harris, concurred a more sophisticated mode is needed for Northline. “The problem any system at grade has is there’s too many stops, and it goes too slowly to serve the airport efficiently,” Russo said. “There has to be an elevated or dedicated guideway with limited stops.”

SOUTH HILLS GARAGE WON’T BE FINISHED ON SCHEDULE

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania) October 23, 2004 The Port Authority’s mammoth 2,200-space park-n-ride garage next to South Hills Village mall won’t be finished on schedule next month. March 6 is the revised date for opening the seven-story garage — largest in Western Pennsylvania — and phasing in new 47S light rail “express” service originating there and traveling Downtown via the new Overbrook line. Coincidentally, it’s also the day the authority is to eliminate bus, trolley, incline and paratransit service after 9 p.m. weekdays and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays if the Legislature fails to rescue it from a $30 million operating budget deficit. Authority officials also disclosed yesterday that the Wabash Tunnel, being converted for use by car and van pools, is nearing completion and will probably be opened sometime between Christmas and New Year’s. Construction of the $21 million facility is 90 percent done, including the ramp connecting the north end to Carson Street across from Station Square. The electrical contractor is still installing and testing the reversible lane-control system that will be used to operate the tunnel inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. The authority projected that 700 high-occupancy vehicles a day will use the tunnel, some of which would park free in a new parking lot on the bluff above Carson Street. Authority Engineering-Construction Manager Henry Nutbrown blamed the delay in the $24 million parking garage on a Marietta, Ohio, subcontractor who was supposed to manufacture more than 700 precast beams for the prime contractor, Walsh Construction Co. of Chicago. When the supplier went out of business, Walsh had to find four other subcontractors to fill the order and truck the beams to the Bethel Park site. The contract with Walsh Construction includes a $6,000-a-day penalty provision for damages, or delays, for every day after Nov. 1 that the transit agency is unable to use the new garage. To ease the park-n-ride crunch for T riders displaced by construction, the authority is paying $63,700 to Simon Property Group Inc. to lease 600 spaces in the Lazarus-Macy’s lot at the mall. The authority said the lease covers the upcoming holiday shopping season and that parking, while tight, has been manageable. The authority has agreed to pay about $500,000 to Parkway Paving of Pennsylvania Inc. to operate the park-n-ride garage for the first two years. Although the all-day fee has not been disclosed, it will be at least $1. Authority Operations Manager Steve Banta said the agency always intended to start 47S service at the same time as the parking garage opens. It will provide South Hills riders with a time-saving trip on the Overbrook line as opposed to the 42S line that passes through Mt. Lebanon, Dormont and Beechview. He said 18 of 28 new light rail vehicles have been delivered. Although a dozen are in daily use, he acknowledged mostly computer glitches have caused delays or forced riders to switch to other cars. “It’s part of the shakedown period,” Banta said. “All vehicles are under warranty, so there’s no additional cost to us. Unfortunately, some riders are being inconvenienced.” Banta said the manufacturer has finished rehabilitating the first two of 40 existing LRVs. One is sitting in Baltimore Harbor awaiting customs clearance before being trucked to Pittsburgh; the other is aboard a freighter sailing from Spain. The Port Authority has a $151.3 million contract with a Spanish firm, CAF, to build 28 new cars, rehabilitate the 40 existing cars, and supply parts and employee training.

FOUR DOT OFFICIALS SUSPENDED; AUDIT FINDS ‘SERIOUS IRREGULARITIES’ IN HANDLING OF CONTRACTS, ACCOUNTS

Hartford Courant (Connecticut) October 23, 2004 Connecticut’s top public transit administrator and three other state managers were suspended with pay Friday after a special audit found “serious irregularities” in financial and contracting procedures. The audit says that more than $2 million was spent on renovations at the Bridgeport and Stamford transportation centers without contracts, that deceptive invoices were used to justify hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments and that a private management company controlled parking fees with little or no oversight. Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who announced the suspensions during a press conference with Transportation Commissioner Stephen E. Korta II, said she has asked the U.S. attorney’s office to investigate and the state attorney general to consider civil litigation for damages. “I have received a profoundly troubling report from the auditors of public accounts,” Rell said. “It documents serious irregularities in the way the Bureau of Public Transportation has handled state contracts, invoices, bidding procedures and state bank accounts.” The bureau is the DOT unit that oversees bus and rail operations. Rell sought the audit in July on the recommendation of Korta, who raised concerns about certain financial practices after becoming commissioner in April. She praised him Friday for his swift action. “These abuses did not occur on my watch, but I am telling you this: They will not continue on my watch,” said Rell, who became governor July 1. “People should recognize that we saw a problem, we acted right away and we are fixing it. But make no mistake. There is nothing to be happy about today.” Those suspended are Harry P. Harris, the public transit administrator; Raymond F. Cox, the assistant administrator; Carl D. Rosa, the director of concessions, operations and revenue; and Saverio Robert Sereno, the supervising rail officer. They have state job tenures ranging from nine to 38 years. None could be reached for comment. Korta said he concluded that the public transit bureau had been allowed to operate without the same financial controls and bidding procedures employed by the DOT’s other bureaus, which oversee the state’s highways, airports and port operations. For example, he said that Unicco Service Co. of Stamford, the private management company in charge of the Bridgeport and Stamford transportation centers, was allowed to oversee bidding on some contracts — even though Uniccohad no legal authority to conduct such bidding. In a review of 13 projects with expenditures exceeding $100,000, the auditors found evidence of bidding in only two instances. Unicco originally was hired on an emergency basis to perform janitorial, security and maintenance and other services after the state took over operations in Bridgeport in 1994 and Stamford in 2000. The contract specifically excluded Unicco from handling capital projects, yet from April 2000 to July 2004 the company was reimbursed for more than $2 million in capital projects, including a $1.3 million renovation of the Stamford concourse and $521,160 in improvements to offices at Union Station in New Haven. Officials said that none of the repairs was authorized, but the New Haven work was perhaps the most puzzling: Unicco had no contract to even do janitorial work at Union Station. To pay the company for the New Haven work, at least seven invoices were falsified to indicate that the money was for services performed in Stamford, the audit says. “There are some pretty conscious decisions to subvert public procedures and the spending of public dollars,” said Kevin P. Johnston, the Democratic state auditor. Unicco could not be reached for comment. Auditors said they found no evidence that transit bureau staff took substantive action after a previous audit of the Bridgeport and Stamford parking operations discovered an unexplained drop in revenue and an increase in “no charge” tickets. The staff allowed Unicco to draw its fees from an account containing parking lot revenues, meaning that the company had little or no supervision in its handling of state funds.

On guard on the tracks; Armed with automatic weapons, high-profile SWAT teams patrol BART trains

The San Francisco Chronicle OCTOBER 23, 2004 Passengers did plenty of double-takes Friday morning as BART police Sgts. Eugene Wong and Kevin Franklin, carrying assault rifles and gas masks and clad in SWAT uniforms, made their way through the Balboa Park station in San Francisco. “D-a-a-a-amn!” exclaimed Stephan Lee, 40, as the sergeants strode past him on the platform. “This isn’t even the airport!” Bernedette Bell, 40, had a similar reaction. At first, she thought that something was wrong. But Franklin reassured her, “Just high-profile patrol right now.” The transit agency has had a special weapons and tactics team — commonly known as SWAT — for many years, and regular BART officers have been on heightened alert since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But for the first time, BART tactical officers, following the lead of transit agencies in cities such as Los Angeles, New York and Washington, began patrolling the system this week to deter potential terrorists as election day draws near. BART is the only transit agency in Northern California that is deploying SWAT officers on a routine basis. No specific threats have been reported to BART or any other transit agency, but authorities don’t want to take any chances, said BART Police Chief Gary Gee. “For months, there has been a national security concern that a terrorist attack will disrupt the upcoming elections,” Gee said. That’s why Franklin, 34, and Wong, 42, spent several hours Friday getting on and off trains as they made their way from BART police headquarters at the Lake Merritt station in Oakland to San Francisco International Airport. They were met by plenty of quizzical stares and some raised eyebrows as they inspected various stations, peeked out the doors of some trains and walked the length of others, looking for anything amiss. Franklin used the muzzle of his rifle at one point to look under a pile of newspapers on a seat. “Is that yours?” Wong asked a bearded man, who looked at a green bag on a train seat and nodded. As a train hurtled toward San Francisco, Wong asked the same question of Antonio Nieves, 55, of Oakland. “It’s my lunch,” Nieves said sheepishly of a plastic bag sitting at his feet. “I think these guys are doing a pretty good job,” Nieves said. At the Balboa Park station, Joel Mansfield, 22, of San Francisco doffed his hat at the sergeants. “It’s good to see you out here,” he told them. Franklin and Wong made a point of greeting riders with disarming smiles while at the same time keeping their fingers at the ready on their M-4 and AR-15 rifles. “How are you? How are you doing?” they said repeatedly. They waved to train operators as they pulled into stations. Wong, a nine-year BART police veteran, turned serious when he saw a man, apparently late, trying to wedge open the doors to a train. “Don’t hold open the door,” Wong said sternly. BART train operator Heidi Quinonez, 31, riding to the San Francisco airport, said the patrols are comforting. “I know they’re looking for suspicious people or suspicious packages,” she said. “It feels safe.” The sergeants told riders who chatted with them to notify police if they see anything suspicious. The high-visibility patrols, which include explosive-detecting K-9 units and volunteers in fluorescent vests, might continue after election day, BART police said. “We don’t want terrorists to think, ‘Cool, after the election we can do anything we want to do,’ “ said Franklin, a former Oakland police officer and eight-year veteran of the BART force. The special patrols will also be done at different times of the day throughout the 43-station system, which runs through four counties. “We decided to have officers do random sweeps,” Wong said. “If terrorists want to scope us out, we didn’t want them to see our routine.” BART’s SWAT team, consisting of 18 officers, two medics and a commander, used to be called SPAR, for the Special Problems and Rescue team. But too many people were confused. “They thought it was a boxing team or something,” Gee said.

Men who built New York City’s subway system

National Public Radio (NPR) October 23, 2004 SCOTT SIMON, host: When the New York City subway was built 100 years ago, it was a marvel of engineering — still is. Other subways had already been started in London, Paris, a few other places, but the geological difficulties of building an underground system on a crowded and rocky island were unique. As part of NPR’s series on the 100-year anniversary of the New York City subway system, Robert Smith travels to the deepest station in Manhattan to tell the story of the men who built it. ROBERT SMITH reporting: It’s easy to think that the only vertical variation in Manhattan is in the height of the skyscrapers, but New York City on the ground is anything but flat. Riding the path of the original subway line, you can see the challenge that early builders faced. SMITH: North of Harlem, the subway emerges from a tunnel, and within seconds it’s racing along a high trestle over the Manhattan valley. Ms. VIVIAN HELLER (Author, “The City Beneath Us”): It’s actually very hilly. SMITH: Vivian Heller is the author of “The City Beneath Us,” the history of the subway system. As the subway plunges back underground, she points out the window at the other thing that made building subways so difficult. Ms. HELLER: The actual rock itself is so treacherous and unstable, so that was another element that they had to work with that was tricky. SMITH: The early workers built most of the subway with a technique known as cut and cover. They dug a trench, laid the rails, and then covered it over again. But up here in northern Manhattan, cut and cover would have made the subway feel like a roller coaster, so in order to keep the train level, planners had to go deep. Ms. HELLER: It was 180 feet, so it was really a mining operation because of the depth involved. So now we’re at 191st Street. Unidentified Man: A hundred and ninety-first. Ms. HELLER: This is the Ft. George tunnel section. SIMON: This station is at the deepest point of the original line, and it has the wet chill of a cave. This section would prove the most challenging to the chief engineer and visionary of the New York subway, William Barclay Parsons. Ms. HELLER: He was chosen to be chief engineer when he was 35 years old, and many people felt that he was much too young for this huge undertaking. He was interrogated very closely and revealed a knowledge of all of the systems of the city that was incredibly minute and detailed, and actually he just astonished everyone. SMITH: The cut-and-cover sections of the subway were built mostly by unskilled laborers, African-Americans and Irish and Italian immigrants. But Parsons knew he would need specialists for the tunneling sections. Clifton Hood is a history professor at Hobart and William Smith colleges. He wrote a subway history called “722 Miles.” Professor CLIFTON HOOD (Author, “722 Miles”): These were miners who came from the anthracite coal mines in eastern Pennsylvania. They came from silver mines in Colorado, from the Klondike gold strike. They came from South Africa’s gold and diamond mines. These were highly skilled workers who were paid about 3.75 a day, which was quite a good wage in those times, and they came with real skills. SMITH: Not much is known about the men’s lives. They stayed in rowdy boarding houses up above the tunnel in Washington Heights, and dance halls and casinos opened to serve them. In photos from the time, they stand with their faces in deep shadow, their black hats and vests covered in a light rock dust. They would drill holes for explosives, set them off, clear out the rubble, build framing, and then do it all over again. It was loud and smelly work and sometimes deadly. The worst disaster in the building of the subway took place just a few hundred feet from the 191st Street station in October of 1903. Author Vivian Heller. Ms. HELLER: The poignant thing about the Ft. George disaster is that the tunnel was almost completed when it occurred, and the schedule had been stepped up. The contractor was pressing the foremen, so they had gone from doing two blasts a day to doing three blasts a day. SMITH: After one of those blasts, a supervisor gave the all clear and the men went back inside the tunnel. Then a 300-ton boulder fell from the roof. Prof. HOOD: Six are killed instantly and several more are very, very badly hurt. There’s a Catholic priest who bravely goes down, ministers the last rites to these men, most of them Italian men crushed so badly they’re not recognizable, their names aren’t even known. They’re described in the newspapers as just by their employment number. SMITH: Engineer William Parsons, when he wrote about the accident in his journal, didn’t even mention that in the end 10 people died in the accident. Clifton Hood says that in the technological triumph of the subway, the story of the people who built it has gotten lost. Prof. HOOD: We ignore these workers. They’re not given much attention in the triumphal accounts of the subways. You don’t see their images on any of the stations. Most New Yorkers who ride through the subway don’t give a single thought to the fact that real people actually built it, and in some cases died and were injured building it. And that’s a part of the story that I think we really need to get it back in. SMITH: The only monument that exists to the workers of the tunnels is the subway itself and the city it transformed. Robert Smith, NPR News, New York. SIMON: For sounds and sights from our series on the New York City subway, you can go to our Web site at npr.org.

Saturday Review: Dispatches: From the archives: The new London Tube shelters, from the Manchester Guardian, September 12 1942

The Guardian (London) October 23, 2004 Journalists were invited yesterday to inspect one of the new London Tube shelters, about which there have been many rumours, some of them rather extravagant. There are eight of these shelters, each with bunks for 8,000 people. They have been built under Tube stations, four on the north side of the Thames and the other four on the south. The shelters have all been built, with slight variations, to a common design which will enable them to become part of a new underground railway after the war. The basis of the design is two tunnels side by side, each of them 16 feet in diameter and divided by a concrete slab into an upper and lower deck, so that the height of each deck is some eight feet. This gives in effect four parallel tunnels, each about 1,200 feet long and provided with bunks for 2,000 people. Each of these four tunnels is divided into four sections by cross passages in which are the medical aid posts, lavatories, machinery control rooms, and so forth. In each of the tunnel sections there is a canteen or snack bar designed to serve hot drinks, sandwiches, and cakes, and, perhaps, hot pies. The bunks have been arranged in three tiers on both sides of the tunnels with a good deal of ingenuity; some of them fold up if required so as to form back rests for a lower tier of bunks and so provide comfortable benches for sitting during the early part of the evening. There are five entrances well distributed over the shelter. The biggest and easiest is a wide staircase from the Tube station above, which leads down to the central cross-passage of the shelter and so gives access to all parts. The other four entrances are from the ground outside, and each consists of a small emergency lift and a staircase descending side by side and finally reaching the upper decks of the tunnels at points midway between their ends and the central cross-passage. All parts of the shelter can be reached from all five entrances, so that even if four entrances are blocked by bombing none of the shelterers will be cut off from escape. There are altogether four medical aid posts, each of which, when the shelter is occupied, will be manned by a doctor, a sister in charge, and four nurses, all of them voluntary. The general running of the shelter will be in the hands of a staff of full-time wardens, assisted by part-timers and also, it is hoped, by volunteers from the shelterers themselves. The canteens in shelters south of the river will be run by the Women’s Co-operative Guild, those north of the river by church organisations. When the Minister of Home Security does decide that circumstances warrant the opening of these new shelters the public will be informed and will be told at the same time which people are eligible to use them and what steps they should take. In the meantime no applications from anybody for tickets or admission to the shelters will be accepted.

Joined-up Swiss climbs to peaks rolling stock of perfection

The Times (London) October 23, 2004 Buying your ticket is easy, trains are punctual and the panoramic views stunning. Chloe Bryan-Brown on a transport system that offers pleasure and drama I am not your average trainspotter but living in Switzerland almost turned me into one. No other country can match it for its public transport system, including spectacular cross-country trains and gravity-defying mountain railways. In the four years I lived there as a young reporter for the Swiss equivalent to our World Service, I fell head over heels in love with travelling by train. I had not thought myself susceptible to such a romance. Previous rail journeys had been mostly miserable affairs on Connex South Central. They were one disappointment after another as trains arrived late or cold or dirty -or all three at once -and I came to dread my drab journeys home. Switzerland could not have been more different. Sometimes, when friends came from England for a holiday, I would use tourist services on well-known scenic routes; other times I would take trains to leave the country to visit Paris, Milan or Barcelona. But most often my journeys were on standard commuter routes from the capital, Berne, where I lived, to the suburbs or to other cities, where I would go for work or to visit friends. It did not really matter where; however epic or short and workaday, the journey would always begin with the same sense of excitement and unfold with the same pleasure and drama. The experience would start at the station, where queueing for tickets and finding the right platform was always a breeze. There I would wait for my train, which would invariably pull in, on time, to a fanfare of clear announcements in three languages. Boarding was dignified, with passengers greeting each other with a polite gruessach or bonjour before settling into comfortable seats. Connections were easy. Despite a mixture of state-owned and private operators, Switzerland has a fully joined-up transport system: trains, buses, boats and funiculars all connect with one another. I have often wondered what Swiss visitors to Britain must make of the mind-boggling lack of integration between train and other transport companies in this country. Then there was the view. I had arrived in the country with little notion that, though small, Switzerland has an incredibly diverse landscape -tranquil lakes, vineyards, grassy valleys and waterfalls as well as mountains. I soon realised that even the most banal of commuter routes is worth taking for the views. However, some cross-country journeys really stand out, both for the sheer pleasure they offer in terms of train travel (fellow trainspotters, you know what I mean) and the spectacular scenery on the way. Chief among these is the Glacier Express, a rollercoaster of a train -it plummets from 1,604m (5,620ft) above sea level to 671m, up to 2,033m down to 585m and up to 1,775m, while passing through 91 tunnels and crossing 291 bridges. The express links the winter sports resorts of Zermatt in the southwest and St Moritz in the southeast. In between, the landscape rolling past during the seven-and-a-half-hour ride ranges from breathtaking to pleasingly pastoral. The climax comes at the Albula Pass, where the train climbs 416m over 13km (eight miles) via disorientating corkscrew loops, tunnels and viaducts that knock into a cocked hat anything you might experience at a theme park. The ride attracts 250,000 passengers a year. It is hard to imagine improving on such an experience. But the clever Swiss never rest on their laurels. In 1983, 53 years after the train first ran, wraparound panoramic windows were installed, making passengers feel that they are actually a part of the scenery rather than just watching it pass by. It is rather like wearing 3-D glasses at the cinema -you feel you could reach right out and ring a cow’s bell. The Glacier Express was not the first train to have panoramic windows. They were introduced in 1979 on its slightly less-feted little sister, the Golden Pass Panoramic. Not to be outdone, it went one better than the Glacier Express in 1993 by raising the driver’s cab on certain trains to give eight lucky passengers at the front a completely unobstructed view. And what a view. Depending on which way you travel, the Golden Pass Panoramic is the first or third part of the Golden Pass Line. It operates between balmy Montreux in the French-speaking west of the country to Zweisimmen in the craggy German speaking Bernese Oberland. En route, the countryside veers between sunny vineyards above Montreux to dense woods in the Sarine gorge and blue skies above the romantic resort of Chateau d’Oex. It is a relatively short journey -around two hours but you still manage to climb 1,274m to Saanenmoser, where even higher spike tipped mountains dominate the distance. The Bernina Express is the third panorama sister and the only one on which you need your passport. Starting at Chur in eastern Switzerland and taking in the last part of the Glacier Express route, this train soars to 2,253m, the highest train crossing of the Alps, before descending like a wall of death to 429m at Tirano in Italy. It comes to rest back in Switzerland’s sunny southern Italian-speaking canton of Ticino with its palm trees, oleanders and camellias. Apart from the thrills such train journeys offer, I also became fascinated by the social history surrounding rail travel there. For one thing, it is inextricably bound up with British tourism. It was the Brits who, because of their insatiable desire to conquer Swiss peaks by foot and later on skis, were the driving force behind the construction and expansion of many of the railways -from Europe’s first rack-and-pinion railway up Mount Rigi, with its breathtaking panorama of peaks (opened in 1871, it is still in use), to the Jungfrau railway, which climbs to Jungfraujoch. At 3,454m it is the highest station in Europe (passengers are advised to be aware of the effect of altitude). Despite the rest of the world’s obsession with road and air travel, Switzerland is still investing in its railways after about 150 years and still drawing the tourists. So trainspotters will always have somewhere to go.

• Getting there: It is possible to organise your own trainspotting holiday in Switzerland because the transport system is so easy to navigate. The best value ticket is a Swiss Pass, which allows you unlimited travel on most of the public transport network and also gives a 25 per cent discount on certain private mountain railways. It costs from £103 for one person for a four-day standard-class pass to £352 for a one-month first-class pass.

More scenic train routes: William Tell Express: Lucerne to Lugano. Combines a paddle steamer on Lake Lucerne in central Switzerland with first-class travel, including a three-course lunch, to southern Switzerland’s Italian-speaking canton. Heidi Express: Landquart to Tirano. Serves the world-class skiing resorts of Klosters and Davos before crossing the Bernina Pass and descending into Italy. Chocolate Train: Montreux to Broc. Ride in a Pullman car or panoramic saloon, including visits to Gruyeres Castle, a cheese factory and the Nestle chocolate factory.

Take it easy on the night shift

The Times (London) October 23, 2004 Got a meeting in Berlin at 9am on Monday? Many business people think there is no alternative to struggling out of bed at 3am, gulping down a few cornflakes, driving to the airport and hanging around waiting for the first flight of the day. In fact, it is still possible to leave London on an evening Eurostar, have a beer or two in Brussels then hop on the night train and arrive in Berlin at 8.30am after a sleep, shower and breakfast on the train. Rumours of the death of the overnight train, consisting of luxury sleeper and budget couchette cars, have been exaggerated. True, many routes have been cut in the face of competition from low-cost airlines, border-free car travel and even the railways’ own high-speed day trains. Some railways also seem to consider night trains too much of a problem. Ironically, whereas Europe has abolished borders, it has also pushed railways to charge for access to tracks. Operators redid their sums and found they were losing money hand over fist. But night trains are still up and running. Gone are the days when, in high summer, one had to choose between frying alive or opening the window and being kept awake at night. It is now unusual to find a train without air-conditioning west of Berlin. Europe’s ultra-smooth tracks also mean a good night’s sleep for most. Railways have also cut out noisy stops in the middle of the night and even ask drivers to go more slowly to help rock the passengers to sleep and to arrive at a civilised hour. At the top of the range en suite toilets and ingeniously designed showers are the norm. The latest Italian trains even have one double bed in their Excelsior coaches allocated to routes from Rome, Florence and Venice to Paris. Otherwise, sleeper compartments have one, two or three bunks in first class that fold up to reveal seats. Couchette compartments still usually have four or six bunks each, with washing and toilet facilities along the corridor. Sophisticated reservation systems now allow railways to allocate compartments by sex. Gone is potential embarrassment -and some of the adventure. France’s railways group passengers by destination to avoid those leaving the train early waking up their neighbours. Sleepers may seem expensive but the price looks more attractive after subtracting the saving in hotel costs. Railways are now fighting back against low-cost airlines. Artesia, which operates from Paris to Italy, is offering couchettes at Euro 35 (£24) single in the low season, and Elipsos has introduced a Euro 59 pre-booked fare on its trains from Paris to Madrid and Barcelona. French Railways will soon introduce a Euro 70 first-class bargain fare. With Eurostar’s Euronight trains aborted at an advanced planning stage, it is still necessary to take a late afternoon Eurostar to pick up an overnight connection on the Continent. From Lille, SNCF operates a service for part of the year to Cannes and Nice and to the Languedoc in summer only. From Brussels there are nightly trains to Hamburg (a good connection reaches Copenhagen by lunchtime), Berlin, Warsaw and Moscow. An afternoon Eurostar to Paris gives access to a wide variety of destinations in the South of France and the Alps, plus Frankfurt, Munich (with easy connections to Salzburg), Vienna (connections to Budapest), Zurich, Chur (connections to St Moritz), Milan, Turin, Venice, Florence, and Rome, Madrid and Barcelona. Lisbon and Porto are in theory possible, but involve long drags on daytime TGVs to the Spanish border. Incredibly, the Paris to Prague train was taken off recently, but train lovers can reach the Czech capital using Eurostar to Brussels, the sleek German ICE and then a night train from Frankfurt. Some operators offer easy internet booking but it is usually possible to obtain a better price from a travel agent specialising in rail journeys (for further details, see page 15).

Desire brings back streetcars

Washington Times October 24, 2004 They glide with easy authority and monumental grace down the boulevard — icons of an era when gents wore fedoras and city life was quite civilized, indeed. Behold, the mighty streetcar, bound for some splendid destination just around the bend. But wait. This isn’t granddad’s era. America has struck up a new love affair with old-fashioned transportation: A fierce loyalty to streetcars has seized the imaginations of city planners, nostalgic neighbors, trolley aficionados and politicians alike around the country. It is a plucky, steel-wheeled symbol of worth — and charm. About two dozen U.S. cities and towns have active streetcar lines and about 40 others have streetcar projects in the works, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Meanwhile, a new transportation bill meant to free up $625 million for new streetcar systems across the country is slowly making its way through the legislative process. Streetcars trundle through traffic in New Orleans, Denver, Dallas and Seattle, as well as in Tucson, Ariz.; Memphis, Tenn.; and Tampa, Fla., among other locales. Some cities use intrepid, original equipment on rail lines as old as the cities themselves. Others have invested in new tracks and striking reproduction streetcars in paint-box colors — the more exotic varieties costing more than $1 million each and imported from around the world. It doesn’t quite match the days before World War I, when the streetcar’s popularity was on a real roll: There were 45,000 miles of streetcar track in cities and towns around the nation — enough to transverse the country 18 times. These days, however, a couple of picturesque miles, a clickety-clack ride and a ding-dong bell is enough to do the trick. New Orleans takes considerable community pride in its three local streetcar systems. There’s the St. Charles Line: Lovingly restored, mahogany-trimmed, brass-fitted cars rumble along the same eight-block route that has been in place for 150 years, making it the oldest continuously operating streetcar system on the planet. The city also hosts the Riverfront Line, activated in 1998 after 12 years of planning among eight local, regional and federal agencies. In April, the old Canal Street Line was brought back into service after lying dormant for 40 years, complete with a fleet of 24 new streetcars especially constructed from the ground up by a team of blacksmiths, carpenters, electricians and mechanics. Though they’re based on 1920s designs, each car is air-conditioned, with a low-noise braking system and wheelchair lifts to accommodate the disabled. It costs $1.25 to take a spin along the 5?-mile route. “The streetcar has been a part of the social and cultural fabric of New Orleans since the 1800s, when the first horse-drawn cars made their way down St. Charles Avenue,” said Larry Lovell, spokesman for the New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corp. “Everything about them is iconic of the city, and New Orleans wouldn’t be the same without them,” he said. New Orleans has an unabashedly personal relationship with its streetcars. “If you see me coming on Canal Street, don’t turn in front of me. I have the right of way at intersections,” reads an official public traffic guide from the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. The “me” and the “I” in this case refer to the streetcar. And don’t refer to a ‘Nawlins streetcar by any other name. The town gets persnickety about such things. “Don’t call ‘em trolleys!” the city officials advise residents and tourists alike. “In New Orleans, we call our vintage electric rail vehicles ‘streetcars’ — never trolleys. No one knows exactly why or when New Orleans made the distinction. In most places, the terms are used interchangeably.” Indeed, the streetcar has a multitude of names, depending on the region — or such physical variables as the placement of track along the roadway. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “vintage” trolley or streetcar lines use antique equipment, while “heritage” lines use reproduction cars. Around the country, the genre also has been widely interpreted as a tram, peoplemover, streetcar circulator, trackless trolley, monorail and trolley bus — which is not a streetcar at all, but a rubber-tired bus masquerading as a streetcar. In some circles, the term “light rail” includes streetcars, though APTA specifies that light-rail systems generally use a track that is segregated from traffic and therefore travels at a higher speed then the typical streetcar — which has a tip-top speed of about 30 mph. With such slowness, perhaps, comes safety: According to the National Safety Council, one has a 1,230,975-to-1 chance of being killed on a streetcar in a lifetime. Three persons were killed in streetcar mishaps in 2002, the most recent statistics available. In contrast, 37 persons died in bus-related accidents, 26 in railway mishaps, 116 in animal-drawn vehicles and about 42,000 in auto accidents. Streetcar charisma, in the meantime, has attracted robust political interest. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Oregon Democrat, introduced a bill in Congress last year that champions the streetcar as a prime component of urban “livability,” economy and “green” thinking. The streetcar, it seems, appeals to the liberal heart. HR 1315 — The “Community Streetcar Development and Revitalization Act” — would make pilot grants of $15 million per year available to communities to either start up a new streetcar line or refurbish an existing line. The act would allot a total of $625 million from the Highway Trust Fund to be portioned out over a five-year period. Mr. Blumenauer cited the streetcar system in his own city — Portland — as a shining example of the possibilities, calling streetcar projects in general “a catalyst for development or redevelopment in urban areas … and to connect neighborhoods in a way that is very different from regional rail systems.” Cars, tracks, trolley wires and a car barn for Portland’s three-year-old, 2.4-mile loop cost the city $57 million. Supporters say it already has generated more than $1 billion in local development. The Blumenauer bill — backed by five Republicans and 17 Democrats — is meandering through a House subcommittee, and carefully spells out the definition of streetcar as an electrically powered “rail transit vehicle, including modern, antiques or reproductions.” High-speed light rail, rubber-tired trolley buses and other streetcar look-alikes would not be eligible for the funds. But streetcar appeal affects folks on the other side of the fence. “Bring back the streetcars!” wrote Paul Weyrich of the District-based Free Congress Foundation in a substantial study on streetcar feasibility. He concluded that streetcars could only enhance the renewed interest nationwide in old-fashioned town centers and traditional neighborhoods. Mile-for-mile, Mr. Weyrich said, the cost of a streetcar line was half that of light rail. “We want to be able to ride a mile and smile the while, just as our grandparents did, on steel rails, under electric power. What could be more natural for conservatives than wanting something good we used to have and have lost?” Mr. Weyrich noted. But not everyone finds the streetcar appealing — or practical. Only five rush-hour passengers boarded the new early-morning run of a $40 million tourist trolley system in Charlotte, N.C., which hoped to woo commuters with new, earlier hours this month. “It is a novelty at first for the tourist. People at conventions may use it, but not commuters who have to go to work,” resident John Popienek told reporters who had assembled for the inaugural ride. By midmorning, tourists and conventioneers were happily rumbling back and forth along the line. Undaunted city officials, meanwhile, insist the commuter business will eventually pick up. Still, there are more trolley aficionados than not around America. Last year, the Federal Transit Administration and two local transit authorities met in the District to investigate an ambitious 33-mile trolley system through four quadrants of the city to relieve traffic woes and urban isolation. The groups agreed to start small with a 2.7-mile line on existing rail tracks in Anacostia, beginning at the foot of the John Philip Sousa Bridge and ending at Bolling Air Force Base with an eye toward bolstering the economy of the oft-neglected district east of the river. There have been positive results. After an environmental assessment, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was given the green light by D.C. officials and a neighborhood planning board to pursue the project with $8 million for streetcars and $5.5 million to buy and prepare the land itself. Groundbreaking is scheduled to be held in a matter of weeks. Proud of the former title of a traditional “streetcar community,” Anacostians are pleased and proud to be the first area residents to receive “this new technology,” said D.C. Council member David A. Catania, at-large independent. The District itself has a rich streetcar history. Many beloved lines crisscrossed the city — bound for such spots as Glen Echo Park with its fine ballroom and sparking pool in the shady Maryland suburbs. Streetcars were a fixture in the District from 1871 to 1962, when city officials mournfully retired the last familiar green-and-ivory cars after Congress voted to replace the system with a fleet of diesel buses. Down in Arkansas, in the city of Little Rock, the brand-new River Rail Streetcar line is scheduled to begin operations Nov. 1, rolling along two miles of downtown property right in traffic — “just like in Little Rock’s old days,” said a spokeswoman from the Central Arkansas Transit Authority. Built at a cost of $16 million, the line will use replicas of the streetcars that ran in the city between 1920 and 1947. A planned second route also will include a stop at the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library. San Pedro, Calif., opened its 1.5-mile Red Car Line last year, using two replica cars and a 1907 car from the old Pacific Electric trolley system. The whole thing cost a modest $7 million, or about $4.7 million a mile. In transportation terms, that’s considered a pittance compared with a roadway built through a similar urban area, which typically costs $20 million a mile. Roadways in New York City and its vicinity cost $333 million a mile, according to recent research from the University of Southern California. Streetcars tend to inspire thrift and invention. Along with its cable cars, San Francisco, for example, has the “Market Street Railway,” which uses century-old streetcars to ferry locals and tourists alike through a major commercial district, with passing shop windows right at eye level. To keep costs down, devoted volunteers ferret out and lovingly restore derelict streetcars themselves for the line, which was built over a highway destroyed in a 1989 earthquake. Ithaca, N.Y., meanwhile, is one of the smallest towns with a trolley: Its 1905 fleet of locally restored cars with donated electric motors travel up the town’s steep hills, described by one enthusiast as “more than a ride. It’s a theatrical event.” Boasting brilliant yellow cars that roll along contentedly at about 10 mph, Tampa’s TECO Line streetcar system is just over 2 miles long and has 11 stops. The citizenry love the little line, and a modest expansion is planned. Streetcars present myriad strategic alliances for communities bent on bettering themselves without breaking the bank. Most contemporary streetcar towns obtain federal monies for their initial construction and startup costs, then use ridership revenue, private donations, corporate sponsorships and heartfelt community fund-raisers to maintain the line. Tampa’s TECO Line, for example, used state and federal money alone to construct the $32 million line. Annual operational costs of about $1.3 million are met through voluntary donations, advertising and income generated from honorary “naming” of cars, stops and routes by well- heeled individuals. The old streetcar has come to embody a kind of forward-thinking harmony between a town and its residents. “They bring out the good in people,” said New Orleans spokesman Mr. Lovell. “In our case, historic green cars whiz along the original St. Charles Avenue line and new, modernized air-conditioned red cars smoothly sail up Canal Street after a 40-year absence,” he said. “New Orleans relies on the streetcar for transportation, for tourism, and for economic revitalization — and it evokes a nostalgia that ties our modern-day progress to our important, historical past.”

THE FOLD: RIDE OF THE CENTURY 1904-2004; THEN & NOW

Newsday (New York) October 24, 2004 On the day the first subway rumbled out of a station beneath City Hall a century ago, the underground system was destined to forever change the way New Yorkers traveled. Throughout the 20th century, they became straphangers, commuting from the far-flung ends of the city. What started as a chance to travel 9 miles in Manhattan for a nickel became a citywide network. Each day, 4.5 million New Yorkers descend beneath crowded streets to take the subways. THE CAR 1904: The New York City subway system was the first passenger rail service anywhere to use all-steel cars. Designed by George Gibbs, the “Gibbs Cars” were rolled out in 1904. 1916: The BRT, later the BMT, “Standard” car was a foot wider and 16 feet longer than its predecessors to 10 feet wide by 67 feet long. 1949: The R-ll car does not represent a fleet of cars used on the tracks, but an experimental 10-car train used to test new design concepts for cars of the future. In the mid-1960s the cars were adapted and used for regular service. 2004: The $1.4-million stainless steel cars used today are brighter, with improved cooling and heating systems. They feature computerized signs that flash the time and the next station, and prerecorded announcements. Diagonal bars near the doors discourage purse and chain snatchings, and bigger windows allow police officers to see through several cars. THE MAPS: There are 660 miles of subway tracks used by riders to reach all corners of the city (not including depots.) The 2004 map, above, shows the vast expansion of the system proposed for Manhattan and the Bronx in 1901. THE MAYORS: Rapid transit commissioners and guests, including Mayor George B. McClellan, left, during a ceremonial inspection of the subway tracks in the months before the system opened to the public. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, above, was an ordinary straphanger on a recent trip downtown. THE RIDERS AND THE PRICE • March 24, 1900: William Barclay Parsons, chief engineer and planner, breaks ground for subway in City Hall Park. • Oct. 27, 1904: At 2:35 p.m., Mayor McClellan serves as motorman for the first run of the Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (IRT) subway. • Sept. 23, 1907: The Steinway tunnel opens, connecting Manhattan and Queens. (It’s now the Queensborough tunnel.) • March 19, 1913: Major expansion of subway in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx is approved. • Nov. 1, 1918: Worst crash in subway history. At least 97 killed, estimate 250 hurt, as train derails at Brooklyn’s Malbone Street, with a dispatcher at the controls while motormen were on strike. • 1940: IRT and BMT are combined under city ownership • June 12, 1953: The New York City Transit Authority, formed to oversee subway system. • March 1, 1968: The New York State Legislature creates the MTA to supervise operations in 12 counties, becoming NYC Transit’s parent agency. • 1968: Construction of Second Avenue subway begins; still not complete in 2004, but MTA is pushing ahead with the plan. • Dec. 22, 1984: Bernard Goetz, dubbed the “Subway vigilante,” shoots four teens he said were planning to rob him. Acquitted of attempted murder. Served time for possession of weapon. • May 12, 1989: Subway graffiti, ubiquitous in the 1970s, virtually disappears and authorities declare the underground “graffiti-free.” • Aug. 28, 1991: Five people killed, more than 200 injured when a downtown No. 4 derails near Union Square. Train operator convicted of manslaughter. • Sept. 11, 2001: Terrorist attack destroys World Trade Center subway station; rapid reconstruction begins TICKETS AND TOKENS • 1904: Paper tickets handed to ticket chopper at turnstile. • 1920s: Nickel-operated turnstiles installed. • July 25, 1953: Tokens debut. 48 million tokens with small Y minted. • Jan. 4, 1970: New tokens with larger Y introduced. 50 million tokens minted. • Oct. 12, 1979: Diamond Jubilee tokens sold, marking the subway’s 75th anniversary. 5.8 million minted. • June 28, 1980: Solid brass tokens with engraved Y. 60 million minted. • April 21, 1986: Bullseye tokens introduced, with steel centers to stem use of slugs. 90 million minted. • Dec. 11, 1988: Commemorative “Archer Avenue” tokens sold, marking opening of Archer Avenue, Parsons and Jamaica Center stations in Queens. 100,000 minted. • Nov. 12, 1995: “Five Borough” token sold, so-called because of pentagon-shaped hole in the middle. 60 million minted. • Jan. 6, 1994: MetroCard introduced. • May 4, 2003: Tokens eliminated.

A pathetic monopoly, lamented

Pittsburgh Tribune Review October 24, 2004 Poor Joe Hoeffel. It wasn’t his stupid idea to extend a twin tunnel for the “T” under the Allegheny River from Gateway Center to the North Shore. But the Democrat congressman from suburban Philly, who is trying to unseat Sen. Arlen Specter, had bravely come a-calling on the Trib’s editorial staff. Hoeffel, a likable textbook liberal, didn’t dream of winning our endorsement. But the poor guy didn’t expect me to pull a Dennis Miller on him and rant about the intermodal idiocy of the North Shore Connector, the Port Authority’s $381 million light-rail project. I railed on about how pitifully few people the 1.2 mile boondoggle would carry. How badly its construction would tear up both banks of the river. How the idea would never even be considered if it weren’t for that “free” 80 percent federal contribution. And how, except for a few cranks and free-market ideologues at the Trib, everyone was so gung-ho to build it — including Specter and his allegedly conservative comrade, Rick Santorum. Hoeffel had never heard of the tunnel scheme, which by the time it’s done in 2008 will surely cost closer to half-a-billion dollars. But even if he had, he’d have been all for it. Hoeffel and politicians from both major parties, not to mention their soul mates in the news media, are suckers for the fairy tales of government transportation interests and their “experts.” They believe the North Shore Connector really will spur economic development between the stadiums and carry 16,000 riders per weekday by 2018. But those pipe dreams won’t come true, just as similarly exaggerated ridership projections and economic promises did not come true for the first $1 billion worth of the county’s public transit frauds — the East, South and West busways and the “T,” the deeply subsidized light-rail service for the poor folk of Mt. Lebanon. Hoeffel changed the subject to health care reform as soon as he could, and I don’t blame him. I might have gone on for an hour about how horribly this region’s transportation system has been planned, regulated and mismanaged by governments for 60 years. It’s a mess everywhere you look. Our government bus monopoly is so pathetic it has to resort to threats of service cuts each year to extort the state subsidies it needs to operate. Our government-regulated taxi “market” is monopolized by a company that has been charging high fares, providing lousy service and discriminating against poor and blacks since the 1930s. Our beloved $1 billion-plus county-built airport, designed for one doomed tenant to monopolize, turned out to be too big. Meanwhile, our government highway professionals have not merely made us world-renowned for potholes and lousy roads. They’ve given us no beltway around Pittsburgh, but we have an interstate cutting through Downtown. We’ve got new tollways to the boondocks like Route 60. But we’re still stuck with two-lane parkways and Route 28 jam-ups and bad signage and fewer synchronized traffic lights than Baghdad. We’ve been victimized for generations by federal, state and local governments and their transportation gurus. Their mismanagement has probably done more long-term damage to the region’s economic health than the collapse of the steel industry. And sadly, no matter who’s elected nine days from now, our socialized transportation sector will be with us forever.

Voting on transit; The Twin Cities likes to talk about its traffic problem — Denver is actually doing something

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN October 24, 2004 It’s hard to imagine two cities so alike yet so different. Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul are roughly the same size. They share a similar politics and a similar socioeconomic profile. Each is geographically isolated midcontinent, far from coastal markets but close to natural beauty. Each thrives on education and competes for the same pool of creative, high-value workers. Each expects to add a million people over the next two decades, but struggles against a tide of traffic congestion that threatens to choke regional vitality and damage a cherished quality of life. What’s different is that Denver is doing something about it. On Nov. 2, voters in seven metro counties will be asked to approve a modest sales tax increase to finance a $4.7 billion expansion of the region’s transit network. In a span of just 12 years, Denver would add 119 miles of light rail and commuter rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, 24 percent more local bus service (mostly suburb to suburb) and 21,000 park-and-ride spaces, most of them along rail corridors where 53 new transit villages would be expected to sprout. Additional roads are not part of the plan. The goal is to remove 250,000 cars a day from the region’s most congested freeways by offering a viable choice. By 2020, one of every four rush-hour commuters along Denver’s most crowded roadways would be riding transit. To accomplish that, metro residents would pay an extra 0.4 percent on top of the existing 0.6 percent sales tax dedicated to transit. That’s four additional pennies on a $10 purchase, or an extra dime a day for the average resident. A poll last week by the Denver Post found the measure leading 54 to 33 percent, with 13 percent undecided. That doesn’t guarantee passage. But it encourages the extraordinary bipartisan coalition of local governments, business leaders and environmental groups that have worked for seven years to fashion a plan for voter approval. This moment may be as important to Denver’s future as the monumental 1870 decision to connect to the transcontinental railroad and the 1995 opening of a new airport. “Because of our natural attractiveness, we’re going to grow no matter what,” said John Huggins, the city’s economic development director. “The question is whether we can grow in a way that enhances our quality of life or destroys it. Do we want to be more attractive, like Boston or Portland, or more spread out, inconvenient and polluted like Los Angeles?” The measure may pass over the objection of Republican Gov. Bill Owens, a transit skeptic whose no-new-taxes pledge has also hampered road building, a task on which Colorado carries a $50 billion shortfall. Opposition comes also from the libertarian and antitax groups that dominate talk radio and the editorial page of the tabloid Rocky Mountain News. They complain of a “67 percent tax increase,” while the measure actually raises the sales tax in Denver from 7.2 to 7.6 cents per dollar. Opponents have hastily assembled an alternative that purports to pay for new freeway lanes with tolls. But there’s no room for wider roads. Even so, tolls wouldn’t cover the cost of new lanes and would offer only the “solution” of more driving and more cars — kind of like a diet that requires more eating. “The definition of madness is doing the same things and expecting different results,” said Bill Vidal, Denver’s public works director. As in the Twin Cities, politics here splits three ways. Democrats and independents favor the transit measure 2-1, while Republicans are evenly divided. “The key is that our effort has been Republican-led,” said Matt Baker, head of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “Only the business community can pivot Colorado away from this no-tax, no-growth nonsense.” “I call them the ‘CAVE’ people,” said Kevin Hougen, director of the Aurora Chamber of Commerce, “citizens against virtually everything.” Hougen, a Republican, said people will vote for transit projects as long as they know precisely what they’re getting. Denver’s plan adds three light-rail lines to the existing three, plus three longer-range commuter lines to, among other places, Boulder and the airport. Altogether, the Denver plan is more than twice as large as the most ambitious Twin Cities proposal. It’s important to build these lines almost simultaneously, proponents said, not only to save money and to prevent future congestion, but for the sake of unity. Building incrementally, as Colorado’s governor suggests, would take 50 or 60 years, exacerbating local jealousies and exposing some parts of the region to decades of neglect. Said Tom Clark, economic development director for the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce, “It would create, quite literally, the other side of the tracks.” Denver approaches these challenges with huge advantages over the Twin Cities. It has a dedicated, predictable source of funding for transit: the sales tax. It has the ability — through a ballot measure — to circumvent a reluctant governor and a hopelessly politicized legislature. It has a remarkably unified civic spirit in which suburbanites tend to celebrate central Denver, not despise it. Most important, it has an extraordinary record of civic investment that bolsters pride in the community. Indeed, Denver has undergone an extreme makeover, transforming itself from a depressed oil patch town in the 1980s to a lively competitor. In less than 20 years, it has built an airport, convention center, ballpark, football stadium, basketball-hockey arena, central library, a performing arts center and three light-rail lines. Total investment: $10 billion. Its latest venture is T-Rex, a $1.6 billion demonstration of how to dramatically expand the capacity of a major roadway without taking additional land. Instead of removing 500 homes and 200 businesses to add 10 lanes to a clogged six-lane freeway, Denver added two to four lanes and a light-rail line. The 19-mile combination project, built by borrowing against future federal gas tax revenues, exhausted the transit agency’s bonding capacity, however, leading to next month’s vote. “I think the big difference (between Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul) is cultural,” said Curt Johnson, the urban planning consultant and former chairman of the Twin Cities’ Metropolitan Council. “Denver thinks it needs to be bold to be good enough; we think we’re good enough without being bold.” Similar cities, similar challenge MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL DENVER Metro population, 2000 3.0 million 2.6 million Expected population, 2025 3.9 million 3.5 million Road miles, 2000 10,919 7,007 Average annual cost of driving per household, 2001 $9,176 $8,458 Hours spent in traffic delay per person, 2002 42 45 Gallons of fuel wasted in traffic delay, 2002 93 million 83 million Cost of traffic delay, 2002 $971 million $954 million Transit ridership, 2002 (unlinked trips) 75.1 million 80.1 million Percent of transit revenue from fares, 2002 32 percent 18 percent State gasoline tax per gallon 20 cents 22 cents Sales tax 6.5 percent 7.2 percent

THE JOURNEY TO FRANCE IS (STILL) BETTER BY BOAT

Independent on Sunday (London) October 24, 2004 It sounded like the death knell for the cross-Channel ferry industry last month when P&O announced it was to cut four of its 13 routes and shed 1,200 jobs. No-frills airline prices remain low, while the price of a Eurostar ticket to Paris is now pounds 59, compared to pounds 95 when the service started in 1994. Cut-throat prices across the travel industry have also affected Eurotunnel, where the number of cars using the tunnel in the three months from June to September fell by 5 per cent to 606,000. Does this mean that before long the only way to get to France will by Eurostar or aircraft? Despite the P&O blow, as well as the drop in revenue from duty free in 1999, ferries carried 22 million people to the Continent last year. Between January and June this year, they carried 7.8 million to France, compared with 5.3 million who flew there on all airlines. The ferry companies are certainly not behaving as if they are in their death throes. In all, there are currently 25 routes linking the UK mainland with France and the Low Countries. This includes three services between Dover and Calais, a total of 18 to France, four to Belgium and three to the Netherlands. While P&O will close its Portsmouth-Cherbourg route this year, Brittany Ferries will expand services on the route next year, using its luxury cruise ferry, Val de Loire. This will be supplemented by a new high-speed service from mid-March. Others are following suit. SeaFrance’s latest superferry, the SeaFrance Berlioz, will complete the Dover-Calais run in 70 minutes when it is launched next March, with day returns from pounds 41 and five-day trips from pounds 69. SpeedFerries, the smallest company operating on the English Channel, has priced fares at pounds 50 return, covering a car and up to six people, for summer Saturday crossings next year. SpeedFrance is one of several companies (Norfolk Line and Transmanche Ferries are others) which have started up business in the 10 years since the Channel Tunnel opened. And while the Channel Tunnel is clearly the quickest option if you live in the South-east, the ferry companies are only too aware that the picture is more complex for those living further afield. People in the South-west often choose ferry services from Portsmouth and Plymouth, while those in the North-east can take the ferry from Newcastle to the Netherlands and then drive across to France. DFDS Seaways offers daily services from Newcastle to Amsterdam, with fares from pounds 54 for two people in an economy cabin and car. Ferries leave Newcastle at 5.30pm and arrive in Amsterdam next morning. Ferry companies are also keen to dispel what they perceive as the myth that no-frills airlines are usually cheaper. The Passenger Shipping Association (PSA) recently calculated the complete travel costs to a family of four travelling from Bath to Clermont Ferrand in the Auvergne in August 2004 for a two-week holiday. It found the total all-in cost of travelling by easyJet, including car hire and petrol, was pounds 902. The total cost using Brittany Ferries from Portsmouth to St Malo was pounds 684. “Ferry companies wouldn’t be investing if they didn’t think there was a future,” said William Gibbons, director of the PSA. “We’ve had to rationalise and these are challenging times, but in the long term we are very positive. “I think people need to rediscover ferry travel. We need to attract younger people. There’s a generation of people in their thirties and forties who last travelled on the ferry as children, when the experience was an inferior one. France and ferries must both become fashionable, not just places where your parents went. Who knows, we may even come up with a new trendy brand to replace the word ferry’.”

Rail-transit dilemma is false

Seattle Post-Intelligencer October 24, 2004 The guerilla war between monorail and light rail has finally tumbled out of the political shadows. “This November,” intones the cover of a 16-page advertising insert paid for by the Yes on I-83 Committee, “Seattle will make its most important mass transit decision for the next 40 years. Should we expand the light rail system already under construction or build a stand-alone monorail line?” Forget all that warm, squishy talk about building a seamless, multimodal regional transportation system. What we really have is atavistic intermodal squabbling over money. The blatant pitch is that you get only one or the other. You can’t have light rail and monorail. Worse — and even more misleading — the pitch is that if you’ll only kill one, you can have the other. It’s a false dilemma. Killing monorail won’t fund light rail. Indeed, if voters do choke the life out of SMP, it may be even more difficult to get voter approval for future transportation funding. Fratricide may foment suicide, if the voters take it into their heads to mount a “recall light rail” campaign. The bill of demonstrable particulars against Sound Transit’s light rail runs longer that the speculative ones against SMP. In the eyes of many who want Sound Transit to build a regional light rail system, the $1.75 billion the voters authorized for the monorail has always represented one thing: the money for the next extension of the light rail line, whether across Lake Washington, to Northgate or merely to its original destination in the University District. The Seattle area is faced with a surplus of transportation needs and a deficit of funding. Blame it on the economy or the government or the voters’ reluctance to pay the necessary taxes. There’s a lot to do and not nearly enough money with which to do it. The more familiar version of this funding feud is roads versus transit. The Sound Move proposal — which became Sound Transit — won voter approval in 1996 likely because it included what amounted to a mix of new transit and ways to expand highway capacity without building new highways. Light rail was, of course, always the most controversial element. It became more controversial when massive overruns in cost estimates — particularly for tunneling — forced Sound Transit to build a shorter-than- planned initial segment and take several years longer to do it. It also left a more immediate need to generate more money to build what is now “phase two” of light rail. Then came monorail, a competing technology and, more important, a competitor for money. If my e-mail over the past couple of years or so is any measure, there are plenty of mass-transit-multimodal-rail-loving activists and experts who’ve set their tents either in the light rail or the monorail camp and heatedly defended their stance. Among some of light rail’s most devoted supporters were serious SMP critics, and played roles in the campaign to oppose monorail funding. And, yes, when Sound Transit seemed on the brink of losing federal funding over its light rail woes, there was quiet hand-rubbing by some in the monorail camp over the prospect of picking up the fallen financial pieces after a federal rejection of light rail and running monorail in its stead. The hard-core light-railers would love to return the favor if Initiative 83 passes next month. It isn’t that simple. Or at least it shouldn’t be. Seattle voters — rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly — voted to tax themselves to build a monorail system, in addition to and not instead of a light rail system. The officials over at Sound Transit know that, and they say they’re staying way away from this latest political scheme, to their credit. But the political pressure to expand light rail is huge. Until then, for instance, the Metro buses likely will not be able to go back into thedowntown transit tunnel. Having those dozens of buses up on the streets is intolerable to the downtown business community. Eastside communities have been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Sound Transit and are demanding more bang for their buck, but can light rail go east before it goes north? Perhaps the monorail mashers’ funniest claim is that monorail would use “outdated technology”; this from those who champion what is essentially steel wheels on steel rails. There are unquestionable advantages to grade-separated transit; trains or buses that move on a different plane than automobile traffic. On that different plane, transit is not affected by traffic congestion or accidents. By the same token, getting on and off is generally safer for riders. It’s the advantage of grade separation that drove Metro buses into the downtown transit tunnel and that’s why Sound Transit’s light rail line wants to go underground there as well and elevated in some areas. Instead of going down, monorail would go up, above the traffic. Of course, as some light rail fans fail to note, there is no reason monorail can’t also operate at grade and in a tunnel, just as light rail can. Over time, especially as traffic continues to grow and neighborhoods become denser, at-grade transit will become less and less efficient, and the advantages of grade-separation will become more dramatic. And an elevated line over existing rights of way can be far less expensive than tunneling. Both light rail and monorail can work here. Those who demand voters choose between the two may condemn them both.

Monorail Q&A: The people’s train has people hollering at each other. It’s that big a deal

Seattle Weekly October 20 — 26, 2004 Election Special Does approval of Initiative 83, the monorail killer, preclude building any Seattle monorail? Is this really the fourth time we’ve voted to construct the sky ride? Whose financial prognosis should we believe? Is the owner of a Hummer the Antichrist? These are among the questions rattling around Seattle’s brain as Initiative 83 nears its Nov. 2 vote. Seattle Weekly consulted Seattle Monorail Project officials and supporters and opponents of the 13.7-mile starter line from Crown Hill to West Seattle. We studied the claims of both sides, posed new questions, and reread the enabling legislation passed in Olympia and the ballot measure approved by Seattle voters in 2002. We watched in amusement as an irritated monorail board member, in the heat of a recent editorial-board debate, told a monorail opponent to “sit down and shut up!” The passion on both sides of this issue is palpable. For those who are less certain, we scrutinized the best available tea leaves on the consequences of voting for or against the so-called recall initiative, which is intended to derail the $1.6 billion plan. Here’s what we found. In short, if the measure passes, life gets complicated. If I-83 fails, the project moves ahead, with planned groundbreaking early next year and launch in 2009. But that has its own implications. Q: Would an approved I-83 mean the end of the Seattle Monorail Project? A: No. As the city attorney’s explanatory statement in the state Voters Guide says, “I-83 would not directly affect the SMP’s power to collect a 1.4 percent MVET [motor vehicle excise tax] or to plan for additional monorail lines.” So SMP could continue to exist and collect taxes. This is the result of I-83’s backdoor approach. It is the brainchild of a group of monorail opponents called Monorail Recall, now spearheaded by an allied campaign organization, Yes on I-83. But this is not technically a recall. The recall feature of the state law that enabled creation of the monorail authority (Chapter 35.95A of the Revised Code of Washington, if you’re curious) requires the signatures of 15 percent of registered voters in Seattle — an estimated 54,000 people — in 90 days to bring a public vote to end SMP operations. It also requires a finding by the city attorney (in this case, City Attorney Tom Carr, a longtime monorail backer) that SMP has significant financial problems. Recallers thought those requirements made it virtually impossible to place a recall before voters. So they took another path, a citizens’ initiative needing only 17,229 signatures (they got 36,700). If passed, I-83 would direct the City Council to disallow use of city rights of way — streets and sidewalks — by SMP. Theoretically, SMP could still build tracks. But they’d have to be in somebody’s backyard. Q: But in effect, won’t an approved I-83 finish off the Seattle Monorail Project? A: No. In fact, under I-83, SMP can continue “to plan for additional monorail lines,” according to the city attorney’s explanatory statement, and would continue to own almost $40 million in property and other assets it has acquired. The City Council could amend or flat out repeal I-83 after two years — effectively re-authorizing the project. Even I-83 proponents agree that a yes vote is intended more as a message for SMP to come up with a better plan than burial of the idea. The monorail’s lame reply has too often been simply, “Just build it!” Throw it together any way you want? It’s the biggest, most life-altering Seattle public project since Denny Hill was flattened. The best guess is the agency itself would decide its future. “Because the state law doesn’t kick in under these circumstances, there is no applicable law” to determine SMP’s fate, says Anne Levinson, the monorail’s deputy director. For sure, SMP would continue to collect a 1.4 percent motor vehicle excise tax to pay off the $75 million in debt it has incurred in planning and acquiring property so far. Some opponents would like to see the monorail tax rededicated by the Legislature to Sound Transit’s light-rail project, while others would prefer it be used to expand the Metro bus system, perhaps developing a rubber-tired system to take over the dedicated monorail route. Q: What’s the biggest drawback to approving I-83? A:Like Robert Redford’s character said to his campaign manager after being elected in the movie The Candidate, what do we do now? I-83 blocks monorail construction but offers no plan for the future. Structural engineer Jon Magnusson, a spokesperson for the Yes on I-83 campaign, makes no apologies for not offering a better way to go. “Doing this [building the monorail] is worse than doing nothing,” he says. Nonetheless, an overwhelming yes vote supplants a viable transportation project with dead air. Q: Where does that leave the voters? A:To decide, on Nov. 2, the best of two outcomes. The first option is to vote yes and stick with the mass-transportation status quo, which includes Sound Transit’s budding regional rapid transit system, and hope someone comes up with a new monorail plan or a similar transit project. A modified monorail plan eventually could be put to voters, or new money could be diverted to other transportation projects, including, gag, more freeways. “The monorail does not plan to have free downtown service,” like Metro buses offer, notes Henry Aronson of Off Track, another anti-monorail group. “If riders have a free alternative, why would they ever need to ride the monorail anyway?” For that matter, says co-conspirator Magnusson, “With the monorail’s $1.6 billion, you could put Wi-Fi in every Metro bus, give all the riders their own DVDs, and make all the buses in the city free!” Option two: Voters can stand behind the currently planned monorail system, which, while imperfect, can be reworked and has Seattle finally moving forward on a badly needed transportation alternative. “Can we ever get anything done in Seattle?” asks monorail board Chair Tom Weeks. “The fundamental things that the core of voters approved [in 2002] — 14 miles of track, 19 stations, trains every few minutes, quiet operations, connections to other transportation — are being implemented.” If this initiative succeeds, he says, it will leave a “devastating” scar on attempts to set public policy. Remember also, Weeks adds, that Sound Transit’s light-rail system will boot all buses from the downtown transit tunnel, putting them back on clogged surface streets. And try to envision those streets once the Alaskan Way Viaduct is shut down for years of replacement work. In reality, Seattle faces almost a decade of gridlock worsened by the construction of alternatives. Building the monorail would add to the headache, but, says Weeks, wouldn’t it be nice to see it standing there when all that dust settles? Q: Why not dedicate our efforts to expanding the bus and light- rail systems? A: That makes some sense. Metro Transit’s new “Magic Bus,” for example, is an environmental leap forward. The 235 General Motors hybrid buses will save an estimated 75,000 gallons of fuel a year, what GM calls “the equivalent of thousands of hybrid cars.” Also, the planned Westlake/South Lake Union streetcar, questionable as its benefits might be to landowner Paul Allen’s already deep pockets, is arguably a pleasant step back to the future (nostalgia and fuel savings), as would be an expanded waterfront trolley. There is talk that now is the time to extend that line, since the trolley barn has to be moved to make way for work on Olympic Sculpture Park — maybe running the trolley up to the new Amgen campus that abuts Myrtle Edwards Park, if the biotech giant is willing to chip in. Sound Transit, meanwhile, is building a $2.4 billion light-rail leg from Westlake Center almost to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. That agency needs billions more to build lines to the University District and Northgate, and to finish the Sea-Tac Airport connection. Monorail recallers argue that light rail is the real mass-transit solution. “Let’s protect the current taxing capacity to work for a system that will truly work for the region,” former Seattle mayor and I-83 supporter Charles Royer said at a recent press conference, “not one that’s for Seattle only.” The complete 24-mile Northgate-to-Sea-Tac light-rail line is projected to cost roughly $6 billion, though critics say it will be more like $8 billion, which probably means it will be $10 billion. Monorail supporter Peter Sherwin contends the monorail is a better bargain and a candidate for expansion, noting that the light-rail leg to Sea-Tac costs an average of more than $170 million per mile to build, while the monorail’s Green Line would be about $120 million per mile. Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit’s communications chief, views it another way. “In fact, the average Seattle taxpayer is paying way less for light rail than for monorail,” he says. The budgeted construction amount for the first leg is $2.1 billion, he says. “Of that, the feds are picking up $500 million, which means the local share for the light-rail project is, oddly enough, $1.6 billion,” same as the monorail, and both first phases are about 14 miles long. Ilgenfritz notes also that light rail’s cost is spread among taxpayers in Seattle, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Tukwila, SeaTac, Skyway, Burien, Renton, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Kent, Auburn, and Federal Way. All monorail costs are borne by Seattle taxpayers. But then, the monorail is a Seattle-only system, and eliminating it leaves the city’s western flank without rapid transit. “Ballard and West Seattle are especially densely populated areas,” says Sherwin, “and Sound Transit has no plans to serve those areas.” He also says federal funding will be sought to help pay for the next phase of the monorail, extending east. As for Sound Transit as the great, green hope, don’t get too carried away by light rail, say monorail fans. Eight years after approval by voters in three counties, Sound Transit has added buses and heavy rail to the regional commute but only 1.6 miles of light rail — in downtown Tacoma. “Sound Transit’s light-rail system has so many woes that it’s barely alive,” gripes monorail supporter Don Kirk, “yet it is getting very little negative press coverage.” Besides, scrapping the monorail in favor of light rail would eliminate unique commuter fun, riding high over stalled traffic, with a panoramic view of the city. SMP Executive Director Joel Horn vows the agency will deliver a delightful sky ride integrated with ground transport, including 90 bus stops, with transfers to nearby light rail, ferries, street cars, and FlexCar locations. “It’s a great opportunity for people to go back and forth,” Horn says. Is it an integrated system, intertwined with other transportation modes, as promised? With the bus system, it is. Voters will have to decide if “integrated” also means walking a few blocks to catch a trolley, train, or boat. But who can’t use the exercise — or a stop-off for a beer? Q: Does a yes vote mean we will never be able to build a monorail here? A: No, despite what monorail officials say. “Basically,” opines Deputy Director Levinson, approval of the initiative “forecloses the monorail transportation option for Seattle.” The initiative language tends to support that view: “From and after the effective date of this enactment, the construction, operation or use of City right- of-way for monorail transit facilities is prohibited. Any agreement, contract, permit, license, grant or other authorization for use of City right-of-way for monorail transit facilities shall be revoked and declared null and void. The enactment shall not extend to any monorail transit facilities in operation prior to December 31, 2003.” But, as Levinson allows, just as voters could approve that law, they could reverse its effect in a future vote to approve a new project, whatever that might be. The Legislature also could reopen the streets to a new monorail proposal, and again, the City Council can void the initiative after two years. Q: Have we voted yes three times to build the monorail? A: No. Feet-dragging Seattle voters rejected rapid-transit proposals in 1968 and 1970, but by 1996 they’d had it with all-day rush hours and approved a light-rail proposal, creating Sound Transit. (It took two votes to do it, however. The light-rail proposal failed at the polls in 1995.) That whetted appetites for a monorail, too. In 1997, city voters gave approval to taxi driver Dick Falkenbury’s visionary proposal to explore a commuter monorail, and in 2000 they overwhelmingly approved $6 million for the advisory Elevated Transportation Co. to formulate a construction proposal. In 2002, by 877 out of 189,000 votes cast, we authorized actual construction of the starter Green Line for $1.75 billion, paid for by a tax added to license plate costs. (See “The 2002 Measure,” p. 33.) Cumulatively, a majority of voters — fighting City Hall and some developers all the way — have repeatedly made it clear they want a ride in the sky, earning the monorail the moniker “the people’s train.” Now City Hall, at least, is also a believer. “We can’t keep second-guessing our decision to build a new monorail,” says Mayor Greg Nickels, “and risk continued gridlock and frustration. We need to move forward.” The Nov. 2 vote will be essentially a ratification or rejection of the 2002 construction plan. That plan has changed significantly, say monorail opponents. Proponents say it remains faithful to the concept. However you define it, the plan has evolved because the tax revenue projections were overblown by as much as $300 million — of which at least $150 million has been made up through cuts, creative financing, and settlement of back debt payments, says SMP. Among the disputed aspects of the current plan: Trains will be routed through, rather than around, Seattle Center; the Seattle CentertoWestlake Center monorail will be razed; four miles of the new line might have a restrictive single track; parking is minimal; and stations have generally been downsized (though one, Delridge, has been upsized to 10 stories). Elevators have replaced most escalators (good or bad?), support columns and rail supports will be bulkier than planned, and sky-blocking overhead switch platforms will be immense. Critic and respected engineer Magnusson contends that even more of those switches will be needed to expand the line, and if they’re not built in the first phase, adding them later will mean shutting down the system for six months at a time. (SMP officials, who question Magnusson’s transit-engineering qualifications, strongly disagree, though at this early stage of planning the second phase of the monorail system, such details are unexplored. For more on the second phase, go to www.elevated.org/project/secondphase/). SMP also wound up with only one qualified bidder, Cascadia Monorail, headed by multinationals Fluor and Washington Group International, putting more pressure on the project’s finances. The cutbacks have also compromised the line’s passenger capacity, says Magnusson, due in part to station platform downsizing from a track length of 130 feet to 90 feet. “This is not mass transit,” he says, “and it’s in the wrong corridor to solve traffic problems.” SMP is projecting 69,000 daily riders (or, more accurately, rides, since some riders make more than one trip) by 2020, about 11 years after the planned opening. The numbers are of critical importance, because after 2020 the monorail tax can be used to pay only capital costs, with all operational and maintenance expenses covered by fares. (Critic Aronson points out that the 69,000 projection has not been updated since 2002.) At a recent editorial-board interview at Seattle Weekly’s offices, engineer Magnusson got SMP’s Weeks to admit that the agency’s ridership survey includes a lot of far-flung potential riders — miles away in Northeast Seattle, for example. In a tense exchange, Magnusson barked at Weeks: “Just answer the [Northeast ridership] question — yes or no, yes or no!” Weeks shot back: “Sit down and shut up!” Then Weeks said SMP stands by its forecast but is doing a new rider study; it expects to have better numbers soon, likely after the election. Weeks also notes that the smaller stations were requested by the public at more than 100 hearings and through countless community contacts, and he insists that capacity is not compromised by shorter loading platforms. (No matter where you enter them, the monorail’s trains will have walk-through access.) Q: Why did they narrow four miles of track from two parallel rails, one in each direction, to a shared single rail? A: To cut costs. SMP argues the one-rail bottlenecks will add only a few minutes to each trip. But delays would become more pronounced if the line is extended as planned and trains are added. Imagine an increasingly trafficked two-way street that occasionally narrows to one lane. On the plus side, guideway columns would be slimmed down and be less intrusive in some neighborhoods, and less property might have to be acquired. Of course, bidder/contractor Cascadia Monorail could still come up with its own version of the line that restores two rails throughout. Q: What do opponents dislike most about the monorail plan? A: Its impact and the specified route, two issues not completely addressed in the 2002 vote to build the line. Of particular concern is the gerrymandered swing through one of the city’s greatest parks, Seattle Center, the old world’s fair grounds. Then there’s sticker shock from the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET), which kicked in at a full 1.4 percent for the first time in June. It has some car owners up in arms by adding $140 to the cost of renewing license plates for a $10,000 car. With the monorail relying wholly and Sound Transit in part on an MVET to pay to build their systems, a car owner whose renewal tags might otherwise have been a bargain $40 could end up paying an additional $200 or more, annually through 2040. Neighbors of planned monorail stops are riled by minimal provisions for parking, which they say will force cars to be parked on nearby side streets. Though $25 million is budgeted for parking, monorail officials have not sufficiently addressed this issue except to plan to acquire more property. The monorail’s path, eating up virtually one lane of traffic or parking from Northwest Seattle to Southwest Seattle, will wipe out 500 parking spaces downtown alone. Critics think SMP is too much in love with the “kiss and ride” concept, whereby one spouse drops the other off at a station and drives home, averting a need for parking near the monorail. Design is another fear factor. Though nothing is yet writ in cement — SMP says it will reveal more specific designs after the election — the monorail was envisioned by many as a sleek commuter line from Ballard, swinging gently onto Second Avenue downtown, and gliding on to West Seattle. Now, to opponents, it’s a hulking design out of scale, especially in residential neighborhoods. Critic Magnusson likes to display sketches of how Seattle’s Second Avenue will be overwhelmed by monorail columns, then a street scene from Vancouver, home of the much-lauded SkyTrain. The B.C. street is calm and unchanged because, downtown, the SkyTrain runs in a tunnel. For many, though, the most controversial change from what seemed to be on the table in the 2002 election is the Seattle Center route. The planned Green Line generally follows the voter-approved route in Ballard and West Seattle, but postelection pressure from property owners, including billionaire Paul Allen, who wants the train to run through his Experience Music Project, as the old monorail now does, has resulted in an ungainly swing through the heart of Seattle Center and down Fifth Avenue, then over to Second Avenue. Fifth Avenue, of course, is already served by the beloved (and moneymaking) 1962 Seattle Center monorail. Like major recall backer Martin Selig today, Belltown property owners on and near Second Avenue wanted to protect their investments from the train’s intrusion — another reason for the Seattle CenterFifth Avenue route. I-83 is sort of Selig’s revenge: With $344,000 in campaign donations, he has bankrolled almost half of the $745,000 (and counting) effort by Yes on I-83, seeking what the Belltown property owners got — an unspoiled view. Allen, by the way, appears to be staying on the sidelines this election, making no comments and so far investing no money to stop I-83. Of course, if the initiative prevails, Allen would still get new light-rail service to his SoDo stadium and office complexes and would likely see the Center monorail continue to serve EMP. As usual for America’s third-richest human, he winds up with the most toys. Q: Whatever its route, wouldn’t the monorail be better for the environment? A: Yes. It will take cars off the road. But, the monorail hopes, not too many cars (see the Hummer question below). The projection is that a monorail will decrease vehicle trips in Seattle by 1 percent. Conversely, the elevated line would increase visual and, to some degree, noise pollution — ironically at a time the city is thinking about going in the opposite direction when replacing the elevated eyesore called the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Still, as monorail board Chair Weeks points out, take a gander at Sound Transit’s 30-foot-wide slabs of concrete being built to elevate some of its rails. “Talk about visual pollution,” he says. And take a longer look into the future of what a monorail would bring, Weeks adds. Construction would create 2,000 jobs and produce more than $600 million in new income, though that would be offset by the relocation and/or loss of more than 1,000 jobs, 80 businesses, and 1,400 parking spaces. SMP projects lots of business growth along the line and suggests a psychological benefit: a first step in changing the way we commute in Seattle, of getting us out of our costly and polluting vehicles and taking a low-stress alternative to work and play. The monorail won’t solve gridlock, but at the very least it might tamp down road rage and the growth of gridlock. Q: We know the monorail overshot on revenue projections. What’s happening now? A: While it’s no longer on time, the monorail is on or under budget, according to SMP. But the real spending has yet to begin, presumably when Cascadia begins building the system early next year. City Hall has hired an outside consultant to do a complete financial study before it approves or disapproves construction permits. The study is unlikely to be completed before the election, however, and the monorail might not release details of the construction bid until after the vote. Argues Mayor Nickels, an I-83 opponent: “There clearly needs to be accountability as the new monorail is designed and built. But I-83 does not add accountability, it just adds more delays.” Why is SMP not disclosing bid details until after the election? Weeks claims the agency would be prematurely releasing proprietary financial data. “When we have an agreement [with the bidder, Cascadia], we will publicize that agreement and hold public hearings. We cannot change that course of action to try to influence an election.” Last week, I-83 supporters filed a lawsuit challenging the monorail to release the bid documents, and a hearing on the lawsuit was set for Thursday, Oct. 21. An independent engineer says the monorail could release the documents if it so chose, noting that SMP has always promised “transparency” to the public. The bid has to be in the ballpark of the $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion dedicated to construction. If it’s under, great; if it’s over, more cutbacks loom, although that could be a positive for some if, say, the controversial and costly Seattle Center swing is scuttled. Whatever the bid, the mayor (up for election next year) and City Council members swear that a construction plan that doesn’t pencil out will not go forward. And SMP insists all is going smoothly now. Finance Director Jonathan Buchter says, “Our revenue projections are right where we want them” — the key word being “projections.” As with almost any transportation project, the future is based on the best available guesses. The car-license tax was supposed to bring in $4 million a month and grow to meet revenue targets. But overestimates and a goodwill move to cut the tax collection rate in half the first year dropped the monthly collections to $2 million to $2.5 million. With a higher assessment rate started in June, the average is now closer to $4 million ($3.3 million in June, $3.8 million in July, and $4.1 million in August). That’s still not all the taxes that can be collected. SMP says it should have gotten $4.3 million in August, for example. But “we never expect to see 100 percent collections,” says Buchter. The reasons include scofflaws who avoid the Seattle tax by registering their cars outside the city and SMP’s realization that many cars change hands during the year and the tax notification system lags behind those sales. SMP has spent about $115 million since its 2002 launch, with about a third of that going to property acquisition. The monorail’s adjusted budget for 2004 is now $128.1 million. That consists of $58.7 million for operations and $69.4 million for capital expenses, such as land purchase and fixed assets. SMP has been steadily cutting its spending, Buchter says, including an $11 million reduction in consulting costs. “We expect there will be additional reductions in the 2005 budget,” he adds. Besides the city study, a routine state audit of SMP’s books is under way, with a report expected possibly late next month. Bottom line? The original $1.75 billion voter-approved project is now projected to cost about $150 million less. That’s under budget. Will tax revenue and growth meet SMP’s goal? That’s the $1.6 billion question. Q: Now the important question: Are Hummer drivers evil? A: Hey, they’re the monorail’s saviors. SMP can’t succeed without their kind. Just as buses are the key to the monorail’s ridership success — without Metro delivering and picking up monorail riders, the air train simply won’t fly — vehicle owners are crucial to SMP’s financial fortunes. The motor vehicle tax pays all the agency’s bills. Most important to SMP is the model and year of vehicle that can be taxed. A $5,000 car, for example, earns SMP $70 a year. Yet if we all drove $5,000 cars, the monorail project would suck gas. Furthermore, the agency has based its success on steadily rising revenue — a growth rate of 6.1 percent annually — which Aronson and other critics say is overblown and doesn’t count cars that will be taken off the road. Either way, the monorail financial plan will fail without more, newer, ever-costlier cars registered by Seattleites. Victory would be certain if everyone hit the streets with a new $100,000 gas-guzzling Hummer, though a nice $20,000 hybrid is certainly welcome. Simply put, says SMP financial chief Buchter, “We want them to buy a new car.” Ironic, huh? Q: What happens to those I-83 lawsuits we heard about? A: There are several possible outcomes. The state Supreme Court allowed the election to proceed, saying it needed more time to review a pair of last-minute challenges to the initiative brought by the monorail agency: whether 10,000 anti-monorail signatures were illegally collected and whether the presumed recall process was illegally circumvented by the citizens’ initiative. If voters disapprove of I-83, the court might deem the legal issues moot, leaving them undecided. Or it could conclude they’re important enough to be ruled on anyway. If the initiative passes, the court will issue rulings. SMP has spent about $150,000 in legal fees fighting I-83, and putting the measure on the ballot has added $890,000 to November election costs — expenses borne by taxpayers. Best guess? Conventional wisdom says the high court will find the initiative illegal and void the election. A: Then all this may be for naught. Q: Well, the vote will send SMP a message, one way or another. But yes, maybe for naught. Democracy, it’s a wild and crazy guy. The 2002 Measure Here’s the summary of the ballot proposal that Seattle voters approved in 2002. For the complete text, go to www.elevated.org/_pdf/board/petition1.pdf Citizen Petition No. 1 proposes to create a Seattle monorail authority and implement the initial phase of a city monorail system by constructing and operating a 14 mile monorail line from Ballard and West Seattle to Downtown (the Green Line). The monorail authority would be a new governmental authority with a nine-member governing board. The members of the Elevated Transportation Company would serve as the Interim Board. Within 14 months following voter approval of this proposition, a monorail authority Board, nominated and appointed by a combination of the Interim Board, the City Council and the Mayor, shall assume governance. Beginning 2003, two positions shall be elected, and between 2005 and 2009, the monorail authority will submit a proposal to the voters to make a majority of the Board positions elected. To finance the initial segment of the monorail system, the monorail authority could levy and collect a 1.4% motor vehicle excise tax (MVET). The MVET would annually cost car owners in the city of Seattle 1.4% of the value of their vehicle; e.g., the owner of a $10,000 car would pay $140 a year. Without further voter approval, the monorail authority would not be able to: (1) issue more than $1.5 billion of debt (in 2002 dollars) for an initial line and second-line planning; (2) continue to levy the MVET after all the initial phase debt has been paid; or (3) use the MVET after 2020 to pay for the noncapital costs of operating or maintaining the Green Line.

MetroLink Takes Another Step; New Cross County Extension connecting seven municipalities in St. Louis region

Construction Digest October 25, 2004 MetroLink, the St. Louis area’s light rail system, has been called one of the best mass transit systems in the country. The system, which currently extends 38 miles from Scott Air Force Base and Shiloh, Ill., to Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, is popular with visitors and locals alike as an economical and convenient way to reach work and recreational destinations. Ridership on MetroLink has increased steadily since the light rail system was introduced to area residents on July 31, 1993. According to Metro, which owns and operates the St. Louis metropolitan region’s public transportation system, the line carried nearly 9 million customers during its first year of operation and that total now reaches between 13 million and 15 million, according to Cathie Farroll, project communications manager for Metro. Through the years, riders have seen MetroLink’s alignment grow substantially from its initial 17-mile, 19-station route from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport to downtown East St. Louis, Ill., and that growth continues today. Soon, MetroLink will provide an important connection between two major business districts — downtown St. Louis and Clayton — as a result of a new, $550.3-million (approximately $300 million for construction) extension project. The Cross County MetroLink Extension represents one of the largest publicly funded projects ever undertaken in the St. Louis region. The project is funded 100-percent locally from