Silver Line links waterfront with South StationBoston Herald December 18, 2004 PTP NOTE: In describing Boston’s new bus tunnel as the first new underground transit line “in nearly 90 years”, MBTA officials and the reporter apparently forgot about the tunnel for the Orange Line between North Station and Sullivan Square which was built in the 1970s. For the first time in nearly 90 years, a new transit line opened beneath Boston’s streets yesterday, carrying passengers on sleek Silver Line buses to a once-forgotten neighborhood on the South Boston waterfront. “This day has been a long time in coming,” MBTA General Manager Michael Mulhern declared as he stood in a gleaming subway station at the Joseph Moakley courthouse. “Like the Red Sox championship, it was well worth the wait.” The newly opened segment of the Silver Line connects South Station to the South Boston waterfront via a $601 million tunnel system for rapid transit buses. Within weeks, service along the line will be extended from the waterfront to Logan International Airport, offering a long-awaited one-seat ride from South Station to airport terminals. While public officials showered praise on the expanded service yesterday, reaction to the opening was not all positive. Officials with the Sierra Club said the opening was only a reminder of the T’s failure to deliver equivalent service to Roxbury. “The people the Silver Line was originally supposed to serve are still stuck in traffic,” Sierra Club spokesman Jeremy Marin said, adding that Silver Line buses on Washington Street must contend with traffic and are not as fast as the Southie connection. MBTA officials bristled at the criticism, saying the Silver Line has become popular among Roxbury residents since it opened in 2002. “The people of Dudley Square and Roxbury voted with their feet when ridership doubled in one year,” T spokesman Joe Pesaturo said. The final segment of the Silver Line - a tunnel connection from South Station to the Green Line Boylston station - is scheduled to open in 2010. |
Silver Line’s start is smooth, despite sparse ridershipBoston Globe: December 18, 2004 Boston’s color-coded transit system sprouted a new line yesterday, when the first electric buses rolled through the freshly minted $601 million Silver Line tunnel linking South Station with the new frontier of the South Boston waterfront. “This is nice,” said David Johnson, a security guard at the Manulife building who takes the Orange Line to work and will now transfer to the Silver Line at South Station. “It seems like it will get me here faster.” Robert Gordon paid $1.25 and boarded one of the first buses for the trip through the narrow, brightly lit tunnel under Fort Point Channel to the elaborate new Courthouse and World Trade Center stations. He was joined by only two other people, but was confident the line would eventually be well used. “A couple hundred people are going to be living right there,” Gordon said as the bus emerged to the surface at D Street, nodding to condos under construction. “I think it will be very busy.” T officials predict that 14,000 riders will use the new route on weekdays by 2006, down from the initially projected 45,000 riders, but the line is expected to be more popular as it sparks more development in the waterfront district. Earlier yesterday, Mayor Thomas M. Menino, state Transportation Secretary Daniel A. Grabauskas, US Representative Stephen Lynch and others joined MBTA General Manager Michael Mulhern for a ribbon- cutting at the Courthouse Station mezzanine, surrounded by poinsettias, spotless glass and shiny stainless steel. State Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, a Boston Democrat, looking around at the expansive station under Northern Avenue, exclaimed, “It’s gorgeous. And it doesn’t leak.” The reference was to the Big Dig tunnels, which have been overshadowing the Silver Line for the last several years. In fact, there were leaks in the Silver Line tunnel similar to the ones that have sprouted in the Big Dig, but they were plugged. After the maiden runs with officials and reporters, the Silver Line waterfront service formally opened to all passengers just after 1 p.m. Eight vehicles made the 20-minute roundtrip from South Station to the Manulife building. “Everything’s going great,” said driver Jay Demasi. Except for one stoplight at D Street where the buses must cross, “you don’t have to deal with any traffic,” he said. By the end of the month, some buses will fan out to the Marine Industrial Park and to residential South Boston. Another branch will run down D Street to Andrew station by spring, and later in 2005, the much-anticipated service to Logan Airport will begin. The T’s grand plan is to link the waterfront line with the Washington Street Silver Line bus service that has been operating for the last two years. Under the proposed plan, buses from Dudley Square in Roxbury would travel down Washington Street to a new, $780 million tunnel under Essex Street downtown, and connect to the waterfront line at South Station. Michael Terrell, director of the Washington Street Corridor Coalition, a citizens group that seeks light rail service rather than buses, said the Silver Line on Washington Street is too slow and gets stuck in traffic. “The new tunnels in South Boston are very nice, but when will this community see any of the benefits?” The Silver Line waterfront service began as a separate project two decades ago championed by J. Joseph Moakley, the late South Boston congressman. |
Silver Line to prove goldenThe Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA December 18, 2004 As we pulled out of the sleek new Courthouse Station on the South Boston waterfront Friday afternoon, I noticed that the MBTA workers outnumbered the general public on our electric-powered trolley. However, judging from the speed of my trip along the city’s new Silver Line — primarily a 1.1-mile tunnel between South Station and a spot east of the World Trade Center — I would bet that these vehicles don’t stay relatively empty for long. Business leaders hailed the $600 million project that opened Friday as a crucial piece in the redevelopment puzzle that’s slowly being solved along the South Boston waterfront. The Silver Line opens vast stretches of the commercial district to rapid transit for the first time. Sure, the new “subway” line is an underground bus route and not a railway. But the Silver Line buses move at least as effectively as Green Line trolleys, making the trip from South Station - where it connects with the Red Line - to their turnaround point near the new Manulife building in less than 10 minutes. With nearly 120 acres of undeveloped land - much of it parking lots - the Southie waterfront is perhaps one of the most prime urban candidates for redevelopment in the city, if not the country. That’s why it’s so important that this section of the Silver Line is finally running. That doesn’t mean Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration should ignore the critics who are using the Silver Line’s opening to rally behind other transit projects. Although they are focused on the fate of other extensions, they also complain because the MBTA won’t meet a Dec. 31 deadline to bring the Silver Line to Logan Airport. An MBTA spokesman says such a route will be ready sometime in the spring, providing a crucial link to the airport for travelers who use the Red Line and can switch at South Station. New high-tech buses, which will run on electricity underground and diesel on the surface, will use the Ted Williams tunnel to get to Logan. Massachusetts Convention Center Authority chief Jim Rooney says the new line can’t help but boost the development under way outside the city’s giant new convention center. “I don’t want to characterize it as a silver bullet,” Rooney says. “But I bet with every developer — commercial or residential — you will see this in their marketing materials.” Progress in the district has often been overshadowed by some of the obstacles, including the failure so far to finalize a development deal for the high-profile Fan Pier property. Recent additions to the steadily changing neighborhood include the convention center and the glass-enclosed Manulife building. There are plans for a massive residential and retail complex across the street from the convention center, while work has begun nearby on a new art museum and an apartment building. Now it’s time for the state to find ways to bring the economic development benefits of a transit line into other neighborhoods. The Romney administration faces a potential suit from the Conservation Law Foundation over the state’s failure to complete several other promised projects such as a Green Line extension through Somerville and one through Jamaica Plain. The state also needs to connect an earlier phase of the Silver Line to the new one, most likely through an expensive tunnel beneath Chinatown. Unfortunately for South End and Roxbury residents, their end of the Silver Line - the first phase - doesn’t feature an underground route with fancy stations. Instead, the above-ground buses in that section of the Silver Line just get a lane on Washington Street. Ridership is up significantly along that bus route. But it’s hard to believe that its economic benefits are as powerful as they would be if Roxbury’s Dudley Square and other neighborhoods along Washington had a rapid transit line instead. The Courthouse and World Trade Center stations are the first new T stations to open in the Boston area in years. Let’s hope they’re not the last. |
Metro Opens Blue Line Extension; Largo, Morgan Boulevard Stations Debut in Prince George’s CountyWashington Post December 18, 2004 Metro trains traveled beyond the transit agency’s original 103 mile system Saturday with the opening of two new stations. The 3.1 mile Blue Line extension, which adds stops at Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center, is the first time the rail has reached beyond the Capital Beltway in Prince George’s County, Md. The trains began running at 7 a.m., and Metro reported no delays or overcrowding by late afternoon. The true test comes Monday, when around 9,000 commuters are expected to break-in the system’s 85th and 86th stations. Nearly 3,000 parking spaces will be available at the stations. “This is the best design of an extension we have done yet,” said Metro Assistant General Manager P. Takis Salpeas. The new stations cost Metro $456 million and even include a child care center at Morgan Boulevard. Salpeas said they learned from years of previous construction and made additions that will cut down on maintenance delays. Workers added more track crossovers so that trains can more easily move around a breakdown or failed track, and there is storage for rail cars. These are the last new Metro stations for a while. Future projects include the Anacostia light rail and the extension to Tyson’s Corner. |
Head of Railroad Administration, Facing Two Inquiries, Is QuittingNew York Times December 18, 2004 Facing two federal investigations of her agency’s oversight of rail safety, the acting head of the Federal Railroad Administration announced yesterday that she was stepping down. The official, Betty Monro, who has led the agency for six months, told her staff in an e-mail message that she had decided to retire. She will leave at the end of the month, the agency said. The narrower investigation focuses on certain regulatory questions, as well as Ms. Monro’s ties to Mary E. McAuliffe, chief lobbyist for the biggest railroad, Union Pacific. That report, by the inspector general of Transportation Department, is complete, officials said yesterday. They declined to release it. The inspector general, Kenneth M. Mead, is also conducting a broad inquiry of the railroad administration’s oversight of safety at the more than 200,000 grade crossings in the United States. Grade-crossing fatalities are up nearly 19 percent for the year through September. Mr. Mead said that investigation was prompted by a recent series of articles in The New York Times. The articles reported that some railroads had sidestepped their responsibility in crossing accidents, by mishandling evidence and failing to report properly hundreds of fatalities, and they raised questions about whether the railroad agency was too close to the railroads it oversees. Since President Bush appointed Ms. Monro deputy administrator in 2001, she has vacationed several times with Ms. McAuliffe. Union Pacific has said that they are longtime friends and that each paid her own way. The results of the broad inquiry are to be released in stages. A spokesman for the Transportation Department, Brian Turmail, said privacy rules prevented the release of any part of the inspector general’s first report now. Even so, Mr. Turmail said, Mr. Mead had found that certain “safety and inspection issues still exist” and that the inspector general had issued safety recommendations. Mr. Turmail said he was not permitted to explain the safety problems or the recommendations until the Transportation Department, the parent of the railroad agency, fully reviews the report. Mr. Turmail added that the inspector general had deemed as false unspecified accusations against Ms. Monro by a disgruntled former employee. The railroad agency declined to make Ms. Monro available for an interview. She issued a statement saying the inspector general had found that her agency had strengthened its enforcement actions, not weakened them. But she also acknowledged that the report raised concerns about her relationship with “a member of Union Pacific’s staff.” “His conclusions,” she added, “support the fact that I have never allowed the relationship to influence my professional actions.” In her message to the staff, Ms. Monro said she had planned to retire after the election but decided to remain “due to intervening challenges” which she did not describe. “I now feel I can move forward with my personal plans,” she said. The agency’s enforcement has come under fire in the San Antonio region, among other places, where nine derailments or accidents involving Union Pacific trains have occurred since May. Four people died in those accidents. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, said in an interview that he hoped that the Bush administration had learned from the experience and that it might appoint someone who did not follow Ms. Monro’s policies. The agency backed a “partnership” approach to regulation, which emphasized working with railroads, rather than punishing them. “Sometimes you can’t partner up with the industry and hope that things will work their way out,” Mr. Gonzalez said. Separately, the agency announced that it was denying Union Pacific’s request to allow its trains to skip inspections after arriving from Mexico. Union Pacific declined to comment on Ms. Monro’s departure or the rejection of its request. |
Honolulu “BRT” service slammed for poor ridershipLight Rail Now! NewsLog December 18, 2004 We’re strongly in favor of Quality Bus improvements, but the ongoing campaign to hype better bus service as “Bus Rapid Transit”, and to claim it’s “just like light rail, but cheaper”, is nothing short of a fraud, and counterproductive to winning public support for transit. And, as we are repeatedly documenting with hard evidence, buses, even touted as “rapid transit”, don’t seem to come close to rendering the benefits of light rail transit (LRT), much less a fully grade-separated, true rapid transit service. A good case in point, and current object lesson, is the recently inaugurated “BRT” scheme in Honolulu, hawked by its promoters as “much cheaper and more flexible than rail”, and thus supposedly a suitable, low-cost alternative to proposals for rapid transit or LRT. Launched just last month, the “BRT” service, tagged as the “E Bus”, reportedly has been attracting ridership that is substantially less than spectacular, despite running brand-new hybrid diesel-electric buses, costing $749,000 apiece, in reserved “BRT” lanes. According to a recent report in the Honolulu Advertiser (11 Dec. 2004), the city’s mayor-elect, Mufi Hannemann, has announced his intention to re-route the new buses out of their downtown-to-Waikiki route “because few riders seem to be using them and they are competing with private bus companies.” Hannemann’s idea apparently is to get away from trying to make the buses function as a fixed rapid transit-type line, serving the core city, and instead to disperse their routes through all of O’ahu, “including the furthest points, from the North Shore, from Wai’anae, from Waimanalo.” So much for the “just like light rail, but on rubber tires” idea. The utterly underwhelming reception (and ridership) given to Honolulu’s “E Bus” so-called “BRT” operation stands in stark contrast to the continuing celebration and relatively strong ridership – thousands of daily trips, in fact – bestowed on new LRT startups, like Minneapolis’s Hiawatha line and Little Rock’s new River Rail heritage streetcar service. For Honolulu’s E Bus, it seems to be a much less exciting story. “Some of the buses have remained nearly empty since the route began” reports the Advertiser. Certainly, transit advocates take no joy in poor ridership for what seems to be some fundamentally progressive upgrades in bus service. Surely, additional creative improvements to the E Bus service could be devised which would have potential for attracting more riders onto these buses. However, the Honolulu experience appears to underscore the contention of many transit supporters that merely repackaging Quality Bus service as “rapid transit”, and hawking it with claims that “it’s light rail on rubber tires” and “just like rail, but cheaper”, is a deceptive ploy whose promises fall far short of rendering the benefits and achievements of true rail transit, either light rail or rapid transit. Once again – you get what you pay for. |
Delhi’s metro rail sets world-class standardsIndo-Asian News Service December 18, 2004 New Delhi, Dec 18 (IANS) Snaking above, below and on the ground, one world-class train service is shaping a new future for urban transportation in India even as it brings cutting-edge travel technology to the subcontinent. Since its inauguration in December 2002, the Delhi Metro has become the capital’s showpiece as it makes travelling in this crowded, and at places chaotic, city of 15 million people and over four million vehicles quicker and more comfortable than ever before. And Sunday will be a red-letter day for the Delhi Metro when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will flag off the sleek, futuristic trains on their maiden journey underground. The tube railway, besides capable of being run without drivers on its four-kilometre journey between Delhi University and Kashmere Gate in north Delhi, also boasts of many firsts like underground mobile telephone coverage and an automatic fare collection and ticketing system. More than aiding comfortable travel, the Delhi Metro has demonstrated how elaborate high-tech development projects can be planned and executed effortlessly in the developing world. In fact, such has been the success of the project, headed by a septuagenarian, yoga-practising and legendarily efficient engineer E. Sreedharan, that a host of other Indian states and even foreign countries are queuing up asking the Delhi Metro to help in similar projects. “It makes me feel privileged,” says Smriti Sharma, who travels in the state-of-the-art, spanking clean air-conditioned trains to travel to work every day. “I never thought I would be able to read a book in peace while travelling,” said Sharma, whose travel time from her west Delhi residence to her office at the Connaught Place business centre in the heart of the city has been cut by half by the metro. With a frequency of 5–10 minutes, the trains match international standards of efficiency and customer service. Over and above features like flap- doors operated by ‘smart cards’ and ‘contact-less’ tokens at the exit and entry points in all metro stations, the four underground stations boast of air-conditioned environment. “We believe in dignity of travel,” says Sreedharan, managing director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corp Ltd. (DMRC), who has won accolades for his work in the metro. “Our main achievements have been in the area of bringing to the country state-of-the-art technology. We have succeeded in ensuring transfer of technology to a large extent. The country is almost self-sufficient in this regard.” So much so that DMRC is already helping the Sri Lankan government formulate a plan to build a similar network in Colombo. There have also been enquiries from Pakistan and the Gulf. DMRC has also given advice and planning support for metros in other major Indian cities like Mumbai and Bangalore. Only the second metro rail in the country after Kolkata, and far more technically advanced than the first one, it’s a dream come true for people like Sharma. Her 10-km route from home to office is part of the first completed 22.5-km line of the Delhi Metro. Every day, the line carries 125,000 people, many of whom have spent years of getting squashed in crowded buses. “The entire first phase of work, with three lines across more than 62 km, will be over by June 2005. Then our trains would be carrying 2.2 million passengers a day,” said DMRC chief public relations officer Anuj Dayal. This roughly translates to about 15 percent of the total traveling population in the city. “It’ll take the load off 2,500 of Delhi’s 6,000-odd buses,” Dayal told IANS. In a city bidding for the 2016 Olympic Games, the metro rail comes as a huge boost to infrastructure - ending traffic jams and greatly reducing travel time. The first phase of the metro has been under construction for a little over seven years and has cost about Rs.100 billion ($2.2 billion). In the coming years, the metro will be built across 151 km, connecting almost every part of the city and its suburbs, and is already expected to be a solution to everything — from frustration and fatigue to road rage and air pollution. A DMRC study says the metro, when completed, will help reduce air pollution in the city by 21 percent and save around 96.3 million litres of fuel every year. |
Metro, Pr. George’s Extend Their Reach; Two New Blue Line Stations Open, Bringing Passengers and Economic PotentialWashington Post December 19, 2004; Two new Prince George’s County Metro stations opened yesterday, extending the transit system’s Blue Line three miles east, with the final stop now within walking distance of FedEx Field. The Largo Town Center stop is the first outside the Capital Beltway in Prince George’s, and the Morgan Boulevard stop is just inside the Beltway. Officials expect the $456 million extension to ease traffic on roads and draw shoppers, families and businesses to the heart of the county. “This marks the renaissance of economic development” in the county, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R) said at the opening of the Largo Town Center stop yesterday. “It was built with the people in mind.” The station was built to be unobtrusive and attractive, said Metro chief executive Richard A. White. Prince George’s residents said they didn’t want to “see it, hear it or feel it,” White said, so the tracks are elevated or underground to minimize disruptions. The 3.1-mile extension marks the first expansion of the Metrorail system beyond the originally planned 103 miles of track, which was completed in January 2001. Largo Town Center and Morgan Boulevard are the 85th and 86th stations, and they boast such amenities as multiple escalators and elevators in case of outages. Metro predicts that in a year, a total of nearly 10,000 passengers will board or exit at the stations. Despite the extension’s deliberate subtlety, many said the new stations, with their commissioned artwork, tall glass windows and soaring steel balustrades, serve both practical and symbolic purposes for the communities they reach. Before the ribbon-cutting at Largo Town Center, speakers pointed to the Metro extension as evidence of past and future growth. “When you live in an outlying area, the Metro can bring opportunities for expansion and growth, particularly to a place like Prince George’s,” former County Council member Marvin Wilson said at the Morgan Boulevard dedication. “It brings people to our county and shows that all kinds of things can grow beyond metropolitan Washington.” For some of the first passengers to catch the train, the practical benefits triumphed: easy access to the movie theater at Largo; a day care center at Morgan Boulevard that will accommodate 90 children; no more waiting at cold bus stops for a ride to Addison Road, which used to be the last stop. Annie Strivers, 75, boarded the train at Morgan Boulevard just before noon yesterday for a ceremonial ride to the line’s new terminus. She wanted to be one of the first to watch the Largo shops come into view from a Metro car window. “I’ve lived in Washington my whole life,” she said from her seat on the train, “and I’ve seen the subway grow. I’ve been waiting forever for it to go out this far.” Much of Prince George’s County has been waiting for a smaller eternity — about 3 1/2 years since the groundbreaking for the new stations May 8, 2001. Still, it has been an agonizing wait for those like County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D), who moved into the county two decades ago. At the opening of the Morgan Boulevard stop yesterday morning, he told of one icy February night when he took the Metro from Federal Triangle, where he worked, to the last stop on the Blue Line. He arrived at 9:05 p.m., missing by five minutes the bus that would take him home to his wife and newborn daughter. The next bus was scheduled to come at 11. After borrowing a quarter from a fellow passenger to phone home, Johnson resolved to work for the expansion of the Blue Line, which he said he hopes “will allow people in Prince George’s County to have more time with their families and will be the beginning of efforts to extend Metro all across the region.” |
Buying Near the Tracks Could Prove ProfitableNew York Times December 19, 2004 AFTER many years of contentious debate, the last leg of the new light rail line opened here early this month, linking downtown Minneapolis to Twin Cities International Airport and the Mall of America, both in suburban Bloomington. Many people argued that $60 million a mile was too much to pay for a mode of transportation that would benefit only a small percentage of Minnesota’s 4.5 million residents. But the former wrestler Jesse Ventura, the state’s governor during the final stages of talks about the line, twisted enough arms to convince legislators that the 12-mile line was worth the money. The governor apparently was right in his conviction that the line would be beneficial. The number of people who have ridden the line since the first eight-mile segment opened in June has been more than double the preconstruction projections. And although Minneapolis is several years late to the light rail rage that has already gripped cities like Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City and Sacramento, it has been the talk of this town this fall. It used to be a property-value deflator to live near railroad tracks, but now a significant portion of the area’s residential real estate boom is happening in neighborhoods along the path of the train, called the Hiawatha Line. According to a study by the Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development Department, 7,000 new housing units can be tied in some way to the train. Owners of existing property, meanwhile, are betting that the line will increase their home values. “We’re definitely seeing people holding on to their properties longer,” particularly homeowners, said Jeff Corn, the community development coordinator for the Longfellow Community Council, a nonprofit group representing the Longfellow neighborhood, one of many city neighborhoods along the line. Early returns are that riders like the clean, fast and quiet trains with bright yellow bullet-shaped lead cars. Except where the train connects the Humphrey and Lindbergh terminals at the Minneapolis-St Paul airport through a 7,400 foot-long tunnel, it travels above ground, with windows from waist high to ceiling affording great inside lighting. Platforms for the 18 stations are on the same plane as the train, so passengers can walk on to the train, rather than climbing up steps, like on a bus. Bicyclists who get on at the Lake Street station can take an elevator to the platform, then wheel their bikes onto the train and secure them on a rack next to their seats. Thirty years ago, homes were razed along Hiawatha Avenue, which runs parallel to the line, to make way for an eight-lane freeway to the airport. When the freeway was scotched, most of the land was sold to developers, who built homes there. As a result, much of the residential property in the middle of the line is just beginning its second generation. “Those homeowners are sitting pretty now,” said Dewayne Townsend, a homeowner who is active in the Longfellow Community Council. Michael Christenson, director of economic development for Minneapolis, says property values along the line seem to have increased, though it’s too early to say how much. While some other cities have built their light rail in a spokes-to-hub fashion, Minneapolis’s Hiawatha line connects two hubs. The biggest real estate boom is at either end. The proposed Reflections condominium complex is a good example of the kind of housing that is going up on the south end of the line near the Twin Cities airport and the Mall of America, which has stores, restaurants, movies and an indoor amusement park, complete with Ferris wheel. The developer, McGough Development of St. Paul, plans to break ground in midwinter on a 43-acre parcel that was bought in December 2001, when final plans for the Hiawatha line were nearing completion. At the time, company officials weren’t sure whether the line would be a plus for potential buyers. “Light rail turned out to be a huge enhancement to the marketability of this site,” said Laurence Harmon, a spokesman for the McGough project. Since October, 126 purchase agreements have been signed to buy apartments in the 274-unit condo complex, which is steps away from the Bloomington Central stop on the light rail line. Access to the light rail line has apparently led to a drop in car use, Mr. Harmon said. There are fewer requests for garage spaces from buyers than the developer had expected, he said. McGough had more than the usual challenges in building Reflections. Because the parcel is less than five miles from the airport, each unit will be encased in floor-to-ceiling, six-inch-thick triple-paned glass with two layers of air to keep out thundering jet noise. The windows do not open; an interior white noise that sounds like the hum of air-conditioning guarantees that residents will not hear the planes, the builders say. Meanwhile, Federal Aviation Administration requirements said the project could rise no higher than 170 feet. The result is two 17-story towers, with units varying from 750 to 2,300 square feet and prices from $166,000 to $773,000, a range below what is available in downtown Minneapolis. Some shoppers complain that the bleached hardwood floors and floor-to-ceiling windows make the units feel cold. Others think they allow a wash of sunlight on even a dreary day, a boon for those suffering seasonal affective disorder here in the north where it’s dark by 4:30 p.m. in the deepest of winter. “You either love it, or you hate it,” Mr. Harmon said of the design. The model unit is laid out with the kitchen, laundry and bathroom in the middle of the floor plan, circled by open-space living, dining and bedroom areas. It was the seven-minute train ride from the buildings to the airport that really appealed to a couple from South Dakota, who wanted a place to stay when they are in Minneapolis. The couple, who asked that their names not be used to protect their privacy, fly in every month for private tango lessons. “This will be a good place to enjoy our retirement,” said the woman, a professional in her mid-50’s who loves to travel. “The easy train ride to the airport and places like the Guthrie Theater was definitely a factor.” Paul Krumrich, 31, who owns an audio-visual company, Spyeglass, said he isn’t bothered by the fact that he cannot open the windows of the units. What’s important to him, too, is the fact that he can easily hop on the train to downtown Minneapolis to meet with friends on weekends. The design of the apartments was also a draw for Mr. Krumrich, who has reserved two two-bedroom units next to each other, paying $280,000 for one and $206,000 for another. He will have a view of the open, frontier- like Minnesota River valley to his south and downtown St. Paul to his east. He will live in one apartment and use the other as an investment. “They’re sleek, minimalist and modern,” he said. “I stayed in an apartment just like the model when I was in Ottawa, Canada, and when I saw this I knew it was the one for me. It’s unlike anything else in Minneapolis.” |
Editorial: Secret train/Where are signs for Hiawatha?Minneapolis Star Tribune 19 Dec. 2004 On Monday, the first day of full commercial operation, we went looking for the southern terminus of the sleek new Hiawatha light-rail line. No luck. We drove both ways along the Bloomington Strip. No signs for a station or a park-and-ride lot. We drove both ways along Cedar Avenue. Again no signs. We approached the Mall of America, only to be turned away by barricaded parking ramp. No signs, no directions. We asked a security guard where to park to take the train. He shrugged. Finally, on Old Shakopee Road near 28th Avenue, about three blocks east of the mall, we spotted a postage stamp of a sign directing us to LRT parking. From there our trip went smoothly. But we wondered how the Minnesota Department of Transportation could do such a bang-up job building its first rail line while conspiring, it seemed, to keep its location a secret. We’re confident that had Hiawatha been a new freeway, MnDOT would have erected plenty of those big green overheads to let us know about it. As we said, our ride went smoothly, our 8:00 train gliding away from 28th Avenue with seats available. By Minnehaha Park, people were standing. By Lake Street we were sardines. At Nicollet Mall, first-time rider Katie Watson of Bloomington checked her watch and declared her commute a success, even though she had never found the parking lot. She would be early to work even on a rainy-snowy morning that slowed auto traffic to a crawl. “I liked it,” she said, comparing her 27-minute trip to those she had taken as a student in London. Last Saturday, at opening ceremonies for the line’s new Bloomington stations, Sen. Norm Coleman had said it best: “We’re beginning to see the metro area of the 21st century taking shape. Let’s keep rolling.” Indeed, momentum is important. Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin called Hiawatha “a metaphor for uniting the region,” urging completion of Northstar, the proposed commuter line to Big Lake, and light-rail connections to St. Paul and Eden Prairie. McLaughlin and U.S. Rep. Martin Sabo deserve enormous credit for making Hiawatha a reality. Sabo’s Washington skills saved the project time and again, and McLaughlin never gave up despite stiff opposition from some of the same politicians who now celebrate the line’s early success. “You have a national reputation already,” said deputy Federal Transit Administrator Don Gismondi, who joined Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau in praising the line for being delivered, in Molnau’s words, “on budget and ahead of schedule.” In all, the ceremony was a rare and refreshing display of bipartisan spirit. Metro Transit estimated ridership at 87,500 on the first weekend, a spokesman commenting on streams of shoppers into the Mall of America and a crush of patrons to downtown events on Saturday night. As for weekday commuters, they need big blue signs on the freeways and better signs on the streets. It’s not hospitable for MnDOT to keep its new trains a secret from road-weary south metro commuters, the very people who could benefit the most. |
Birmingham, Alabama: Light rail streetcar plan draws supportLight Rail Now! NewsLog 19 December 2004 Plans for a light rail electric streetcar system in Birmingham, Alabama seem to be moving forward, at least somewhat. According to news reports, the urban area’s Jefferson County Commission plans to spend $25 million of county money to “revive” a streetcar system in Birmingham (the previous network, spanning hundreds of miles, was scrapped in the 1950s). A majority of commissioners decided Thursday, Dec. 16th to move ahead with the project immediately, leaving federal funding to be pursued later. Project consultants have reported that the county can get four miles of streetcar line ready to run by the end of 2007 for $30 million – i.e., about $7.5 million per mile. Route details have not been made easily available to the public, and seem to be still in flux. [WKRN-TV, 16 December 2004] Apparently, county commissioners are prepared to allocate the $25 million to get the project under way now. However, the agency structure to manage the project and operate the system remains to be ironed out. Internal problems of the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) are leading commissioners to consider some type of new agency for the task – possibly a new “railroad authority”, although that proposal currently lacks sufficient support among commissioners. Reportedly, the county has already hired the New Orleans-based firm of Burk-Kleinpeter for preparatory streetcar work, while Alabama Power, which would feed the system’s electric power supply, intends to participate in early planning. [Smart Growth News, 5 November 2004, Tuscaloosa News, 12 Dec 2004] According to Rail Transit Online (Nov. 2004), the streetcar proposal is strongly favored by Jefferson County Commission President Larry Langford, who believes that reviving an electric streetcar system would help revitalize the central city. The US Congress has already set aside $87 million for rapid transit in Birmingham, but those funds have remained unused because local officials haven’t been able to agree on a suitable project. Under terms of the prospective federal grant, the metropolitan area would have to contribute only 20 percent of the capital cost. According to Langford’s vision, some of the trackage from the system scrapped in 1953 could be re-used for the new trolley system. “We can start downtown and work our way out” the commissioner told a Birmingham News reporter. “These tracks run to Graymont, Irondale, East Thomas, and East Lake. We have about 300 miles [about 483 km] of track, and 90 percent of it is still there, with asphalt over it.” Langford acknowledged that deteriorated track would have to be replaced, modern streetcars purchased, and a traction power system installed. [Rail Transit Online, November 2004] (One hopes that the consultants’ design and cost estimates have not widely assumed the resurrection of such trackage, buried for 50 years. With very rare exceptions – like sections of the McKinney Avenue heritage streetar line in Dallas – such infrastructure typically is far too light, worn, and deteriorated for rehabilitation and re-use in a modern operation, even with historic or replica heritage rolling stock.) Ultimately, the streetcar could form the nucleus of a much more extensive system. Two years ago, reports Rail Transit Online, transportation consultant STV Inc. developed a $585-million mass transit plan, including a $100 million downtown streetcar system plus a five-corridor network of HOV lanes. The plan was accepted by a subcommittee of the area’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, but appears to have made little subsequent progress. Birmingham area officials may have these or other expansion plans in mind as they push a proposal for raising motor vehicle registration fees to pay for more ambitious transit improvements. The fee increase may be placed for action before the next session of the Alabama Legislature. If it passes, it would be put to a public vote. However, its chances for passage are currently not assessed as strong. Nevertheless, the far more modest streetcar plan, with strong local support, presently seems to have momentum. [Birmingham News, 16 December 2004] |
Transit Plan Seen As 1st Step; Officials Say More Needs to Be DoneWashington Post December 19, 2004 The $824 million transportation plan Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) unveiled last week would provide a modest boost for road and rail projects in Northern Virginia, but it still leaves lawmakers and local leaders looking for solutions to the region’s traffic congestion. In some cases, the potential effect of the new funds is easy to spot. The plan includes $40 million for 20 new Metro rail cars and $20 million for 11 new Virginia Railway Express cars. That would allow Metro to extend some of its rush-hour trains from four to six cars and VRE to buy bigger, more modern cars. In addition, the plan would allow the state to fix some bridges and roads in several Northern Virginia jurisdictions, results that motorists would see within several years. “The plan will improve the quality of our citizens’ lives,” Warner said last Thursday when he announced the plan. His proposal would allow local governments to obtain state money to start some secondary road construction, rather than wait for money from the federal government, a lengthy process that sometimes slows projects. Instead of waiting for $650,000 from Washington to widen a part of West Ox Road, Fairfax County could tap the state for that money, which would be made available through an $80 million fund in Warner’s plan. With money in hand more quickly, localities could go about their construction faster, which would ultimately benefit taxpayers, Warner said. “Many local governments over the years have said, ‘Well, we can [build roads] quicker and cheaper,’ “ Warner said. “Well now . . . we want to say, ‘Go to it.’ “ In other cases, Warner’s program would pay for things not so obvious. The transportation plan, which will be part of the budget amendments he will submit to the legislature next month, would pay off long-standing debts on road projects throughout the region. In addition, Warner has proposed spending $23 million to improve the state’s rail network so trains could carry more cargo from Norfolk to Northern Virginia. That, in turn, could reduce truck traffic and lead to gradual decreases in traffic congestion, state officials said. Local leaders and advocates for transportation improvements said Warner’s plan is only part of a solution for Northern Virginia, where concern about worsening traffic congestion is widespread. “This is only taking a bite out of the issue,” said Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Sean T. Connaughton (R), who is running for lieutenant governor. Connaughton said he understood the constraints state leaders are under. “It’s an important step, and an issue that we’re going to have to keep coming back to with different solutions,” he said. Some have said that state leaders have not offered a larger, more comprehensive plan for transportation because the problem is not uniformly severe across Virginia. Traffic congestion is most severe in the two largest urban areas, Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. Politicians in other regions are unwilling to support large investments of state money to solve the problems of those two areas. “There’s a drastic need in transportation, but it’s really only acute in two areas,” said Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. After a protracted debate over education and health care during the 2004 legislative session that resulted in tax increases, it would be difficult to raise taxes again in the upcoming session, he said. Plus, 2005 is an election year for the House of Delegates. “Last [session], there was largely consensus that education funding was needed from Abingdon to Arlington,” Moran said. “And it was an excruciating process . . . just to raise money for services that everyone acknowledged needed more funding.” Leaders in Northern Virginia agreed. “Transportation needs don’t rise to the same level in parts of the state outside of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads,” said Chris Zimmerman (D), an Arlington County Board member who also represents the county on the Metro board. “It’s just not the same issue for them as it is for us… and Richmond won’t give us the ability to solve our problems.” Some Republican lawmakers from rural areas said they appreciate the seriousness of the issue but disagree on how to go about funding projects. They said that proposals for larger, more comprehensive solutions have relied too heavily on increases in the gas tax or other levies that many delegates oppose. “Anyone on the Interstate 81 corridor knows that we have tremendous needs,” said House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), whose district is in the state’s southwestern corner. “But I think those who want to see new revenue are still thinking in an old mold. We need to discuss different ways of funding transportation.” |
Will new trolley stop put system off track? Future construction of light-rail promises to put trolley on hiatusCharlotte Business Journal December 20, 2004 Just as the trolley gains momentum, talks are under way to halt service for up to nine months as soon as late next year. David Leard, project director for the city’s light-rail project in the south and northeast corridors, says the conversion of track that will be shared by the trolley and light-rail trains requires a shutdown of the trolley. That will likely begin next December. The $40 million trolley system, which connects uptown and South End, endured several delays before the service began last spring. Between its launch June 28 and Nov. 30, the trolley carried 118,766 passengers, exceeding a projected 12-month estimate of 100,000 riders for its first year, according to Charlotte Area Transit System. CATS operates the trolley on behalf of the city. Leard says shuttering the trolley will reduce total construction time and save money. In addition, operating the trolley while making the light-rail additions would cause so many service disruptions passengers would be inconvenienced more frequently over a longer period, he says. “This way, we’re talking a six-month disruption versus a 17-month disruption,” Leard says. “People would be more upset if we interrupted the service over and over again.” Next month, CATS plans a series of public meetings to discuss the proposed construction schedule. Leard says some plans are still being shaped and must be finished before a definite start date can be set for construction. Worth it in the long run Business owners along the trolley corridor say the service disruption will hurt. However, it will be worth it in the long run, they contend, because the addition of light rail will bring many more passengers back and forth. “It’s a hiccup in the ongoing process of making center city a better destination,” says Chuck Richards, owner of Reid’s Fine Foods at Seventh Street Station. “The city and CATS have been very good about keeping us informed of what’s happening, and everyone is doing as much as possible to minimize the inconvenience.” Richards, a longtime trolley advocate, says the system has been a boon to business since it started in June. At the same time, he says quantifying the trolley’s impact is difficult. For that reason, he says estimating how much business might be lost during the shutdown is all but impossible. At CATS, plans for an extensive public awareness and marketing campaign regarding the shutdown are in the discussion stages. Jean Leier, a CATS spokeswoman, says the city transportation agency will use several methods to make sure trolley riders are aware of the planned hiatus, including ads, workshops and meetings with constituents. “From the news media to placing ads around town, we’re going to make sure people understand what’s happening,” she says. “And I think, for that reason, people will be back as soon as the construction is done. They will understand.” Adjusting the schedule Leard, the light-rail project manager, says the trolley won’t run during peak light-rail times once construction is completed, because those trains will travel much faster and much more frequently than the trolley. Whenever the light-rail system operates routes running every 15 minutes or less, trolley service will be suspended. In practice, CATS officials say, the trolley will run mostly at night and on weekends. CATS anticipates a late-2006 or early-2007 start for light-rail service in the south corridor, which includes the trolley line. Tourism officials say the disruption isn’t unanticipated and will be worth the short-term headaches. “It’s not nirvana,” says Tim Newman, head of the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority. “We’ve known for some time that this was coming, and we just have to work through it. For light-rail service,” he adds, “this will be worth a brief delay in trolley service.” |
Beltline Can Be Atlanta’s ‘Emerald Necklace’; Plan by Renowned Yale Professor Shows Potential for New Parks, Development and ConnectionsPR Newswire US December 20, 2004 A proposed Beltline corridor of transit, parks and trails would significantly enhance future development for Atlanta, according to a plan released today by the Trust for Public Land (TPL). The TPL plan, developed by renowned Yale University Professor Alexander Garvin, calls for the Beltline corridor to frame a new park system that will add more than 1,400 acres of green space to the city, including four new parks, four expanded parks and five park-centered mixed-use developments. According to the plan, the Beltline will be the foundation of a new 2,544-acre park system. Garvin has coined the Beltline and its adjacent parks the Emerald Necklace, after Frederick Law Olmsted’s famous Emerald Necklace of parks in Boston. The Atlanta Emerald Necklace will connect 46 of the city’s historic neighborhoods and include a 23-mile Beltline Trail for running and bicycling, a 20-mile Beltline Transit System, and 13 new Beltline “Jewels”: • Four new parks, totaling more than 330 acres; • Four expanded parks, collectively growing by more than 100 acres; and • Five park-centered mixed-use communities that would include nearly 800 acres of new green space In addition, the TPL plan proposes adding three new MARTA stations to link the Beltline to Atlanta’s existing transit network. “The Beltline offers Atlanta an opportunity that far exceeds that of any other American city,” said Garvin, one of the nation’s top land planners. “Atlanta has an historic opportunity to create stronger, better communities through a well-planned new public park system that will benefit the citizens of Atlanta for decades.” The Beltline concept, conceived by Georgia Tech graduate student Ryan Gravel in 1999, calls for turning more than 20 miles of old railroad tracks and other land into a linear recreation and transit loop, linking some of the city’s oldest neighborhoods. Building on Gravel’s idea, TPL commissioned the Garvin team to explore open space opportunities along the Beltline. After reviewing every foot of the corridor, the research team identified ways for the Beltline to meet Atlanta’s growing need for more green space, in-town transit options, recreation opportunities, redevelopment of low-income areas and new affordable housing. “We have an opportunity in Atlanta to use the Beltline to create a great park system for the 21st century,” said Jim Langford, state director of the Trust for Public Land in Georgia. “This is an unprecedented chance to change the face of our city, but timing, funding and cooperation are absolutely critical to making it happen.” TPL has a long history of land conservation work in Atlanta. TPL worked closely with other conservation organizations and led the effort to preserve almost 70 miles of river frontage along the Chattahoochee River; protected land for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site; and recently worked with the city to expand parkland in Southeast Atlanta. Garvin’s team envisions the Beltline Emerald Necklace as a way to spur the city’s in-town development. “Atlanta’s history as a railroad hub has provided quite a legacy,” said Garvin. “The promise of the Beltline is to improve the daily life of residents both along the corridor and throughout the city by providing transit and recreation connections on a city-wide level. No city has ever had this extraordinary opportunity to combine these two elements and create a public realm framework around which the city will grow for generations to come.” Both MARTA and the Atlanta Development Authority are currently conducting independent feasibility studies on the Beltline to examine transit and economic development options for the corridor. Working with the city, TPL established a Beltline Greenspace Steering Committee and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin created the Beltline Steering Committee, co-chaired by Georgia State University President Carl Patton and Barney Simms, Senior Vice President of the Atlanta Housing Authority. “All the elements for a Beltline corridor are here,” said Langford. “Much of the infrastructure is in place along an existing right-of-way, so this really is a remarkable, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring Atlanta together in a dynamic way, add 50 percent more park space and refresh a forgotten history.” Only 3.8 percent of Atlanta’s land area is preserved as parks, ranking it near the bottom among major American cities in terms of green space. Atlanta offers only 7.8 acres of green space for every 1,000 residents, also less than most other major American cities. “We believe that access to parks, trails and natural areas is essential to human health and well-being, and is a cornerstone of livable communities,” said Langford. “We are committed to helping Atlanta realize the possibilities of the Beltline.” |
Editor’s ReportPacific Builder and Engineer December 20, 2004 I could hardly believe it in November 2002 when Seattle voters approved a car-tab tax to build a $1.75-billion, a 14-mile monorail system linking Crown Hill, Ballard, Seattle Center, downtown, and West Seattle. Even after two prior successes at the polls for monorail planning initiatives in 1997 and 2000, I just couldn’t see it happening. Sure, I was well aware of the city’s love affair with its existing monorail. But that short line from the Seattle Center to Westlake was 40 years old, a leftover tourist attraction from the 1962 World’s Fair. Its appeal was nostalgic, not futuristic, and it had never been asked to serve as a prototype for a practical commuter system. On top of that, the community had already committed to its share of a $2.4-billion, north-south light rail line as part of the three-county Sound Transit regional transit system approved in 1996. And further, the rather low-key campaign for the new monorail never claimed that the system would provide much, if any, relief from the traffic backups on Interstate 5 that happen almost every day. But as Mickey and Sylvia sang in sour harmony not long after Seattle’s original monorail started running, “Love is strange.” The ballot issue passed, and the new Seattle Green Line Monorail Project has been taking shape ever since. Still, I was hesitant to get excited about the monorail project. In fact, I held off covering the monorail in PB&E under the assumption that it would never be built. This year brought more cause for doubt. First, Jon Magnusson, perhaps Seattle’s best-known structural engineer, went public with his concerns about the design of monorail system, which leaders of the Seattle Monorail Project dismissed with haughty indignation that reminded me of the early days of Sound Transit. Then one of the joint ventures competing for the project dropped out, leaving SMP with just a single bidder for the 14-mile Green Line system. As if those developments weren’t enough, one of the trains in the old monorail system caught on fire, stopping the tourist line dead on its track and possibly adding doubts about the viability of the new line. With this year’s November election came another vote on the Monorail project, the Initiative 83 recall effort that sought to stop construction before it ever began. Surely, I thought, in this era of something-for-nothing politics the voters would call a halt to this thing now. Wrong again. I-83 went down to defeat, with Seattle voters supporting the monorail by better than 60 percent. So now it’s full speed ahead for SMP and its presumptive contractor, Cascadia Monorail Co. LLC. The SMP is using the Design-Build-Operate-Maintain approach to deliver the contract. The DBOM approach places total responsibility on a single entity, the DBOM contractor, for end-to-end completion of all aspects of the monorail. The two sides are still negotiating their contract as I write this, but I fully expect a contract award to be forthcoming and work to begin shortly after that. The contract could be worth roughly $1.3 billion out of a total project cost of $1.75 billion, sources say. One thing is certain: Cascadia Monorail Co. has put together a heck of a team for the project. Led by Washington Group International and Fluor Enterprises, the consortium of more than a dozen award-winning urban mass transit firms also includes Hitachi, Mitsui, HDR Engineering, Howard S. Wright Construction Co., Hoffman Construction, RCI Construction Group, and Atkinson Construction, as well as other Seattle and Washington contractors and consultants. Construction is scheduled to break ground in 2005 and the first monorail segment is anticipated to begin operation in late 2007. Don’t misunderstand me here: I don’t oppose construction of the Green Line and never have. I simply didn’t think Seattle would have the will to build it, and I was wrong. Now I’m looking forward to covering its construction in PB&E and, after that, showing it off when family and friends visit from other parts of the country. SAIF is Safe Another important outcome in last month’s election was Oregon’s defeat of Ballot Measure 38. This measure sought to abolish SAIF Corp., the state-owned workers’ compensation insurer. Fortunately, Oregon voters weren’t swayed by a $7-million campaign financed by Liberty Mutual in an effort to eliminate its primary competition in the state. With SAIF in operation, Oregon contractors might have faced increases in their premiums of 50 percent or more had Ballot Measure 38 passed. |
Siemens Awarded Contract for 33 Light Rail Vehicles Worth $120 Million CDN, or $99M USD; City Officials Cite Unprecedented Ridership Increases as Impetus for OrderBUSINESS WIRE December 20, 2004 Siemens Transportation Systems (STS) in Canada and the U.S. jointly announced the City of Calgary’s purchase of 33 additional new SD160 Light Rail Transit (LRT) vehicles to expand its existing CTrain fleet. The contract is worth approximately $120 million CDN ($99 million USD). The past several years have brought strong population and job increases to Calgary resulting in unprecedented growth to Calgary Transit’s ridership and demand for increased service. Through close collaboration between the City of Calgary and Siemens, many key improvements to quality, passenger comfort, safety and durability will be realized when the first new vehicles begin arriving in the fall of 2006. The new cars feature a new AC (alternate current) propulsion design, versus the older DC (direct current) technology, that increases power, making for faster acceleration and deceleration, with lower maintenance costs. “Our long-standing partnership with the City reflects well on Siemens’ customer focus towards satisfaction and reliability,” said Dr. Albert Maringer, president and CEO, Siemens Canada Limited. “We introduced the first LRT vehicles to North America in the Province of Alberta back in 1978, and ever since that time, we have had the pleasure of pioneering AC technology in a model partnership as a driving force in the Canadian transportation industry.” The vehicles will be manufactured at Siemens’ Sacramento, CA plant where the company is also making new 70% low-floor vehicles for San Diego, CA and Charlotte, NC. Siemens has built rail cars for Calgary with six consecutive contracts and similar LRVs for Denver, CO and St. Louis, MO. The order will bring Calgary’s total to 149 light rail cars. “Calgary demonstrates how light rail contributes to the growth and mobility of a city,” said Oliver Hauck, president and CEO of STS. “Calgary’s light rail trains have had a 100 percent increase in ridership over the last 10 years, illustrating how much the city’s residents prefer and rely on public transportation to navigate the city. This is also an exciting win for U.S. manufacturing, leveraging the strength of the Canadian dollar to win product awards in the States. Siemens’ track record on quality, on-time delivery and cost all contributed to this win for California.” With this order, Calgary becomes the largest customer of Siemens light rail vehicles in North America. The production schedule for the cars is estimated to be two to three vehicles per month, following the initial shipment in 2006 and will be shipped directly on rail from Sacramento. Between 1995 and 2004, annual transit ridership increased by 43 percent from 56 to 80 million revenue trips, which is more than one and one-half times Calgary’s population growth rate of 25 percent. Ridership growth on the CTrain system has increased at an even faster rate, reaching over 210,000 weekday boardings — an increase of over 90 percent. Calgary Transit’s share of work travel to the downtown core has risen from 36 to over 42 percent over the same period. “There continues to be significant environmental benefits attributable to the use of the CTrain,” noted Robert Weber, vice president, Transportation Systems for Siemens Canada. “Through the innovative Ride the Wind! Program, zero-emissions wind power is being purchased to power the CTrain and, considering all the factors, use of Calgary Transit reduces the annual production of greenhouse gases by 176,000 tonnes. As well, by transporting 42 percent of downtown workers, the number of vehicles entering the downtown area is reduced by approximately 38,000 vehicles daily, thereby eliminating the need for costly roadway expansion and construction of additional downtown parking stalls.” |
Beijing seeking domestic, foreign investors for subway linesXinhua Financial Network News December 20, 2004 BEIJING (XFN-ASIA) - The Beijing government is inviting domestic and overseas investors to inject funds into the construction and operation of three future subway lines in the capital, said Wang Qi, general manager of Beijing Infrastructure Investment Co Ltd. In a speech published on the official bjinvest.gov.cn website, Wang said the Beijing government is inviting investment for the No.5, No.9 and No.10 subway lines. A spokeswoman for Beijing Infrastructure Investment, which a city government company that invests in major development projects, told XFN-Asia there would be no preference given to either domestic or foreign investors when the city chooses contractors for the subway lines. But regulations governing foreign investment in urban infrastructure projects will apply, the spokeswoman said without elaborating. The precise formula used for the construction and operation have not been determined though build, operate and transfer contracts may be used in some cases. Wang delivered the speech at an investment promotion conference held by the Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission in Quebec, Canada. The public tender process is “an essential step in the reform of Beijing’s investment system in infrastructure construction,” he said. According to Wang, public bidding for lines No.5 and No.10 will begin on Jan 1, 2005. He added that the operating rights for the lines would be awarded on completion in 2007 and 2008. From 2004 to 2008, Beijing will complete construction of four subway or light-rail lines including No. 4 and No.10, with a total combined length of 128.3 km. And from 2009 to 2015, the capital will build another five subway or light-rail lines with a combined length of 107.3 km, according to Wang. He said Beijing will have a combined urban rail network of 349.7 km by 2015. The China Daily reported over the weekend that two joint ventures are bidding for the franchised operation of the No.4 line, for which construction broke ground earlier this year. One is a venture between Hong Kong’s MTR Corp, Beijing Infrastructure Investment and the Beijing Capital Group. The other venture is composed of German-based Siemens, China Railway Construction Corporation and Beijing Metro Corp, according to the report. The report added that the winning candidate will need to put up some five bln yuan, or about 30 pct of the 15.3 bln total investment required for the No. 4 line. The remaining costs will be borne by the Beijing municipal government, Wang said. ($1 US = 8.3 yuan) |
Planning Approval Given To Extend Midland Metro To Brierley HillDepartment For Transport December 20, 2004 An Order is to be made under the Transport and Works Act (TWA) giving powers to extend the Midland Metro light rapid transit system from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill, Transport Minister David Jamieson announced today. A separate process will take place to determine funding for the project. Subject to Parliamentary confirmation, and funding approval from the Government, the Order will enable the building of an 11 kilometre extension of the Midland Metro from the existing line at Wednesbury, to Brierley Hill via Dudley town centre. Much of the extension would run along the routes of disused railways. The decision to make the Order, which was applied for by Centro, accords with the recommendation of the Inspector who held a public inquiry into the proposals. Commenting on the decision, David Jamieson said: “The inquiry Inspector concluded that this extension of the Midland Metro would bring transport, regeneration and socio-economic benefits to the area. We agree with him. The scheme would improve accessibility to and within the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill transport corridor. It would run through some deprived areas and serve some new development sites. It would also provide an attractive alternative to the use of the car.” “We believe that the loss of some public open space as part of the scheme is justified by the wider benefits. This will, however, mean that the Order will have to be referred to Parliament for consideration before the powers can come into effect. “I should also like to make clear that the decision on the TWA Order is separate from a decision on funding, which will be subject to a separate approval process.” Notes to editors 1. Centro (the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive) applied to the Secretary of State for an Order under the Transport and Works Act to authorise them to build an 11 km extension to the Midland Metro light rapid transit system, running from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill, via Dudley town centre. 2. Following a public inquiry into the scheme, the Inspector, Mr G Self, concluded that approval should be given. He was persuaded that the scheme would bring transport, regeneration and socio-economic benefits; that it was supported by transport and planning policies at all levels; and that its impacts on local people and the environment would be acceptable, when proposed mitigation measures were in place. 3. The Secretary of State has decided to accept the recommendation of the Inspector and to make the TWA Order, with some modifications. He also intends to grant planning permission for the development, subject to conditions designed to minimise the impact of the works. These conditions will give Dudley and Sandwell Councils a suitable degree of control over the details of the scheme. 4. As the Order would authorise the compulsory purchase of open space, for which no land is to be given in exchange, it must be subject to Parliamentary approval. The Order will only come into force if it successfully completes its Parliamentary procedure. 5. The decision on the TWA Order does not convey any funding approval, which will be subject to a separate process. Full details of the Secretary of State’s decision and the reasons for it are set out in the decision letter which is today being sent to all interested parties. |
BizTrend: Taiwan bullet train project not on right trackJapan Economic Newswire December 21, 2004 Taiwan’s high-speed railway system linking the island’s capital city of Taipei and the southern city of Kaohsiung is unlikely to open on schedule in October 2005 due to delays in the adjustment of the Japanese shinkansen bullet train system to European specifications. Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp., operator of the system, decided in 1997 to adopt a European railway system combining German locomotives and French double-decker passenger cars. But in late 1999, the THSRC changed the decision and instead awarded a group of Japanese companies the priority rights to negotiate the contract. The consortium of seven Japanese companies, including Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. and Mitsui Co., then won a contract to operate the core system of the railway, including rolling stock (trains), electrification, and signaling systems. As a result, the high-speed railway system is mainly based on Japan’s Tokaido Shinkansen Line system. But the specifications based on European standards still remain unrevised, causing test runs originally scheduled for October to be postponed. ‘The fact that a European signaling system was adopted for the Taiwan shinkansen is another cause for the delay,’ said Zheng Mingzhang, director at the Railway Culture Society in Taipei. The Japanese group is now rushing to develop an automatic train control system for ‘bi-directional operations’ of trains on a single track — a system that would never be adopted in Japan. The Japanese rapid-transit railways are operated on a double track system for separate up and down lines. Since the infrastructure of the railway system is also based on European specifications, the viaducts are stronger and the tunnels are wider than those of the Japanese shinkansen system. All these resulted in ‘extra time and money,’ said a Taiwanese government official. Track-switching points and tracks in station yards are German made. Part of the civil engineering work is also being undertaken by non-Japanese firms. ‘Without test runs, we cannot ascertain the safety of the route connected with Japanese and German tracks of different specifications,’ said Takashi Shima, a former Japanese National Railways engineer and an adviser to the THSRC. Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai) and West Japan Railway Co. (JR West) are supposed to dispatch motormen and mechanics to Taiwan for training THSRC motormen and mechanics. The two railway operators are not members of the Japanese consortium. ‘Since the safety and durability of the system are not ensured, we should not be held responsible for any accident or slump in business after the operation gets under way,’ said a JR executive. Veteran JR motormen supposed to test run the Taiwan shinkansen are training to get accustomed to motorman’s platforms that are of different specifications. At Yenchao main workshop in southern Taiwan, dusty 700T trains based on Series 700 Tokaido Shinkansen Line trains are kept in the garage. They cannot make a trial run due to the short supply of electricity. An official of Interchange Association, Japan, which functions as the Japanese embassy in Taiwan, is apprehensive about the situation. ‘Since Taiwanese people are convinced that the Japanese shinkansen technologies are introduced 100 percent into Taiwan, if the opening for passenger services is delayed and an accident occurs, it would spark widespread mistrust of Japan throughout Taiwan,’ he said. |
Bombardier to Supply 38 Light Rail Vehicles Valued at 121 Million Dollars US to ViennaCanadian Corporate Newswire December 21, 2004 Bombardier Transportation today received an order from Vienna’s local operator Wiener Linien for the construction of 38 low-floor light rail vehicles (LRVs). The contract has a total value of 91 million euros ($121 million dollars US), with Bombardier’s share estimated at some 69 million euros ($91 million dollars US). The contract also includes an option for a further 42 LRVs. Delivery of the LRVs for Line U6 is scheduled for the period between the end of 2006 and mid-2008. The vehicles will be built at Bombardier Transportation’s production facilities in Vienna, with Vossloh Kiepe assuming responsibility for the electrical equipment. The technical specifications and advantages of the new light rail vehicles will be presented at a joint event with Wiener Linien in January next year. “For Bombardier, this order is further proof of the trust and confidence Wiener Linien place in our products and our people,” said Walter Grawenhoff, President, Light Rail Vehicles. “The order will allow us to add yet another chapter to the success story of Bombardier light rail vehicles, which we have developed specifically for Vienna’s U6 line.” From 1993 to 2000, Bombardier delivered a total of 78 vehicles, which have since been in full revenue service on the city’s historic metro line U6. The new vehicles are based to a large extent on the design of the previous vehicles. Passengers, however, will now be able to enjoy the additional benefit of an air-conditioned passenger area. |
A year later, not all are aboard the Sounder; Disappointing ridership is blamed on a schedule that’s less than convenient for commutersThe Herald - Everett, Wash. December 22, 2004 It’s been a humble beginning for commuter rail in Snohomish County. When the first commuter train headed from Everett to Seattle a year ago today, it was two years late, the price tag had nearly doubled and that lone round-trip train was a far cry from the 12 trains voters were promised when they approved Sound Move in 1996. When service started in 2003, the regional mass transit agency was only able to negotiate with Pacific Northern Santa Fe Railway for four trains a day; only one is in service. A second round-trip train will start by September. The other two are to start by 2007. Because of tough negotiations, Sound Transit ended up paying Burlington Northern $258 million for access to its tracks - more than double the original estimate of $115 million. That wasn’t the only cost overrun. Sound Transit also underestimated how much it would cost to build Sounder stations in Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds. Add it up, and the bill to bring commuter rail to Snohomish County pencils out at $316 million - 79 percent more than the estimate of $177 million cited in Sound Move. That’s a steep price to pay for a train that only has about 315 boardings a day, or about 158 round-trip riders each day. “That’s a lot of money they pumped into it for one train per day,” said Tim Rhoades of Everett. He tried the train when it first started but hated it. “I’m just not impressed. I’d rather ride the bus,” he said. Sound Transit officials say it’s unfair to compare the cost to buy perpetual access to Burlington Northern’s tracks to the number of riders who take the train now. “We’re building for the long haul,” said Mark Olson, an Everett City Council member and Sound Transit’s vice chairman. “We’ve got an agreement that is a forever deal.” Still, starting out with just 315 boardings a day is not what Sound Transit envisioned last year. The goal was 600 boardings per day by the end of the year. “It’s OK, but obviously we would have liked to see more riders,” said Marty Minkoff, Sound Transit’s director of transportation services. Original estimates had the 12 weekday round-trip trains supporting 7,200 boardings a day by 2010. With only four trains, Sound Transit now estimates there will be 2,100 boardings per day by 2010. The key to getting more riders is to add more times, Minkoff said. The No. 1 complaint is that the current schedule allows commuters almost no flexibility. That’s true for Wayne Radder of Everett, who rode Sounder for three months before finally giving in to his demanding work schedule. “For me to ride it, I need an earlier train and a later train,” Radder said. The current train arrives in Seattle at 7:39 a.m. and leaves Seattle at 5:13 p.m. Most people want a train that arrives in Seattle and leaves for Everett earlier or later. The train stops in Edmonds, and will stop in Mukilteo once a station is built there. Sound Transit must still negotiate with Burlington Northern regarding what times the second, third and fourth trains will run, Minkoff said. Once the new trains are added, Minkoff said he is confident more people will discover Sounder as a better alternative than fighting traffic. “When you get out on I-5, it’s touch-and-go,” he said. It can often take well over an hour to reach Everett from Seattle. “The train is very predictable,” he added. The folks who take the train love it, saying it’s such a smooth one-hour ride that they can work, read, doze or just enjoy gazing out at Puget Sound. “The commute was beating me up,” said Evan Thompson of Marysville. “My health was paying a price. Sounder lifted that burden off me.” Thompson said he never thought to try Sounder until someone suggested it earlier this fall. All he had to do was adjust his schedule at work, which allows him to work flexible hours. Now he’ll never go back to riding the bus. “I’d rather look at a sunset than at brake lights,” he said. |
Metro chief says reliability hit by funding issuesWashington Times December 22, 2004 Metro’s top official concedes that 2004 has been a tough year, particularly for rail service. Metro Chief Executive Officer Richard A. White blames some of the reliability and service problems on continued funding issues. But Mr. White said yesterday that other problems — including employee conduct — are management issues. “My gut tells me we’re at a situation driven about 75 percent by funding deferrals and 25 percent under the control of the organization,” Mr. White said during a year-end sit-down with reporters. The transit agency repeatedly cut staff and services for years before asking for back-to-back fare increases in 2003 and 2004. “I’ve been basically advising the board I don’t think there’s that much further we can go” to cut costs internally, Mr. White said. Metro is celebrating an influx of cash to make capital improvements. The Board of Directors recently approved a $3.3 billion Metro Matters funding agreement that will help bring eight-car rail trains to about one- third of the system. It also will add buses. The planned funding will come from local jurisdictions as well as the federal government. Mr. White said it will take about three years for the public to realize many of the planned improvements. Metro has ordered 184 new rail cars and should see a prototype in early next year. If all goes well, Mr. White expects to have most of the order filled during 2006, which will allow expansion to eight-car trains from the current four- and six-car setup. Metro’s hope is by that time the region will be willing to endorse a permanent source of funding for transit. Last week, a blue ribbon panel recommended a regional sales tax to help fund the transit system. “That was a very bold step,” Mr. White said. He said the most basic conclusion is that the region will continue to have transportation problems without a committed investment in Metro. The question now is how the funding proposal will go over politically. Metro hopes customers will remember 2004 as a year for service expansion. Metro opened two additional stations on the Blue Line in Prince George’s County and a Red Line station in Northeast. It also added 1,200 parking spaces at the West Falls Church station and 1,500 parking spaces at the Grosvenor station. Mr. White describes his goals for next year as a “back-to-basics approach” that will focus on “safe, reliable, clean and enhanced customer- focused service for the 1.3 million customers who use Metrorail, Metrobus in Metro Access each weekday.” Mr. White said Metro will move forward on steps to improve customer service and reliability. |
To the airport at last?Seattle Post-Intelligencer December 22, 2004 Officials from Sound Transit, the Port of Seattle and the city of SeaTac have hammered out a way to get light rail where it should have gone in the first place: to the airport. Budget restrictions, as well as security strictures and terminal planning changes in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, have been among the hurdles that have cropped up in the way of bringing Sound Transit’s initial Link light rail line to its natural southern terminus: Sea-Tac International Airport. Arguments that it would be good enough to bring the line within a mile or so of the airport have always fallen flat. Shuttling riders to and from the airport via a bus connection at the last light rail station was never a viable way of completing the logical transit link between downtown Seattle and the airport. Now, albeit perhaps six months after the rest of the light rail line is slated to be in operation, there is a plan to make that key link to the airport in 2010. And there’s more to the $300 million deal announced yesterday at the airport. In addition to the 1.7-mile light rail extension, there are plans for road improvements in and around the airport, including an interchange at South 160th Street and the widening of state Route 518 to ease airport vehicle traffic congestion. Sound Transit would fund the rail extension. The Port would finance the airport road projects and the Legislature will be asked to pay for the work on SR 518. At first blush, at least, the airport rail connection looks like a winner, as it would bring riders to the north end of the parking garage and within a four- minute, covered, walk of the terminal. Knowing where to stop can be as important as knowing where to start. |
Monorail’s good-ol’-boy approach continues with Henderson rail lineLas Vegas Mercury December 22, 2004 By almost any standard, you’d have to rank the Las Vegas monorail as the debacle of the year in Southern Nevada. It stunk worse than G-Sting, the Augustine impeachment and the Moncrief allegations combined, plus it was a story that provided moments of much-needed comic relief by starting up, then shutting down, starting up, then shutting down again, all the while raining pieces-parts like a mechanical McNugget. The monorail has been a real godsend for pain-in-the-ass critics like yours truly because it is a seemingly endless source of goofy mistakes, ridiculous claims and incestuous, insider deal-making. Knappster recently received a copy of a monorail-themed Christmas poem (“Ball bearings were falling, and nuts and bolts too. You should have seen the size of that screw.”) and if I told you who wrote it, you’d be tempted to think there is gunk in your ears. As the troubled train gets ready for yet another start-up, there are signs the community is ready to stop laughing and give the monorail another chance. My colleagues Geoff Schumacher and John L. Smith have both written columns arguing that while the project has been a mess so far, it still represents a step toward the future, and that we all need to get behind the idea of mass transit. Fair enough. I’m willing to move on to other deserving topics, having milked this story for about as much as it can give. But before signing off on the monorail story, there are a few parting shots that need to be taken because there is more than a good chance that some of the monorail’s mistakes might be repeated. First, I want to remind readers why we were ticked off at this thing to begin with. It wasn’t because of metal parts raining down on the streets. It’s because of the sneaky way the project was put together, and the misleading fairy tales that were told to taxpayers. You and I have been told many times that the monorail is a freebie, a shiny new toy that didn’t cost taxpayers ANYTHING. In common parlance, this is what’s called a lie. The monorail was supposed to be a private project, financed entirely by casinos and private investors. But in the end it was the backing of the state’s own bonding capacity that allowed the train’s proponents to raise the money they needed. The sneakiest part of the whole thing came during closed-door meetings with state and county officials at which secret deals were worked out to grant the monorail millions of dollars in tax breaks. Remember, this is supposedly a private project, one that isn’t costing the public a dime, yet massive tax breaks were granted at both the state and county levels. (The deal with the county meant a loss of $3 million per year in property taxes.) Worst of all, no one ever bothered to inform the public. There was no notification whatsoever, no public discussion, no vote by any public officials, nothing. The only way the tax breaks came to light is because of a few TV news stories. And believe me, it wasn’t easy to get the various parties to admit this stuff. The other troublesome aspect of the monorail is the coziness between the principal players. Former airport boss Bob Broadbent brought several relatives and cronies into the monorail deal, used his friendships with former colleagues at the county and the state to pave the way, and then assured the world that the project was practically an act of charity that would reduce traffic and air pollution, and usher in a new era of transportation. I don’t have to tell you how far off the mark all this was. If the late Broadbent felt that his son-in-law and other pals from the airport were the best people available to usher in a new monorail system, that’s fine. Hire them. But I think the argument could be made that while the monorail braintrust was strong on loyalty, the group was lacking in experience with anything even resembling an elevated train. Isn’t it reasonable to suggest that this just might have something to do with the endless string of problems that have beset the train since the very beginning? (Monorail spokesmen have repeatedly put the entire blame for mechanical problems on the principal contractor, Bombardier. But they neglect to point out that this is the company that THEY chose, even though Bombardier had experienced similar problems with other transit systems it has built all over the world.) Here’s why I raise the nepotism-cronyism issue one more time. Back in October, a special steering committee was formed under the auspices of the Regional Transportation Commission (whose director, by the way, also worked for Bob Broadbent at the airport before landing the RTC job.) The steering committee will oversee RTC plans for a proposed rail line that will someday run between Las Vegas and Henderson and could cost in excess of $2 billion. So, who do you suppose was chosen as the chairman of the steering committee? A leading rail expert, perhaps? If I told you it was an advertising executive from the LV monorail, would you believe me? Well, it’s true. Gary Johnson, who coincidentally once worked for Bob Broadbent at the airport and now handles advertising chores at the monorail, is the new chairman of the steering committee that will study how to build a high-tech train to Henderson. I’m sure Mr. Johnson is a very capable ad man. I’m also sure that his relationships with the Monorail Clan didn’t hurt his bid for the chairmanship. Is anyone ever going to ask some tough questions about all the series of cozy relationships that seem to permeate transportation planning in Southern Nevada? One person who IS likely to ask some questions when she gets a chance is state Sen. Dina Titus. Titus has said in the past that she supports the monorail and wants to see it succeed, but she is suspicious of the clandestine games that have been played involving bigshots who all seem to be cut from the same cloth. During the last legislative session, Titus introduced a bill to require public audits of the monorail project so the taxpayers could see what was going on. The monorail honchos fought tooth and nail against any formal audit. Instead, they convinced lawmakerers that they would voluntarily open their books and submit an annual financial report. The Titus bill failed. I’ve seen the monorail’s financial report. It’s ridiculous. It’s packed with filler pages from a PowerPoint presentation, but conveniently leaves out information such as how much are all these guys being paid. That’s the really odd thing about this project. Whenever the monorail wants help from the taxpayers in the form of huge tax breaks, the train’s executives tell us it’s a public project. But whenever anyone asks how much money they’re all making, they say they don’t have to tell us because this is a private business. Convenient, no? Titus doesn’t think a bill to require an audit would pass, since the monorail folks have a lot of juice at the state level. But as a new member of the Senate Finance Committee, she can request that monorail execs come forward and answer some basic questions. “Obviously, in light of all the problems that have occurred, there needs to be some accountability and oversight, and the public needs to know what’s going on with the monorail,” Titus told me. This is especially true since plans are in the works to expand the monorail with millions of dollars in public money, including federal grants and direct tax dollars from local coffers. I’m willing to back off on beating this dead horse and may even take a ride on the train one of these days, but if it turns out that some guy who washes the windows over at Monorail HQ is selected to head up the expansion project merely because he’s related by marriage to the bosses or goes to the same church as all the other “transportation experts,” then I would hope someone else out there would be willing to raise a stink. |
GadgetbahnNew York Press December 22-28, 2004 A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to study the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long Branch, a shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects elsewhere are a sign of things to come, it’s the beginning of an epic boondoggle. As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 feet above street level with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly strangers. In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 years of study and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of an automobile with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT offers the worst of both worlds. If you want to see what it looks like, watch The Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain’s henchmen travel about their volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the system SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. It’s fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride of choice. Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of millions of dollars of public and private investment. The only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the companies developing it. There are signs that all of this is now underway across the river. PRT advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of the New Jersey legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network stretching from Atlantic City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex at the Meadowlands. The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. Suburban Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based lifestyle is broken and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but their vision is limited by an “autonomist” ideology that places personal convenience above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than looking at transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus derisively refer to the train as a “19th-century technology”), Americans are looking for a high-tech miracle to save them from the rough road that is so clearly ahead. PRT ain’t it. |
Location, Location, Location; Three turf wars flare as the Seattle Monorail Project begins condemning land along the Green Line.Seattle Weekly December 22 - 28, 2004 Not unexpectedly, the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) is in a turf war with property owners as it condemns land for 19 stations. Though SMP, two years old, has yet to announce exactly how much it will cost to build the 13.7-mile Green Line and is still hashing out differences with its sole bidder, it is amassing land and rights of way in hopes of sticking to a planned opening in 2009. The agency has acquired more than $30 million worth of property, but not everyone is going quietly. The proprietors of the Denny’s restaurant at 15th Avenue Northwest and Northwest Market Street, destined to be Ballard’s main stop, for example, along with owners of a site on Second Avenue that will be developed as the showcase station for the Pike Place Market, say that SMP is taking more land than it needs. The Denny’s owners claim that the excess is being confiscated so it can be sold at 20 percent profit by the financially troubled public agency. The Second Avenue property owner, Samis Land of Seattle, plans to build a mixed-use residential tower next to the Pike station with underground parking beneath passenger platforms. Samis and SMP hope to integrate their projects, but Samis has begun tossing around the F-word (as in “fraud”) in court and is seeking legal discovery of the monorail’s secret construction plans. On the other hand, who thought the monorail would end up in a legal hassle over a piece of land owned by a company run by one of its own board members? The Denny Regrade site, planned for redevelopment as the monorail’s Bell Street stop on Fifth Avenue, along the route of the present-day monorail, belongs to Clise Properties, a major downtown landowner whose president, Richard Stevenson, is a director of the SMP executive board. Clise’s properties dot the downtown route of the planned starter line from Crown Hill to West Seattle, expected to cost from $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. Clise, which is engaged in private negotiations with the monorail, is willing to give up the land for a price yet to be disclosed, but Clise’s tenant in the building is objecting, saying it could lose up to $900,000 in investment. That particular sale further underscores the ties between Clise and the monorail. Besides SMP’s Fifth and Bell station site, where Clise controls three of the four corners of the intersection, the property firm owns more than $100 million in land along or near the train’s planned elevated downtown route. That includes the Securities Building on Third Avenue, where SMP rents headquarters space from Clise at a submarket rate. Company owner Al Clise is an enthusiastic monorail advocate who most recently provided campaign quarters at a cut-rate $200 a month for monorail supporters opposing Initiative 83, the monorail recall initiative that failed in November. Stevenson, who is also Clise’s chief operating officer, is a voting member of the monorail’s executive board, which must approve all land sales (most of it initially done in closed-door executive sessions). SMP says Stevenson’s situation, as a businessman who could benefit privately from his public position, is not a conflict of interest. Stevenson has disclosed his dual roles and has “recused himself from all board votes on all downtown properties,” according to an SMP statement sent last week to Seattle Weekly — leaving SMP in a kind of catch-22, since that apparently deprives the board of any decisive input from its property expert. Says Stevenson: “I think that’s the right way to handle it.” That seems at odds, however, with the letter, if not the intent, of Washington ethics law, which states that disclosing involvement is an exception if the public official has “only a remote interest” in the contract. (See “Elevated Interest,” Nov. 19, 2003.) Land records show the Fifth and Bell property, containing a one-story retail building, is assessed at $718,000, but the building’s tenant, a health club, claims to have invested even more than that inside the structure, which, it also claims, it might lose. The Zum Health Club, owned by MEKKA, has leased the space since 2002. It was founded by two-time Olympic track-and-field athlete Peter Shmock, who specializes in high- performance training. Shmock, a former Mariners strength and conditioning coach, defines the Zum philosophy as “part Zen, part play, and part speed” and offers classes ranging from ballet to pumping iron. The 8,000-square-foot facility is stylishly decorated, with natural light, high-tech equipment, and a sand pit for strength development. Neither Zum officials nor the monorail want to discuss the case because of their litigation. “We’re talking. That’s a good sign,” says Zum’s attorney, Bruce P. Babbitt. According to court papers, the club, under an 18-year lease agreement with Clise, claims it might not be entitled to “just compensation” if the sale to the monorail is completed. Since the deal is the result of a condemnation action by SMP against Clise, the club, as a third party, thinks it will be the odd man out. It lost a legal bid to stop the condemnation but plans an appeal to the state Supreme Court. “If this condemnation action is allowed to continue pending appeal,” Babbitt says in court papers, “SMP will take MEKKA’s property, demolish it, and begin construction of the monorail. MEKKA will be forced to move its health club and lose almost $900,000 in tenant improvements. . . . The irreparable harm to MEKKA’s property could not be undone after a successful appeal.” In a statement last week, the monorail said that “just compensation” applies only to property owners, but SMP will pay relocation fees and up to $50,000 in related expenses. Meanwhile, at Second Avenue and Pike Street, Samis Land is challenging aspects of SMP’s efforts to condemn two parcels worth $2.5 million and is preparing for a court hearing next month. Samis won a delay in proceedings so it can expand its pretrial discovery, saying it needs to know exactly what SMP plans to do with the property. SMP surprised Samis with its plans to take all, rather than portions, of the two parcels and to use a third parcel for a temporary construction easement, Samis claims. Losing both parcels would limit Samis’ plans for a mixed-use development on the sites — two parking lots and an old hotel building on First and Second avenues, across from the Pike Place Market. The station and Samis’ project will share some structural components, according to papers. Says monorail attorney Deborah Frausto: “No private uses for any portion of the property are contemplated by SMP.” However, says Samis attorney Roxane Broadhead, “Serious doubts are raised as to the ‘public use’ and ‘necessity’ of condemning two-thirds more property than appears to be required for the proposed monorail station.” In legal papers she says, “The existing evidence before this court raises serious questions regarding actual fraud and/or constructive fraud.” In the Ballard case, the Fiortio family, owner of the Denny’s restaurant property at 15th and Market, says less than half the site is needed for a station and claims SMP intends to sell the remainder to a private developer at a 20 percent profit. SMP already paid an architect $15,000 to design a mixed-use development for the excess space and has hired a real-estate consultant for $20,000 to work on the deal, the Fioritos say in court papers challenging the sale. The monorail denies the taking is excessive and says recouping some costs of acquisition and construction could ultimately benefit taxpayers. No trial date is set. |
Merseytram Given Green Light By Government; But There’s No Sign Yet Of £170m FundingDaily Post (Liverpool) December 22, 2004 It was all systems go for Merseytram yesterday after the Government gave the project official approval. As the Daily Post exclusively revealed on Monday, passenger transport authority Merseytravel will now be given the powers to build and run Line One of the scheme. Transport Minister David Jamieson announced that ministers will make the necessary Transport and Works Act Order (TWA) on the advice of the inspector who oversaw a public inquiry in April. But there was still no confirmation of the pounds 170m of funding the Government has provisionally committed to the project, which is subject to a separate evaluation. Mr Jamieson said: “This new tramway would bring clear transportation, regeneration and socio-economic benefits to the area. This scheme provides for a high quality public transport service which would serve some of the country’s most deprived areas as well as some important new development sites. “It would integrate well with the existing transport network and I agree with the inspector that it is capable of giving a real boost to the image and profile of Merseyside. I should make clear that the decision on the TWA Order is separate from a decision on funding, which will be subject to a separate approval process. “ The news was warmly welcomed across Merseyside. Neil Scales, chief executive of Merseytravel, said: “We have been given the powers to build the tramway in half the time it has taken for any other tram scheme in the UK. We had always hoped and planned for a decision in December 2004. We realise this was very ambitious but Government officials have worked incredibly hard to meet the target. “ Cllr Mark Dowd, chairman of Merseytravel, added: “The speed of the decision is phenomenal and em phasises the confidence the Government has show in Merseytravel. “Liverpool council leader Mike Storey has said he thought this announcement was due in October. This is not true. “We have always known - and we have stated on a number of occasions - that a decision could not be expected before the end of December.” Liverpool council and Knowsley council are official partners in the scheme. Monday’s Post revealed the story a significant boost to the borough’s economy by offering local people new and modern transport links to their workplace as well as direct links to other parts of the region. “ His Liverpool counterpart, Cllr Mike Storey, said: “This is a good day for public transport on Merseyside. We now anticipate Line One being completed in time for 2008. “ Subject to funding approval, the Order will allow Merseytravel to build the 11. 5 mile tramway from the King’s Waterfront in Liverpool to Kirkby town centre. The scheme includes a park and ride site and a control centre in Croxteth. Merseytravel is now in the final stages of negotiating a contract with sole bidders MET (Mersey Express Tramway). What the inspector decided INSPECTOR Chris Tipping, who presided over the Line One public inquiry, recommended the Government approve Merseytram. He was persuaded the scheme would bring clear transport, regeneration and socio-economic benefits. In particular, the inspector considered it would raise the profile and improve the image of Merseyside and provide a high quality, reliable public transport service. He was satisfied the impacts on local people and the environment would be acceptable when proposed mitigation measures were in place. |
City’s ‘Fair Wage Policy’ Is Anything ButThe Toronto Sun December 22, 2004 THIS IS one Christmas tradition I can do without. Each December, the news out of City Hall is that property taxes and TTC fares will go up next year, and then they throw in a new wrinkle, such as a garbage pickup fee, or increased pool and rink admissions, etc. The reasons are always the same; only figures differ. The city has to find almost $100 million in cuts and revenue, the TTC is drowning in costs, the province has to give nearly $100 million to its capital city — but in the end, after the rhetorical waltz ends in April, Torontonians will pay 3% more in house taxes or indirectly in rent. It’s happened for five years. It’s sickening because it’s not necessary. Next spring, I predict, after mind-boggling juggling of figures and excuses, TTC fares will not increase, because the premier knows the mayor and councillors will paint his government into a corner of blame. But that’s the only good news. We’ll be paying more in taxes and just about everything else at City Hall. It’s never going to change, as long as unions have the majority of this council in a headlock or a hug (it’s hard to tell), so that city unions, and unions for anyone wanting to do business with the city, never face competition from aggressive companies willing to bid lower on a contract. Core Of The Problem At the core of this rotten way of administering the city is something called the “fair wage policy,” introduced a century ago to stop the exploitation of immigrant workers and the use of sweat shops. It continues even though there’s strict provincial legislation protecting workers from gross abuses. Most workers in Canada, or Ontario or Toronto for that matter, are not unionized. These taxpayers can never hope to get city contracts themselves or work on city contracts — and labour costs are about 30% of these contracts — because of a “fair wage policy” that is unfair to them. In 2000, Arthur Potts of a the Independent Contractors Association and Coun. Doug Holyday argued at city committees and council that savings of $200 million annually (about 10% of the city costs in contract areas) were possible if council was to scrap this policy, which insists on higher wage rates than the feds and Queen’s Park do for their contracts. Yes, you read that correctly! Those annual scare stories would be wiped out by the savings if the city were to stop a system that says unless you pay 95% of the union rate for the Greater Toronto Area, you can’t bid on city work. And it gets worse! Many non-union companies are prohibited from getting city work even if they pay more. Different Rates So little companies and giant ones can work for the feds, if they pay 65% of the customary area rate, and work for Queen’s Park, where the NDP government brought in a 75% rate requirement, but not for the city unless they pay 95%. Not all the cities that were amalgamated into Toronto had this fair wage policy. When the new council adopted it quietly in 1998, I was one of the few to yell it was a terrible, costly mistake. The issue was debated in March 2000. In November, 2002, contractors went after the city again, with Holyday as their champion, saying they couldn’t do city work without belonging to international unions. One argued he can do work for giant Toronto hospitals, paying $28 an hour, plus benefits and a vehicle, and provide more business for his workers than they would get through a union, but he can’t work for the city. Holyday asked for a report on how the city could shed this “union yoke,” but it’s drowning somewhere because Mayor David Miller and his NDP cohorts hate any discussion of contracting out. So it’s another year of knowing we’re not going to find any city economies under the Christmas tree, where one New Year’s resolution must be to start saving immediately to pay our taxes. And it’s never going to get better! Woe! Woe! Woe! |
Light rail lights the way againThe Mercury (Australia) December 22, 2004 THE old-fashioned streetcar, which had nearly clanged into oblivion by the end of the 20th century, has been making a sleek comeback as new lines open up from Sydney to Paris, Buenos Aires to Houston. Now, Geneva is laying the latest tracks in the trend. Recently the city received an early Christmas present with the opening of a new line, part of an ambitious project to rebuild a network that only nine years ago had dwindled to just one route. Passengers will be able to hop on a tram in the suburbs and arrive at the main train station 10 minutes later; a trip from one side of the city to the other will be almost halved to 20 minutes. Connections to three other tram lines are possible and two more lines are in the works. More than 35 cities around the world have introduced new tram systems in the past 25 years and many more have expanded existing networks to try to solve congestion problems and curb inner-city pollution. “It’s symptomatic of a general trend to introduce more sustainable modes of transport,” says Laurent Dauby, light-rail chief for the public transport think-tank UITP in Brussels. “I think that increasingly cities are challenged to provide quality of living in urban areas.” Trams fill a gap between bus and rail travel, he says. They carry more people than buses but are about 10 times cheaper to build than conventional railway systems, making light rail ideal. Swiss public transport group LITRA estimates one articulated tram can move as many passengers as 200 cars — the equivalent of a 1.2km traffic jam — and because light rail runs on electricity there are no polluting fumes. Trams began to disappear from the world’s streets with the advent of cars because their tracks clogged up roads. The US led the way by dismantling its networks and Europe soon followed. “After World War II virtually all [mid-sized] and large European cities had extensive tram networks and they destroyed them,” Dauby says. “Thirty years later they have to rebuild — it’s much more expensive.” Geneva was a pioneer in tram development in the 19th century. In 1925, the city had 125km of track but by 1969 streetcars had been replaced by buses and just one nine-kilometre route remained. However, as light-rail technology advanced, making the ride smoother and quieter, Geneva decided to rebuild at least part of its network to take the pressure off buses. With almost one car for every two inhabitants, Geneva streets are clogged and city authorities are trying to tempt traffic off the roads by rebuilding the light-rail network, possibly all the way to nearby towns in France. UITP estimates the length of light-rail track around the world will grow by 40 per cent between now and 2020. In the European Union alone, 35 cities are expanding tram networks, including Brussels, London, Madrid and Paris, and a further 18 are introducing entirely new systems. Cities across the US, such as Houston, Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, also have built from scratch, while Washington DC has just begun construction of a light-rail system. There are some problems associated with construction: design costs can be expensive because “in an existing city, curves and gradients are determined and you just have to overcome them”, Dauby says. “We should not defend trams as a religion but there’s a clear area where it’s best.” |
T Enlightened On Lot Light ResponsibilitiesThe Boston Globe December 23, 2004 Boy, no wonder the broken lights stayed that way at the commuter boat parking lot in Hingham. Caroline of Cohasset wrote us recently to say that 60 to 70 percent of the lights in the parking lot were out and had been that way “for months.” “When are they ever going to fix them?” she asked. “With ice and snow right around the corner, the lights need to be fixed soon!” We agree. And it’s not just the public safety issue, or the fact that antisocial behavior is often abetted by the cover of darkness. Not to be facetious, but don’t we all need a little light at the lot to see what parking space we’re at, and whether it’s a $1 or $10 bill that we’re stuffing into that payment box? Anyway, when we began poking around for answers at Caroline’s behest, we quickly got the impression there was some uncertainty as to who is responsible for getting the lights back in order. First, we tried the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and a spokesman passed along our inquiry to Central Parking System of Massachusetts Inc., which runs the lot for the MBTA and, one would assume, operates it like it does the other 80 or so parking facilities on the T system. Surprise. Chuck Lane , the local contact for the Nashville-based Central Parking Corp., shot us a terse e-mail last Wednesday morning, saying: “Please be advised that by contract Central is only responsible for the relamping and repair of lights inside the MBTA garages.” In other words, the company is not responsible for the lights at the Hingham lot. We pressed: Who is responsible then? “I should only speak about my responsibilities, because the parking facilities are sometimes owned outside the MBTA [and leased to the MBTA] and someone else might be responsible,” Lane replied. “However, our contract with the MBTA only requires us to maintain the lighting inside the structured parking garages. In most cases this means that the MBTA is responsible for the repairs.” Back to the T, and last Thursday, after some research, spokesman Joe Pesaturo more or less agreed that the problem is the MBTA’s responsibility. But . . . “This is the first time someone has brought this matter to our attention,” he said in an e-mail. “Although an MBTA crew relamped the entire lot in September, personnel will conduct a site visit this evening and assess the situation. Any lights that are not functioning properly will be replaced.” Pesaturo said the work was likely to occur over the weekend. This isn’t the first time we’ve been drawn to write about broken light fixtures at an MBTA parking facility run by Central. Last month, after commuters complained of dozens of nonworking lights at the Quincy Adams garage, the T scolded the company and threatened to find another management firm if Central did not “begin to demonstrate that it can do the job.” That’s turned out to be an interesting tiff, in light of state Auditor A. Joseph DeNucci’s report last week, which said that even though the number of vehicles using MBTA parking lots has increased by more than 2 million in the past six years, the T’s share of revenue from those facilities has plunged. The audit found that because of a poorly structured five-year contract with overly favorable terms for Central, the company not the financially strapped MBTA is reaping millions from the surge in customers: In the past six years, Central collected $16.1 million more, while the T picked up only $300,000 more. The pact gives Central most of the proceeds based on the number of vehicles parked. The T’s share of the parking operations covering 80 facilities and more than 34,000 parking spaces comes primarily from the rent it charges the private operator: $9.5 million in 1998 and $9.8 million in 2003. T officials last week said Central had leverage in 2002, when the contract was awarded, because the company was the only bidder and they feared not finding another suitor. The situation involving the Hingham boat lot and the Arborway facility in Jamaica Plain was a separate matter. There, the T awarded no-bid contracts worth $1 million to Central to run parking operations (the firm was paid management fees and reimbursed for operating expenses), an arrangement criticized by DeNucci’s office as contradictory to the MBTA’s written policy requiring competitive bids for all purchases of more than $5,000. The $1 million, we know now, does not come with light bulbs for the Hingham lot, anyway. |
$1.05 Billion Investment: Making GO Transit a Better ChoiceCanada NewsWire December 23, 2004 The Governments of Canada and Ontario and GO Transit are making major headway on 12 construction projects aimed at improving rail and bus transit in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). In May 2004, Canada and Ontario agreed to contribute up to $385 million each towards $1.05 billion in improvements to GO Transit in the GTA. Since then, work has begun to improve GO rail corridors, and renovations at Union Station are underway. Once work is completed, GO Transit users across the GTA will benefit from more frequent, reliable and accessible service, with all-day service in many areas. “The investment announced last May is significant for GO passengers,” said the Honourable Jean-C. Lapierre, federal Transport Minister. “Improving public transit is a priority for the Government of Canada. This project is an excellent example of our commitment to cities and communities.” “We are making GO Transit more convenient and reliable so more people will take it,” said Harinder Takhar, Ontario Transportation Minister. “Service improvements are already paying off, attracting one million more GO riders in the past six months alone.” GO Transit will increase the number of trains and buses and add new tracks and stations to deliver more frequent and reliable service. Work this year has included studies to address the environmental requirements under the GO Class Environmental Assessment (Ontario) and screening studies under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) as well as planning and design work for improvements to bus and rail services. “GO trains are full and we need to get this work underway to add more trains and to relieve traffic congestion,” said GO Transit Chairman, Dr. Gordon Chong. “Transportation systems like GO contribute to sustainable communities and to broader national |