David A. Mittell Who pays for targeted tax breaks? January, when the Legislature convenes, is a month when the governor and Legislature typically fall all over each other with proposals designed to please special interest groups.
Sometimes these interests are worthy and may deserve special consideration, but they remain special interests that can only be favored at the expense of other interests or the general taxpayer. Two examples that have come up this year are senior citizens who own homes, and commuters who use either the Massachusetts Turnpike or public transportation.
In the case of elderly homeowners it’s no secret, for it has been happening for a long time, that those owning homes in hot neighborhoods, or towns, have been forced out by rising tax assessments. Gov. Romney, Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi all favor legislation to broaden the eligibility, and to raise the dollar amounts, for the current, limited, real estate tax exemption for low-income seniors. The spectacle of people at the end of their lives being forced to sell homes they have lived in for decades, and which are located in communities where many of them have been mainstays, is appalling. Can anything be said against providing them some tax relief? The answer comes in asking who would make up amounts seniors would be forgiven. Since no major state politician is proposing reducing the real estate tax below the current 2.5 percent per year of assessed valuation, the burden would shift to middle-class families, and in the wealthier towns, to their public employees.
Many of these families, too, can no longer afford to live in the communities where they grew up. Giving seniors a break at their expense would do nothing for the affordability of communities generally. When Ballot Question 2 of 1980 - what came to be known as Proposition 2 1/2 - passed, the cap seemed to assure affordable real estate taxes in perpetuity. No one anticipated that the investment in real estate (which the cap in part led to) would result in the valuations we have a quarter of a century later. The correct lesson of the plight of senior homeowners is that real estate taxes have once again become confiscatory, and may again need to be reduced across the board.
Tax breaks for commuters has the same seductive, but arguably false, appeal of the break for seniors. The Legislature voted to give commuters on the Massachusetts Turnpike a deduction to cover part of the cost of their tolls, along with a deduction for regular MBTA riders for a portion of the cost of their monthly T passes. I-90 is alone among the interstate highways running through the state to have any tolls at all. Why should the I-93 commuter from Andover or Plymouth get a free ride, while the commuter from Framingham or Worcester has to pay tolls? A good point! But, several years ago, in a political deal, Turnpike tolls were earmarked to help cover the state’s share of the Big Dig debacle. This was done mainly because the money was there for the taking, but also because the western suburbs do benefit from the Turnpike’s extension to Logan Airport. To revisit the toll question before the Big Dig’s bonds are paid for would be to ask the general taxpayer to assume more of the Dig’s burden.
Giving MBTA riders a tax deduction is somewhat different in that it can be argued that encouraging mass transit ridership serves the public interest in a variety of ways. The problem with a tax deduction is that the rider already pays less than one-third of the cost of every ride. The rest is subsidized by the state, federal and local taxpayer. To further reduce what the rider pays would only increase what, for example, the complete non-rider from western Massachusetts has to pay. So it goes. At this point I am not unalterably opposed to any of these ideas. The arguments for them should be heard, but so should the voices of those whose taxes would inevitably be added to. A last point about real estate tax exemptions for seniors only: They would reduce the likelihood of seniors voting in Proposition 2 1/2 override referenda, which would increase the likelihood of these tax-raising overrides winning. David A. Mittell Jr.’s column appears regularly in Weekend editions of The Patriot Ledger.
A CHINESE state-controlled rail operator with a reputation for ruthless efficiency could offer an unexpected solution to London’s transport crisis.
Industry sources say Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTR) is showing growing interest in Crossrail, the £10billion, 10-year project to build highspeed commuter links across London.
MTR is thought to be considering a bid to build and operate the railway, assuming the project is granted Parliamentary approval this year. Construction, if disputes about funding can be resolved, could begin as early as next year, prompting interest from developers and financial backers.
Weary London commuters might welcome the interest of MTR, which claims to be the world’s most reliable train operator, The group runs Hong Kong’s commuter railway system, which has a 99 per cent punctuality record. MTR might also be interested in spin-off commercial opportunities presented by Crossrail.
Although railways make up the bulk of its business, MTR also manages residential and commercial properties close to its stations in Hong Kong.
Crossrail is likely to involve the construction of seven deep-level stations across the capital - at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs - providing substantial commercial development possibilities.
MTR’s domestic rail network transports more than 2.3million passengers daily along 50 miles of track. MTR is listed on the Hong Kong stock market and 77 per cent of its shares are held by Hong Kong’s government.
It is not the first time the company has expressed an interest in the UK rail sector. Last November, it struck a deal with intercity operator GNER to bid jointly for a train-operating franchise in Kent. It is keen to bid for other London commuter franchises, such as South West Trains and Silverlink, coming up for renewal in the next two years.
Other developers have been pondering Crossrail recently. They include London and Continental Railways and a consortium that involves Germany’s Deutsche Bank.
When complete, Crossrail will link Maidenhead in Berkshire with Shenfield in Essex with two high-speed rail lines. Passengers would be able to travel from Liverpool Street in the East to Paddington in the West in a matter of minutes.
Crossrail will also be a crucial project to relieve overcrowding on London’s existing transport infrastructure. By 2016, the capital’s population will have increased by 1million. The capacity of public transport will need to rise 38 per cent to support this. Crossrail alone will provide more than half the extra capacity.
One year into passenger operation, ridership on the Main Street light rail is the highest in the United States per route mile.
But MetroRail also has established itself as one of the most collision- prone American rail lines, recording 63 crashes that involved an injury or at least $1,000 in property damage in its first year of revenue service.
Critics point out the trains move less than 1 percent of Houstonians each day.
The most common way to measure the success of a mass-transit line is by how many people use it. The Main Street line saw its average daily ridership skyrocket 172 percent in its inaugural 10 months, from 12,102 in January 2004 to 32,941 in October. “We’ve been told by people around the country that this is one of the most successful light rail lines ever,” said David Wolff, Metropolitan Transit Authority chairman.
The passenger count dropped off in November and December — Metro attributes that to the holidays — and fell short of the 35,000 goal transit officials had set last spring.
After its initial three quarters, Metro’s 7 1/2 -mile light rail line outpaced ridership in seven other U.S. cities. Of the 16 light rail networks that reported their third quarter 2004 ridership data to the American Public Transportation Association, Houston ranked ninth.
The length of these rail systems varies greatly — from six route miles in Buffalo, N.Y., to 60 miles in Philadelphia — so Houston’s ridership is considerably high given the short length of the Main Street line. In fact, Houston’s ridership is No. 1 in the country when measured by route mile, according to the APTA survey and calculations by the Houston Chronicle.
MetroRail’s 4,053 average daily boardings per route mile rank way ahead of cities such as Baltimore (670), Philadelphia (930), Pittsburgh (980), Denver (1,200) and Dallas (1,290). “This ranking is a wonderful vindication of the work that the people at Metro who preceded myself and the rest of the board members did,” said Wolff, appointed board chairman by Mayor Bill White after he took office last January. “They deserve a lot of the credit for building this even though people doubted.”
Frank Wilson, the transit authority’s president and CEO who started in May, said he’s inherited one of the most prosperous light rail lines he’s seen in his 33 years in the transportation industry. “The growth in ridership is the fastest, I think, in the history of this country,” Wilson said. “It’s truly remarkable the way the line has grown. And more so than the ridership, what it’s doing to our community in terms of land uses and what it’s doing to people’s travel habits.”
While Metro officials glow, critics maintain the ridership figures are meaningless because light rail across the country moves few people compared to traditional “heavy rail” subways and elevated trains, not to mention buses and private automobiles.
Critics not satisfied
MetroRail’s October ridership high of 32,941 represents about 16,500 people making round-trips each workday. That means roughly 0.8 percent of Houston residents use the train daily. And the critics note many of those people previously had been riding buses that were cut, so the train has taken few cars off the city’s roads.
The line cost $324 million to construct. Skeptics point out that’s about $20,000 per rider — enough for Metro to have purchased all of them a nice midsize car instead.
Rail opponents are also quick to point to MetroRail’s chart-topping collision rate, a problem widely reported in the national media that has created a mockery of sorts for the trains and Houston drivers.
Of the 63 collisions last year, more than two-thirds were caused by motorists making illegal turns or running red lights. “I live near downtown and observe the nearly empty cars of the light rail daily,” said Terri Stark. “Our system is not safe due to the fact the rail is located in the same street as our private cars, and does not get you anywhere faster than taking your own car. I believe that this is a huge waste of taxpayer money.”
Riders more enthusiastic
Many of those who ride the trains often, however, are enthusiastic. “I absolutely love it,” said Sally Vaughn, who lives in Montrose near Wheeler Station. “It is fast, convenient, clean, timely and well run,” she said. “I regularly take guests from out of town and from the outlying regions of Houston on it to show them the ‘new Houston.’ I regard it as a huge success.”
Metro is awaiting the Federal Transit Administration’s evaluation of its application to build four more light rail lines by 2012, extensions authorized by voters in a 2003 referendum. While Metro built the Main Street line solely with local transit tax dollars, it needs the federal government to bear half the cost of the extensions if they are to be built on schedule.
Wolff said ridership will continue rising as developers add more housing and businesses along the rail corridor during the next five to 10 years.
The 2025 Metro Solutions transit plan envisions an 80-mile rail system in Houston. If the federal government agrees to help foot the bill, the next two segments could be under construction as soon as next year. “Hopefully, now that it’s built and has been successful,” Wolff said, “all of Houston will get behind it so we can expand the system and carry out what the voters approved.”
A study says a proposed downtown Salem streetcar project is technically feasible, but whether it will be built depends on if it has enough community support and can get sufficient funding, a transit district official said.
“There’s a lot of excitement over the potential of the project, and that’s what’s keeping it going in light of major challenges,” said John Whittington, development director for Salem-Keizer Transit. The streetcar could bring excitement to the downtown area and serve a growing tourism industry, Whittington said.
The challenges include how to drum up enough money — $40 million to $60 million — to pay for a 1- to 2-mile streetcar rail route through downtown. Several possible routes might link Willamette University, Salem Hospital, the Capitol and the Amtrak rail station with downtown and the transit mall.
It is possible that federal funds could pay for as much as 80 percent of the project, but no money has been secured. “That’s a huge variable,” Whittington said. “If that funding came through, it would have a very significant impact on the feasibility of the project.”
The project needs a significant level of willingness from the downtown community to invest energy and resources to succeed, Whittington said.
RoyJohn Balduc, a downtown business owner who serves on a streetcar committee, is a big supporter of the project.
He said others — including the city, Salem Hospital, Willamette University and local businesses and corporations — should recognize that a streetcar will add value to the community and should step up to help fund it. Balduc also sees the streetcar as an alternative to spending millions on new parking structures and thinks that it would stimulate economic growth. “How likely it is is going to depend on what people in this community see for their future,” Balduc said.
Salem-Keizer Transit, which funded the $50,000 feasibility study jointly with the city of Salem and the Salem Downtown Association, will host an open house this week to discuss development potential and costs, share results from the Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates feasibility study, let people ask questions and gather public input.
The public comments will be added to the study for its final draft.
Regardless of the variables still in limbo, the study did determine that a few alignments were technically possible in downtown Salem.
Stephen Perkins and Debra Edwards, who are married to each other and together own Cascade Baking on State Street, politely differ in their opinions on the streetcar. Perkins thinks that moving people around downtown can be accomplished with a lot less money. “I think more mass transit, not necessarily a trolley, is the first-step answer,” Perkins said.
Edwards agreed to a point, saying that starting with a rubber-wheeled trolley might be a good idea. However, she supports the rail system because she thinks there are greater opportunities for accessing federal money with that kind of project. “I’d like to see it happen, but I think there’s a lot of challenges to get us there,” Edwards said. “It’s going to be a difficult road ahead to get us there. If we can all come together as a community, we can make this happen.”
A new MBTA computer maintenance system has revealed hundreds of engine failures on clean-burning buses deployed only months ago, raising concerns over whether the buses are delivering promised air-quality benefits, according to T records.
Maintenance records provided by the MBTA show one brand of compressed natural gas buses purchased recently suffered 280 engine failures in a nine-month period between April 2004 and this month.
While the records show a high number of failures and other problems, T officials say breakdowns are not occurring at a frequency that would indicate a serious problem or require the buses to be replaced. “We have a lot of failures, but we also run 14,000 trips a day,’’ said Anne Herzenberg, the T’s chief operating officer. “Everything is relative, and this is not a lot of failures for the number of trips.’’
Still, T watchdogs said the number of engine failures is troubling because such problems could diminish the buses’ air-quality benefits - a concern raised in a 2002 T report on bus technologies. “My eyebrows raise wondering what the T is really doing here,’’ said Jodi Sugerman-Brozan, program director at Alternatives for Community and Environment, which has closely monitored the T’s transition to a cleaner buses.
Overall, 299 compressed natural gas buses delivered by North American Bus Industries in 2003 have suffered 733 breakdowns in the past nine months. The breakdowns were caused by everything from transmission and brake failures to problems with lighting, heating and air-conditioning systems.
However, maintenance records show those buses also traveled an average of 9,500 miles between breakdowns, which is within industry standards and nearly twice as good as their diesel counterparts. A group of 392 diesel buses purchased by the T in the mid-1990s experienced 2,801 failures in the same nine-month period.
The maintenance records were compiled on a new computer system purchased by the T to track problems with its fleet.
Agency officials said they are pleased with the performance of the new buses, although they have no way of knowing whether the engine failures on the compressed natural gas buses are diminishing air-quality benefits. T General Manager Michael Mulhern has pledged to purchase an emissions-monitoring system to ensure buses are not releasing toxic materials.
That system is still being tested and is not expected to be ready until the end of this year.
The Government today pressed ahead with plans to re-privatise a busy rail franchise, sparking a furious reaction from unions which had campaigned to keep the operation publicly-run.
Four companies or joint ventures were invited to submit detailed bids for the new Integrated Kent Franchise, which will take over from South Eastern Trains (SET).
Danish Railways, French transport firm Keolis and Hong Kong company MTR are involved in the bids, which will be assessed over the next several months, with a decision expected in the autumn.
Unions have been pressing for the franchise to be kept in public hands following an improvement in punctuality since SET took over from Connex in November 2003.
The new franchise will include routes currently run by SET throughout Kent, south- east London and East Sussex to Victoria, London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross, as well as new high-speed services from St Pancras on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL).
The four parties being invited to bid for the new franchise are South Eastern Railways Ltd (a joint venture between Danish railway operator DSB International and Stagecoach Group), First Kent Integrated Railways Ltd (FirstGroup), Great South Eastern Railway Limited (a joint venture between GNER Holdings and MTR Corporation) and London & South Eastern Railway Ltd (a joint venture between Go-Ahead Group and Keolis).
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said: “Passengers will benefit from new opportunities to travel with improvements to the speed, reliability and overall capacity of the network. There will be a 10% increase in the number of services arriving in London in the morning peak once the new service pattern is introduced.
“The CTRL domestic services will operate on both domestic railway tracks and the new high-speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link track where they will reach speeds of 140mph. Journeys from Ashford to central London will be reduced by 40 minutes each way.
“This will be the flagship transport scheme to deliver people to and from the Olympic Games should the UK bid be successful. It will move people from Kings Cross to Stratford in under eight minutes. It will bring transport benefits to the Thames Gateway growth area.”
Strategic Rail Authority managing director for operations Nicola Shaw said: “The new franchise will deliver the benefits of high-speed services to the widest possible number of people. It will provide improvements to journey times, along with better punctuality and service levels designed to better balance supply with demand. We look forward to the competitive bid process.”
The SRA has been running South Eastern Trains since November 2003 after the Government terminated the franchise of Connex South Eastern. “In public hands, SET has registered improvements in punctuality in every quarter since it was rescued from Connex a year or so ago. The Government has said it will stick with what works, and they now have the chance to prove it by leaving South Eastern Trains in the public sector to continue improving. If it ain’t broke, why on earth try to fix it?”
The SRA announced that the following stations will be served by high-speed CTRL domestic services: Ramsgate, Minster, Sturry, Canterbury West, Wye, Folkestone Central, Folkestone West, Sandling, Ashford International, Broadstairs, Margate, Birchington on Sea, Herne Bay, Whitstable, Faversham, Sittingbourne, Rainham, Gillingham, Chatham, Rochester, Strood, Higham, Gravesend, Ebbsfleet, Stratford International, St Pancras, and Dover Priory (provisional).
The Transport Salaried Staffs Association said it was dismayed at the Government’s decision to put the South Eastern Trains franchise out to tender.
General secretary Gerry Doherty said: “The Government is often fond of saying it is not a question of whether a service is publicly or privately owned but whether or not it works. South Eastern Trains is clearly working and there are no discernible benefits to the passenger or tax payer in re-privatising the service.”
Keith Norman, acting general secretary of the train drivers’ union Aslef said: “Train drivers share with passengers a deep sense of disappointment that the government is to hand South Eastern Trains back to private owners. We now face an unseemly scramble to turn the integrated Kent Franchise into a money-making machine for transnational companies whose bottom line is profit. When returned to public ownership after the last private sector flop, South Eastern Trains showed marked improvements in punctuality and service.”
Commuters will face supplementary charges of between 20% and 35% to use the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link from Kent into St Pancras when it opens in four years’ time, it was learned today.
Commuters from Ebbsfleet face the highest charges, with fares based on the price of a ticket from Gravesend into London plus 35%, according to details in today’s document. “Bidders have been given assumptions regarding the need to charge premium fares for the new high speed services,” it said.
Everything old is new again. Even the century-old streetcar. Just don’t call them that if you want to be technologically new-age.
Streetcars have been rediscovered by politicians and planners, who prefer they be known as light rail vehicles: $4-million-a-pop components of what is called light rail transit (LRT).
All-new systems designed to break North America’s automotive addiction have been built in 26 cities that abandoned their streetcars years before. This LRT investment has exceeded $25 billion.
“LRT may appear the same, but it’s very different from what you call streetcars in Toronto,” says David Ward, director of engineering for Siemens Transportation Systems. “Both use electric rolling stock running on steel rails, but that’s just about where the similarity ends. Light rail vehicles have higher speeds, higher capacity, faster passenger loading and higher levels of comfort.”
And it may be just down the track. Last Wednesday, TTC commissioners ordered up a staff study of how LRT technology could upgrade existing streetcar lines and replace buses on Eglinton, Finch and other major routes.
This could spark the creation of a surface transit network of more than 100 kilometres over a 20-year timeframe. The cost would be about $25 million per kilometre, including new cars and related facilities. In contrast the proposed subway extension to York University would cost $250 million per kilometre. Small wonder proponents say the “light” in LRT refers not only to rolling stock weight and the reduced intensity of the infrastructure, but also cost.
“I have to admit I do think of LRT as streetcars by another name with modern innovations,” says Michael Roschlau, president of the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). “It is a progressive technology with a long history.”
Toronto doesn’t operate the latest breed of light rail vehicle. In Canada, Calgary’s transit system comes closest to this state of the art, with a fleet including Siemens U2-type cars imported from Germany. There, streetcar technology evolved in the post-war era while it headed for the scrap yard in North America.
Subsequent orders have been built at Siemens’ California plant. Calgary Transit recently ordered 33 more to augment its 116-car fleet, which is straining under the doubling of Stampede City ridership in 10 years.
Aesthetically, the Calgary cars - and many others built by manufacturers such as Canada’s Bombardier and Italy’s Breda - demonstrate the design differences that set LRT apart from traditional streetcars.
At 23 metres, the Siemens cars are half-again as long as the streetcars the TTC bought in the late 1970s. They have four sets of wide doors per side for quick loading from elevated, subway-style platforms. Variants in other cities have steps for street-level boarding. Toronto’s high-floor streetcars have narrower doors, one set each for loading and unloading.
LRT service typically couples as many as four cars to provide seating for 250 passengers and standing room for 500 or more. The TTC’s streetcars carry 88. Then there is speed. LRT operates largely in dedicated lanes with widely spaced stops at speeds of 90 to 105 km/h.
Although some streetcars can run at 80 km/hour, they never do because of automotive interference, frequent stops and track switches unsuited for operation at these speeds. Typical LRT average speed - including stops for passenger loading - exceeds 30 km/h. Toronto’s streetcars average 15.
Riding along with this higher performance is “a technical sophistication not found in older streetcars,” says Siemens engineering chief Ward. LRT cars use microprocessor-based systems for everything from the operator’s controls to on-board signaling systems. The computers and fail-safe back-up systems interlock the signal systems and the passenger doors with the control and propulsion gear to prevent train-to-train collisions or accidents where cars could move when passengers haven’t safely boarded.
Microprocessors also provide on-board diagnostic systems to alert operators to mechanical or electrical problems before service failures. Computers and software have also made it possible to switch from direct current motors to the same alternating current equipment employed by freight and passenger railways around the world. AC motors deliver more gripping power at the rails and higher acceleration with less power. They dispense with many maintenance-intensive DC components.
Advanced concepts have been applied to the development of low-floor LRT equipment. They are engineered so the floor between the wheels has been dropped to be flush with street-level loading platforms. This addresses accessibility issues and eliminates the cost of high platforms.
Says CUTA’s Roschlau, “Accessibility is one of LRT’s main advantages. These designs boost its attractiveness as transit systems work to meet the government-mandated targets.”
Another innovation is pre-emptive signaling. Transponders on the cars send coded radio-frequency impulses to receiving gear at points where the lines intersect cross streets. Sensing their approach, traffic signals give the LRT car priority over automobiles.
A technology that helps LRT meet the need for speed is automated fare collection, often known as the Smart Card. The low speed of TTC surface transit partly results from time-consuming tickets and transfers, which must be inspected by the operator at the front of the vehicle. New LRT lines employ passes and tickets with magnetic stripes or embedded microchips. These are “swiped” through or past on-board electronic readers, allowing passengers to board through all doors and reducing “dwell time” at stops.
Another enhancement is real-time passenger information systems using global positioning satellites to track LRT cars as they move along their routes. The arrival time at each stop is calculated and transmitted to on-street digital displays, the transit agency’s Web site and its information call centre. Delays are reported instantly.
When will this carload of LRT technology pull into Toronto? Soon, if TTC vice-chair Joe Mihevc has his way. He says Torontonians have been deprived of what residents of LRT-equipped cities enjoy largely because of provincial funding cuts since the early 1990s.
Mihevc says “it’s time to do some transit dreaming again” with LRT. One element of his dream is the derailment of the TTC’s current $200 million plan to rebuild its 27-year-old streetcars, substituting new low-floor LRT cars. “If we put 10 of them on an existing line, Torontonians will want 100 more and new lines built,” says Mihevc.
“Why dig a hole for a subway when we can get more service in place faster and cheaper with new LRT cars, Smart Cards and dedicated rights-of-way on the surface? Toronto needs to join that revolution in transit technology and thinking.”
The plan for Tel Aviv’s light-rail network was presented Monday at the opening of a conference in the city on light-rail systems around the world.
In 2010, the Tel Aviv system will be handling up to 90 million trips a year, and up to 120m. in 2020, according to NTA, the government-owned company leading the project. The first two lines are scheduled to begin operation towards the end of 2010.
The 22-km. Red Line, the system’s central line and the first to be built, will link Petah Tikva to Bat Yam, via Bnei Brak, Ramat Gan (along Rehov Jabotinsky), Tel Aviv Central railway station and the city center.
The line will have 31 stops, 10 of them along the underground section planned between Geha junction and Jaffa. The Red Line is expected to cost some NIS 6.5 billion.
The total system is planned to incorporate six to eight lines, and preliminary estimates place its ultimate cost somewhere between NIS 20 billion and NIS 25b. Each kilometer at ground level is estimated to cost $25m.; each kilometer underground will cost five times that amount.
Additional lines are still being planned, including the Green Line, which is scheduled to be completed at roughly the same time as the Red Line. The Green Line will link Rishon Lezion and Holon with central Tel Aviv, connecting to the Red Line before continuing north. Its northern section is currently the subject of discussion between NTA and the Tel Aviv Municipality.
The project will be carried out according to the BOT (Build Operate Transfer) system, by which a private company builds and operates the light-rail system before transferring it to public hands. In the case of the Tel Aviv light rail, the state will take over the system’s operation after 32 years.
Three international consortia are scheduled to submit their bids by March 31 of this year, and NTA, together with the tender committee, will select the winning proposal.
Natural gas has run its course as the power source for RTA’s big-bus fleet.
Today, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Agency board is expected to approve buying 92 diesel buses over the next two years at $318,904 each.
When the buses start arriving in several months, RTA will begin taking out of service the first of its 40-foot natural gas-powered buses purchased in the early 1990s. Back then, RTA had plans to convert its entire fleet to natural gas, saying the buses would be less expensive and more environmentally friendly.
But RTA says the savings never played out — comparable new natural-gas buses would cost an extra $42,000 each. In addition, the agency said today’s clean-diesel technology is environmentally competitive with natural gas.
Rich Kassel, a vehicle pollution expert for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the days of the “smoking diesel buses” are over. “Bus engine technology has moved in the last five years as far as car technology did in the last 25 years,” Kassel said. “The diesel bus they are going to buy will be cleaner than 12-year-old natural gas buses… But they are not as clean as the new natural gas buses.”
RTA has 160 natural gas buses in its fleet of 650.
The idea of buying new, clean diesel buses to replace old, natural gas buses has convinced even RTA board Vice Chairwoman Bev Burtzlaff, an environmental advocate who said she was the lone board member to oppose buying clean-diesel buses in 2001. She said she will vote yes to the proposed diesel purchase this time. “I’ve been satisfied with our experience with clean diesel,” Burtzlaff said. “CNG [compressed natural gas] is significantly more expensive… And we have had a lot of mechanical problems with CNG buses.”
Up to 80 percent of the $30 million for the new 40-foot diesel buses will be paid for with federal money. RTA will have to come up with the remainder.
The authority may keep running 30-foot natural gas buses on some downtown routes, if pricing is competitive.
Natural gas supplier Dominion East Ohio contends diesel is not as good. “Natural gas is the cleanest burning alternative for transportation field available today,” spokesman Jeff Zidonis said. He added that the use of natural gas reduces America’s dependency on foreign oil.
BP, which sells a special ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel to RTA, said the fuel, in combination with the modern technology in new buses, can reduce emissions by 90 percent. “That’s such a large reduction that you could actually hold a white handkerchief up against a tailpipe with the engine running and you won’t see any soot whatsoever on the handkerchief,” BP spokesman Scott Dean said.
Just two months ago, voters in Maricopa County strongly supported Proposition 400, the $15.8 billion transportation package designed to provide us with new freeways, more transit and better streets.
Now, with the legislative session barely under way, an avowed opponent of light-rail transit is using his position in the state House to undermine Proposition 400 and the will of voters.
It’s evident that Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, wants to derail the 20-year transportation package so that money can be diverted from light rail to further bolster freeways.
Biggs’ bill (House Bill 2292) is a direct attack on the regional cooperation that forged the Valley’s transportation plan. It threatens the firewall protections that keep separate the three giant pots of money that 57 percent of county voters approved in November to fund freeways, transit and arterial streets.
Biggs, new chairman of the House Transportation Committee, wants to establish a separate audit for light rail and require the state auditor general to identify performance levels in light-rail systems across the nation in evaluating the Valley’s system.
Under the bill, if an audit of the 20-mile initial light-rail segment failed to meet performance standards, all light-rail funding for extensions authorized in Proposition 400 would cease. Funds would be reallocated “for freeways and other controlled access highways.”
Our fledgling light-rail system would be badly crippled, if not stopped dead in its tracks.
Biggs contends that if light rail failed the audit, its money could be used for such things as HOV lanes, as if $2.3 billion worth of HOV lanes is a better investment than light rail.
Another problem: Biggs’ suggested audit for light rail is pass-or-fail. If light rail failed, there would be no opportunity to modify the system to make it better, as there is under the law adopted by voters.
The absence of a second chance is shortsighted. Problems routinely are pointed out in audits of state agencies, but is elimination of the agency viewed as the solution? Of course not.
If the firewalls separating the different pots of money for light rail and other forms of transportation were brought down, count on Phoenix rising up. Its City Council and voters believe light rail is the answer to easing inner-city congestion in heavily traveled corridors.
Any diversion of light-rail funds - for example, to the East Valley for new freeways - would shortchange Phoenix residents, who contribute the single greatest percentage of sales taxes that finance the transportation package.
Biggs has introduced a companion measure, HB 2300, which would mandate separate votes on transit in county or municipal elections for a transportation plan. The bill is another example of micromanagement. Cities and counties are perfectly capable of deciding the form of their ballot measures.
Legislative meddling in transportation runs counter to local control, a principle conservatives like Biggs espouse. A return to that principle and respect for the will of the voters would be a welcome development on his part.
Rail Europe’s new four-color, 32-page brochure for 2005, “Europe on Track,” is now available, featuring new railpasses, add-on tours and options, as well as a rail route map, point-to-point rail travel times on popular routes, information on Rail ‘n Drive Passes, high-speed trains such as Eurostar and Thalys, and useful answers to frequently asked questions on traveling by train throughout Europe and the U.K.
The 2005 brochure may be downloaded from the company’s web site, www.raileurope.com, or ordered by calling 1-888-382-7245. Rail Europe is the largest North American distributor of European rail products, with the most comprehensive offering of tickets and passes for one, two or more countries.
Among the biggest news for 2005:
Lower prices on Youth passes — for the first time in 40 years, the prices of Eurailpasses were reduced (by 3-8% over 2004 prices, depending on the pass) on those passes for travelers under 26
More choices, especially for Eastern Europe — six new railpasses are offered for 2 and 3 countries (Austria-Czech Republic, Austria-Slovenia- Croatia, Hungary-Slovenia-Croatia, Romania-Hungary, Italy-Greece, Germany Denmark), as well as new options for countries that can be included in a 34 or 5-country Eurail Selectpass (Slovenia and Croatia considered as one country; Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro considered as one country; plus Italy and Spain are considered connected because of a new ferry honoring Eurail Selectpass).
BritRail new Youth in 1st class — BritRail Passes have always had a discounted Youth pass in standard (2nd) class for those under 26. Now, these young people will be able to travel in 1st class at a discount(starting at$237 for 4 consecutive days of travel in 1st class, compared to$157 in standard class; regular adult fare in standard is$209, in 1st is$315). In addition, all BritRail travelers (not just youth) can save 25% on BritRail Passes booked between now and February 28, 2005, or in the months of November and December (Off-Peak Special).
2 new Swiss rail-hotel packages — featuring two scenic Swiss trains:
1) Glacier Express Tour — starting at$340 per person double occupancy for3 days, 2 nights in 3-star hotels (St. Moritz and Zermatt) plus ride on ride on the Glacier Express;
2) Golden Pass Tour — starting at$590 per person double occupancy for 6 days, 5 nights in 3 star hotels (2 nights Lucerne, 2 nights Interlaken, 1 night Montreux), riding on Golden Pass Panoramic train, excursion to Jungfraujoch. Both tours include daily breakfast, transfers to/from any Swiss airport or border crossing plus 50% discount on any Swiss Travel System product.
The new brochure also has an expanded “London and beyond” section on the Eurostar train (connecting London with Paris or Brussels) and add-on specialty tours and half- or full-day trips, as well as overnights, out of London, to such destinations as Edinburgh, Paris, Leeds Castle, Stonehenge, Stratford-on-Avon, Canterbury and others.
Rail Europe offers one-country, two-country, regional and Europe-wide railpasses and point-to-point tickets for every European country from the Balkans to Scandinavia and the U.K., as well as Rail ‘n Drive products in either individual countries or groups of countries, as well as related products such as Paris Visite (for bus and metro), Norway in a Nutshell scenic tour, Swiss scenic routes and visits to individual Swiss mountain peaks.
To obtain a catalog or for more information, call your travel agent or Rail Europe at 1-888-382-7245 or log onto the company’s Web site at www.raileurope.com.
The subway crash shows that no amount of hi-tech gadgetry can counteract Thailands culture of inefficiency
The subway train crash at Thailand Cultural Centre Station during the morning rush hour yesterday, which injured close to 200 people, dealt a crippling blow to what was touted until now as the latest addition to Bangkoks state-of-the-art alternative mass-transit systems. The subway owned by the Mass Rapid Transit Authority (MRTA) and operated by the Bangkok Metro Co Ltd (BMCL) became operational only in July.
The MRTAs latest version of what happened is that a malfunctioning train with no passengers aboard and which had earlier lost power was about to be taken to a maintenance depot by another train, which unexpectedly failed to connect to the stranded cars. The malfunctioning train was sent out of control, sliding down a slope into the tunnel and ramming a stationary train filled with some 700 passengers.
Most of the passengers walked away with only cuts and bruises, while the almost 200 more seriously injured were transported to nearby hospitals for medical treatment. Several were in critical condition.
But it could have been far, far worse.
Questions abound. Were MRTA officials at the subway control centre aware of the attempt to reach the stranded train’ Were proper precautions taken’ Was the driver of the train with passengers aboard given any warning’ Could passengers inside the train standing at the Thailand Cultural Centre have been evacuated in time’
All of which, one hopes, will be asked by the police investigators, with straight answers given by all MRTA and BMCL officials from top executives down to on-duty officials and workers at the time of the accident.
Anyone found to have been criminally negligent in any way whatsoever must be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law.
The emergency response by the MRTA and other relief agencies to get the injured out of the smashed-up train and to hospital was chaotic and could be improved. Lack of coordination continues to be a problem when it comes to emergency relief operations involving governmental and non-governmental agencies.
The MRTA was not exactly truthful or forthcoming with the facts in the aftermath of the incident. For several hours afterwards, MRTA officials, including chief executive Prapat Jongsanguan, insisted a computer failure was to blame. They claimed the signal from a computer controlling the trains went off and on intermittently before the crash.
After a briefing by MRTA officials, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra fixed the blame squarely on human error, saying there was nothing wrong with the advanced computer that regulates the subway system.
The subway was built as part of government efforts to ease Bangkoks notorious traffic congestion. Bangkoks other hi-tech, rail-based system the elevated Skytrain launched in 1999 and operated by the Bangkok Mass Transit System (BMTS) has suffered no major accidents.
This accident occurred at a time when the MRTA, a state enterprise, is desperately trying to encourage people to use the underground train system. Daily subway ridership averaged 120,000 a day until the government ordered a substantial lowering of fares earlier this month, which saw the daily figure rise to approximately 180,000 a day, still far short of expectations.
That shows that people can be encouraged to overcome their claustrophobic tendencies and use the subway more, provided the price is right.
But yesterday mornings crash may have changed that. And the accident could have been prevented had the MRTA and BMCL simply trained its personnel properly in strictly following safety procedures.As it is, this accident will cause immeasurable damage not only to the state agencies in charge, but also to government attempts to unclog Bangkok streets.
EAST LINE Group, an operator of Domodedovo International Airport, jointly with JSC Russian Railways and Moscow Railways have started realization of the project to enlarge the passenger air terminal at Paveletsky Railway Station. The downtown terminal and High-speed railways link Paveletsky station - Domodedovo International Airport are important constituents of the airport’s infrustructure, the company said at www.Domodedovo.Ru.
After the recunstruction, the total air terminal area will be enlarged almost two-folds, up to 3,000 sq.Meters.
The project realization will make for substantial increase of the level of services for passengers using the high-speed link. The amount of check-in counters will increase up to 14 (against today’s 8). Passengers will be entitled to a range of new services, including new retail outlets with a drug store, a souvenir shop, a shop for travellers.
The High-Speed railway system was launched on August 3, 2002 backed by the initiative of Gennady Matveyev, at that time the head of Moscow Railways, and the management of EAST LINE Group. Today, the railway link is considered a major example for other Moscow airports.
Today, EAST LINE Group is implementing the latest technologies providing for an advanced check in 24 hours prior to departure. The check-in is closed 2,5 hours before a flight.
This year, passengers of SN Brussels got an opportunity to check in at the downtown terminal. The airline became the second international carrier after SWISS Airlines to provide check-in for their passengers at Paveletsky station.
The express trains are operational from 7a.a. till 10 p.a., running every hour, during peak hours - every 30 minutes, with 40 minutes travel time.
Using the High-Speed System, EAST LINE Group introduced a new intermodal transportation technology Domodedovo Air Rail Service (DARS). The service provides for an advanced check-in 24 hours prior to departure, 40-minutes journey to Domodedovo International Airport by a comfortable express train using a single boarding pass, thus considerably facilitating travels between regional centres with shorter travel time. The intermodal programmes are used at such destionations as St.-Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Kalinigrad. EAST LINE is planning to extend this programme to other major regional centres of Russia.
The joint project by JSC Russian Railways and Domodedovo International Airport is popular among passengers of the airport, more than 20% of its passengers use the service to get to and from the airport.
With a tripod in one man’s hand and cameras slung around the other’s neck, two Homewood men arrived at a Metra station in Morton Grove earlier this month to take pictures of a mothballed locomotive that had been called back into service.
But before Paul Burgess and Randy Olson could snap a picture, Morton Grove police detained them and searched Burgess’ car, with his consent. Soon, Metra police arrived, and the two were held as their backgrounds were checked.
The Jan. 8 incident is the latest in a series of mix-ups with police who, rail fans say, may be trying to protect railroad security in a way that threatens their 1st Amendment rights. “The general consensus is it’s easier for a rail fan to take pictures in China than it is here,” said Bill Molony, president of a National Railway Historical Society’s Blackhawk Chapter, whose members mostly live in the south and southwest Chicago suburbs.
Metra spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said people are allowed to stand in public areas and photograph trains. But she said the agency reserves the right to stop people and ask for identification and their intentions. “Our policy generally is that if someone is taking photographs we will go and inquire as to what their intentions are and ask them for some identification,” Pardonnet said, adding each case is different. “We are not trying to limit their civil liberties. We are trying to make sure they are safe.”
Although Burgess and Olson said Metra police told them they could not photograph trains even from a public sidewalk, Pardonnet said the officers misspoke. Metra’s police chief has been clarifying the policy with agency officers and local police, she said.
Likewise, the Chicago Transit Authority allows people to take pictures unless CTA personnel feel the activity is “disruptive or questionable,” said Robyn Ziegler, an agency spokeswoman.
Security has been a particular concern since the Sept. 11,2001 terrorist attacks and last year’s commuter train bombings in Madrid that killed nearly 200 people and wounded more than 1,400.
Although the Transportation Security Administration will not release details about security directives it issues to law enforcement agencies, no memo has specifically mentioned photographing trains, said Amy von Walter, a TSA spokeswoman.
Still, law enforcement authorities, such as Morton Grove Police Cmdr. Mark Erickson, said federal officials have advised them to be on the lookout for unusual activities at transportation centers or on transit systems.
In general, people have the right to express themselves, under the 1st Amendment, and may take pictures in a public space where others don’t have an expectation of privacy. But security issues can limit what people may photograph, such as a defense facility, said Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union.
“It’s not an absolute,” he said. But he added, “I don’t know of any federal law that makes it a crime to photograph any train, that covers that in such a blanket way as these officers who approached [Burgess] seem to have suggested.”
If the New York City Transit branch of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has its way, that could become the case in New York City subway stations. The NYC Transit wants to place a general ban on photography and videotaping on its system except for media with valid credentials and people with MTA authorization.
Public comment on that controversial proposal closed last week, and the authority’s board will not take up the issue until at least March, said Paul Fleuranges, the NYC Transit’s vice president for corporate communications.
Some question whether the transit agencies are alienating the very people with whom they should be cultivating friendships: those who not only love railroads but know enough about them to spot something that is out of place or suspicious.
“What’s really sad about it is that the rail companies’ concerns are centered on terrorism and they have thousands of miles of unguarded facilities,” said Bert Krages, an Oregon lawyer who has written legal guidelines for photographers that appear on the National Railway Historical Society’s Web site.
Naperville resident Tom Mitoraj, another longtime train photographer who said he has been stopped more frequently in recent weeks, agreed. “These are the people who want these railroads to be safe and successful,” said Mitoraj, who said Metra police threatened to confiscate his film and camera and have him arrested last November when he was taking pictures from a platform in Blue Island. “In a sense they are another set of eyes and ears, and it does seem that Metra seems to be turning away the people that are most interested in seeing it be successful, which really seems to be counterproductive.”
For New Year’s Eve, Brian Martin of Oxford, Wis., decided to take his family on a day trip to Chicago to photograph trains. But private security police in Ogilvie Transportation Center in Chicago stopped them from posing in front of trains there, saying they would arrest them or confiscate their film if they continued, Martin said.
“I just couldn’t believe it,” he said. “We’ve never had anything like that happen. It was quite a shock for us. We felt kind of intimidated. We kind of lost part of our trip,” he added.
Metra officials and other law enforcement authorities said it can be difficult to determine who is a rail fan and who is looking to harm others.
Olson, 55, and Burgess, 43, said they understand the security concerns but believe it was obvious they were not terrorists. A potentially bigger threat, they said, were backpack-toting passengers waiting to board the train. “You don’t need to take a picture of the tracks to know where the strategic locations are,” Olson said. “And you wouldn’t be doing it in broad daylight. It’s just ludicrous. You have to be able to discern what’s a threat and what isn’t.”
Morton Grove police since have apologized, but Burgess has not heard back from Metra’s board, to whom he wrote a letter asking for an apology. Regardless, he intends to continue photographing trains. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” Burgess said. “And as I said in my letter, I’m a U.S. Navy veteran and I don’t intend to allow this to change my habits.”
Canadian train maker Bombardier, which last summer bailed out of the competition to build Seattle’s Green Line monorail, is flirting with the project again.
Yesterday, the company issued a letter urging the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) to reopen its bidding so Bombardier’s team could jump back in.
Five months have gone by since rival Cascadia Monorail Co., offering Japanese trains by Hitachi, submitted the only bid for the system linking Ballard, Seattle Center, downtown and West Seattle. Virtually no details have been released, and a tentative contract appears weeks or months away.
Bombardier saw an opening. “We have noted with keen interest that SMP still has not awarded the contract to our competitor,” said the letter, signed by Bombardier Vice President Denis Bouvette.
However, monorail officials say the wooing will not disrupt talks with Cascadia. “I’m still optimistic we’ll reach an agreement with Cascadia,” said SMP Chairman Tom Weeks. But if that doesn’t happen, he added, “it’s nice to know there is another viable competitor.”
State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a nonvoting member of the SMP board, said the Bombardier offer “could be positive to use in negotiations with Cascadia.”
Still, the feelers from Bombardier are short of a firm commitment. The company would not disclose yesterday what partners would take responsibility for erecting the concrete tracks, or stand behind the required $500 million performance bonds.
Bombardier’s pitch comes soon after its credibility was bolstered by the Dec. 24 restart of its new Las Vegas monorail, which was closed because of falling parts. “The good news is, we took responsibility, we fixed it, it’s up and running and performing very well,” said Andrew Robbins, a Bombardier director of project development.
The firm’s design ideas for Seattle impressed some downtown skeptics who saw portions last summer. Highlights include:
Three-car trains, with the option of four-car trains. Passengers could walk between cars.
The historic Times Square Building, at Fifth Avenue and Stewart Street, would be converted into a monorail station with retail shops, closer to Westlake Center than the current SMP plan.
The whole line would be dual-tracked, except for one mile on California Avenue Southwest and one mile on 15th Avenue Northwest at Crown Hill. The SMP proposed a slower system with more than four miles of single- tracking.
Bombardier would create about 50 long-term jobs for train assembly and maintenance at Pacifica Marine in Seattle.
Bombardier’s “Team Monorail” withdrew from Seattle Aug. 5, mainly because it could not provide the required “joint and several” liability, in which major partners agree to insure each other in case of cost overruns or a project failure.
The group was caught off guard in July when the SMP shortened its required station lengths a month before the Aug. 16 bid deadline. Bombardier said that left too little time to re-engineer its design.
During my cab ride home following a surgeon general’s meeting on the environment and health, i asked my driver what he thought about the big dig. Clearly angry, he ranted about how he thought it was a big waste of taxpayer money because he had noticed little improvement in traffic flow.
He then pointed to downtown Boston and said, “If they had spent half of the $15 billion price tag on building affordable housing, people wouldn’t be driving to work every day from the suburbs and clogging up the roads.” I continued his thought by mentioning that if the remainder were spent on a greatly enhanced and cheaper public transportation system, car traffic could be reduced even that much more.
There are more than 4 million cars on Massachusetts roads. But here is another statistic: The Commonwealth has one of the highest asthma rates in the country. One in five households with children report at least one child with the disease. Moreover, the rate of obesity of Massachusetts adults increased by a staggering 81 percent between 1990 and 2000. Over half of our state’s adults are overweight.
What do these two public health epidemics, obesity and asthma, have in common? The answer is our great reliance on the automobile. Our extensive reliance on polluting cars and diesel buses is damaging our airways and cardiovascular systems. Further, excessive car travel has rendered daily exercise a virtual thing of the past. And lack of exercise leads to being overweight.
The public health costs associated with air pollution are significant. These include: high rates of school absenteeism, lost work time and wages, rising health insurance costs, lower work productivity, and millions of dollars spent in direct costs for medical care.
At the surgeon general’s meeting, we learned about a fascinating study linking traffic and asthma. During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, the city virtually banned single-occupant cars in order to prevent gridlock. The scientists who conducted the study compared hospitalizations and emergency room visits for respiratory difficulties during the Olympics to the four weeks before and after the Games. They found that asthma-related acute care events decreased by 42 percent during the car ban.
We need to think differently about transportation policy and our auto-dependent ways as a means of protecting not only human health but our environment as well. (Not to mention reducing our dangerous reliance on foreign oil.) A number of steps can be taken that do not require extraordinary measures:
Let’s put a stop to investing in automobile transportation solutions like the Big Dig. The problem is not that we don’t have enough roads. We need to move people and goods for a thriving economy, but an excellent public transportation system that is safe, clean, and easily accessible can do the job just as well - without the pollution.
Consumers should demand and regulations should mandate drastically improved fuel efficiency and cleaner fuels for cars. We also have to end our fascination with large, gas-guzzling vehicles. The Department of Environmental Protection should conduct wider enforcement of their diesel bus anti-idling law, and schools should prohibit idling school buses. All bus transportation companies should invest in cleaner bus technologies such as diesel oxidation catalysts.
The Legislature should place public transportation on the top of its agenda and funnel grants to encourage the proliferation of sidewalks and bike paths on every street in every community so pedestrians can more easily commute to their destinations. With more walkers and bicyclists, our streets will be safer, and obesity will diminish.
Public health workers need to broaden their expertise to include community planning.
The governor, the Legislature, and the Turnpike Authority should be accelerating their compliance with public transportation agreements that were forged to offset the environmental impact of the Big Dig instead of stonewalling, delaying, and hoping that public transportation advocates will just get on their bicycles and ride away.
In the long term we need to invest in environmentally friendly development strategies, of which there are many working models. These models encourage land-use policies that incorporate antisprawl measures, mixed-use development, transit options, and open spaces. Moreover, we need a well-funded research and development effort that supports cleaner renewable energies and superior transit technologies. And we need to transform our culture from one that relies less on car wheels to one that depends more on shoe heels.
The cabinet has instructed the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) to close the capital’s subway indefinitely after Monday’s crash, which caused the injuries of more than 180 people.
It will take several weeks, if not months, before the subway is back into operation, said The Nation newspaper on Wednesday.
Bangkok Metro Company Limited (BMCL) Managing Director Sombat Kitjaluck said training staff to minimize the probability of human error will take at least two weeks. The company will conduct a trial period after the training.
A fact-finding team from the transport ministry revealed on Tuesday that human error ought to be blamed for the crash, that is, the driver of an empty train released airbrake instead of parking brake as instructed.
Communication problem between the driver and the control room was the main cause for the accident, said the research team.
Starting full-fledged operation depends on whether the BMCL can restore passengers’ confidence that there will not be any further human error, said Prapat Chongsanguan, governor of the MRTA.
A survey conducted by Assumption University after the crash showed that nearly 58 percent of Bangkok residents said they would continue to use the subway despite Monday’s accident. More than 30 percent of the 1,423 respondents said they were confident in the system’s safety while 49 percent said not.
On the other hand, suspension of subway service has led to serious traffic congestion in the capital over the past two days. Congestion was terrible on several main road during peak period, said Traffic Police Commander Maj. General Ranu Kerdlappol, adding there are more vehicles on the road and more passengers on buses than before.
Major General Montri Jamroon, deputy Metropolitan Police commissioner in charge of the traffic, said that congestion built up earlier than normal during the rush hour. He has instructed police stations along the subway route to assign more officials to direct traffic.
On Monday morning, an empty train crashed into another one carrying 700 passengers near the Cultural Center station in Bangkok, resulting in the injuries of more than 180 passengers.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra ordered the suspension of services shortly after the crash, saying the subway would not be reopened until the passengers’ safety could be assured.
Communication problems between a train driver and the control room were the main cause of Mondays subway accident, a Transport Ministry fact-finding team has found.
A recording of the conversation between the control room and the driver of the off-duty train that crashed into a crowded passenger train showed that the driver accidentally released the emergency airbrake, instead of the parking brake as he had been instructed to by the control room, the teams leader Samart Yonlapak said.
To disengage the airbrake, which is code-named B09, the driver deactivated the automatic braking system, explained Samart, deputy permanent secretary to the Transport Ministry.
In the recorded conversation, the train driver was heard shouting I cant stop it! I cant stop it! as his train started sliding backwards on the inclined rails leading to the maintenance depot, Samart said.
He added that the fact-finding team would need to conduct further investigations to determine whether Bangkok Metro Co Ltd (BMCL), which was awarded the concession to operate the underground system, provided adequate training for its drivers.
Prapat Chongsa-nguan, governor of the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA), the state agency that oversees the subway system, said yesterday that it appeared the BMCL employees involved did not pay enough attention to what they were doing.
The driver told the control room that he had released the B09 brake, and one official at the centre repeated what he had said without considering whether it was the correct thing to do, Prapat said. They worked like parrots just repeating what others said without thinking about whether it was the correct procedure.
The MRTA chief noted that Siemens, the company that supplies the trains for Bangkoks subway, advised against releasing the B09 brake, except in case of brake jams or other braking problems.
BMCL managing director Sombat Kitjaluck said yesterday that six company employees have been suspended from work following the accident.
The empty train had run into problems before the accident, grinding to a halt on a sloping curve leading to the maintenance depot. The driver applied the brakes and was waiting to be towed.
A rescue train was attempting to connect to the stalled train when the driver was told to release the brakes. It was then that the empty train began to slide backwards before colliding with another train, which was fully loaded with passengers.
Samart said yesterday that his fact-finding team had determined that instructions from the control room had been conveyed improperly and did not follow company guidelines.
He said that the probe team would today question the two drivers and the two officers in the control room who were involved in the accident. Conclusions could be drawn tomorrow, he added.
A source from the fact-finding team said yesterday that team members had discovered flaws in the subway system, including an ineffective communication system and the absence of a device in the depot to prevent a train from rolling back into the subway tunnel.
In related developments, a police investigation into the accident was underway yesterday, and more than 20 passengers and subway officials were questioned, said Maj General Kamol Kaewsuwan, the chief investigator.He added that initial findings indicated the accident was not caused by a mechanical malfunction.
The Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) is considering undertaking the laying of three new lines totalling 94 kilometres on its own, instead of awarding the concessions to private contractors, its governor said yesterday. Governor Prapat Chongsanguan said that way the MRTA could assure adequate safety standards were maintained.
He was speaking in the wake of Mondays underground collision about expansion projects currently before the MRTA and the prospect of Bangkok Metro Co Ltd (BMCL), the operator of the subway, participating in the MRTAs next phase of investment.
Were awaiting a full investigation as to how BMCL will resolve its safety issues. We may conclude that the cause of the accident was human error there is nothing wrong with the system. If the problem has to do with human error, then the company must come up with clear measures to deal with it, he said.
Public confidence in the underground metro line which runs 20 kilometres between Bang Sue and Hua Lamphong has been shattered after the accident on Monday morning, when an empty train collided with another train carrying some 700 passengers at the Thailand Cultural Centre Station. Almost 200 passengers were injured. The subway has been ordered closed until an investigation is complete and BMCL can assure public safety.
The accident has damaged BMCLs reputation enormously, and the subway concessionaires prospects of winning future contracts from the MRTA have been dealt a major blow. BMCLs plan to list on the stock market in this years second quarter has also been shelved.
Prapat said BMCL had to come up with credible safety measures before it would be allowed to re-start subway operations.
As for the 94km route-expansion project, Prapat said there were two ways of handling it either the MRTA invests and operates these lines itself, or it can award concessions to private investors such as on the Chaloem Ratchamongkhon line.
We might strengthen our organisation so that the MRTA can invest in and operate the new lines to assure safety standards of the highest level, he said. In doing so, we can also hire professional operators to run the metro lines.
But if the MRTA decides to award concessions to private investors, then BMCL will likely be a bidder.
However, this accident has given BMCL a bad record, Prapat said.
According to MRTA plans, the Blue Line will include construction of a 13km Bang Sue-Tha Phra section, and a 14km Hua Lamphong-Bang Khae section. The Orange Line will stretch 24km from Bang Kapi and Bang Bamru. And the Purple Line will cover 43km from Bang Yai and Rat Burana.
In September last year, the Cabinet approved an MRTA investment plan for construction of a section of the Bang Yai-Rat Burana Purple Line from Bang Yai to Bang Sue. This project is expected to cost Bt46.33 billion.
Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, who was incensed by Mondays train accident, said he was waiting to see what BMCL would come up with when it came to safety measures to win back public confidence.
They must be straight about the incident and the safety measures. Otherwise, we will have to review their concessions, he said.
Dr Sombat Kitjalaksana, BMCLs managing director, said the company was focusing its review of the accident on the human-error factor.
As for the prospect that BMCL might not win new concessions on the expansion routes, or might have its present concession revoked, that all depends on the government. The accident has already occurred and was something nobody could have anticipated. It was an accident that might occur one in 10,000 or one in 100,000 times in similar circumstances, he said.
I believe the Dec. 30 Sun-Post article “BRT vs. regular buses a critical part of transportation plan” requires some further attention.
First, despite what has been written, BRT requires dedicated lanes or a right-of-way throughout to be considered true Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Anything less becomes a “fast bus,” but fails at the BRT definition. This is especially true if it shares the downtown street lanes with autos, trucks, and city buses, even if it has signal priority.
Second, the dual-power, or hybrid, buses proposed for these routes will probably not provide any better ride or speed than conventional diesels. As well, they have proven not to be more economical than conventional buses in this service.
Their savings only come into play in frequent start-stop service, such as in downtown, not on high-speed long hauls.
With the recent change in pollution standards for diesel motors, the newest dual-power buses have shown very poor mileage on limited-stop runs when compared to straight diesels.
Third, dual-power buses, having two power systems, are more complex and require higher maintenance. They need regular and fairly frequent changes of expensive petroleum-based fluids. They require special handling, just like regular diesels, plus the extra electrical system controls and batteries.
These are expensive and difficult to maintain over the long haul. And those batteries are heavy, meaning higher axle loading than standard buses.
Fourth, in many areas BRT has not attracted the number of riders that was projected. Several cities have been very disappointed with the results of BRT lines (many of which were really “fast buses” rather than true BRT), and a few are converting their BRT to light rail (at added expense to the taxpayers).
Buses in this type service don’t attract passengers the way light rail does. Also, over the long haul the buses are much more expensive than light rail for several reasons. While BRT is somewhat less costly than LRT to install, buses over the long haul don’t last as long as light rail vehicles.
Buses are more expensive to maintain and they require more operators. For 24 buses, you need 24 operators per shift, but with three-car light rail trains you need eight, a significant savings.
Buses do not accelerate or brake as quickly as LRVs, and can’t load and unload passengers as quickly per vehicle in most cases, meaning longer station stop dwell times and schedules over the same route. Because of this, more buses than LRVs are required to maintain service over the same route.
Consider what effects this can have on a downtown when traffic is heavy.
Actually, the apparent savings of BRT over LRT disappear after about 12 to 15 years with the higher bus operating costs.
While buses are essential in many applications within a transit system, and certainly are much better than no transit at all, suburban and interurban long-haul corridors aren’t a good match for buses.
I would not like to see people thinking that BRT equals cheap LRT because it simply isn’t.
You get what you pay for, and hopefully the public is willing to settle for something less than optimal with BRT. Main corridors, such as the northwest corridor, should realistically be done with rail.
A proposal to provide express toll lanes to Dulles Airport, could also affect I-66 though Arlington. The plan, put forward by a private business group, is causing havoc among transportation officials and those who support the state’s plan to extend rail out to Dulles and beyond.
The plan, proposed by Virginia Mobility Associates LLC, calls for the construction of express eastbound and westbound toll lanes running from Route 28 near the airport through Fairfax County and into Arlington to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge. The group claims that the project can be financed on tolls alone, without taxpayer money.
“This proposal should be looked at for what it really is, an attack on Dulles Rail,” said Jason Rylander, president of the Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation, a non-profit citizens group opposed to widening I-66 in Arlington and supporting the Dulles rail project. “The group proposing this has never built a highway. The idea that this could be paid for with no public money is just facetious. It’ll end up being paid for either through taxes or on the backs of the people who use I-66.”
Yet Virginia Mobility Associates believes financing the project is feasible and that the proposed plan for Metrorail to Dulles fails to reduce congestion on the Interstate. The Metro plan, said Christopher Walker of Virginia Mobility, could even make getting to the airport worse.
Buses lines already run to the airport from Arlington and other corners of Virginia but Virginia Mobility’s plan would offer new lanes for high occupancy vehicles, and a possible opportunity to expand bus services.
“The data from the final environmental study for extending Metrorail from the West Falls Church station to Wiehle Avenue via Tysons Corner shows that it does not alleviate traffic congestion in the Dulles corridor at all,” he said. “It makes traffic on side roads worse and provides no money to alleviate that extra burden.”
FIRST INCLUDED ON NATIONAL interstate maps in 1959, I-66 was hotly contested during its construction, drawing the attention of local residents who disapproved of its original eight-lane design through Arlington. The federal Department of Transportation, which eventually limited the roadway to only four lanes, two in each direction, through Arlington. The federal plan, outlined in a 1977 decision authored by then Secretary of Transportation William Coleman, also mandates that the design of I-66 incorporate other forms of transportation, that is rail.
“The I-66 corridor is unique, the first in the United States to combine a highway with infrastructure for Metro and bike paths,” Rylander said. “It is important that it be maintained. We can achieve this through better land use in the western suburbs and a variety of other means.”
VDOT is preparing to release the results of its own study on the I-66 question. The report is expected to be released in early February. “The timing of this whole thing is somewhat suspect, I think, because we’re so close to seeing the state’s conclusions,” he said.
To pay for the construction project, Virginia Mobility suggests a system that determines how much motorists will pay based on how congested the interstate is. For the privilege of circumventing heavy traffic, motorists would pay more to use the express lanes. When traffic is light, motorists would pay less.
“We do not need any public financing over what is in place,” said Walker. “In fact, when the expansion is stabilized, full time tolls will come off the toll road forever. Tolling road users to subsidize another form of travel is a bad idea and a terrible precedent. Road users should pay for their costs, as should rail and bus riders. Metro needs to find alternative ways to fund its deficit.”
BUT RYLANDER SAYS THE variable pricing plan would create even more pain for motorists.
“That means that if the road is congested at five o’clock in the afternoon on Thanksgiving Day, the price of the toll could change significantly,” he said.
According to statistics from the Transportation Research Board, the four- lane section of I-66 carries 2,650 vehicles per hour during peak travel times, among the most congested highways in the United States.
Metro is already in the planning stages of its railway to Dulles Airport but the beginning of construction is still several years in the future. Its plan includes 15 station stops between Dulles and Washington, D.C. at an average speed of 35 miles per hour. The estimated cost of the rail, according to the DOT, would be an initial $4 billion with a further $100 million in subsidies each year.
“In essence, we are proposing to build a congestion-free right of way for all forms of transit, bus, van and carpooling, at no cost to the public, with no public money,” said Walker. “By increasing the capacity of the corridor by 50 percent, we are improving transportation options for everyone.”
Virginia Mobility applied for a contract with VDOT to begin construction on the new lanes Jan. 5. It is currently awaiting a decision.
The debate on whether buses are superior to rail systems for public transportation was the subject of a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office. The report found that nationwide both have certain merits depending on where and how they are implemented.
“The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per milethan the Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed, although neithersystem had a clear advantage in operating costs,” the report states. “The performance characteristics of bus transit and light rail systems also varied widely, with the largest bus system’s ridership about equal to the largest light rail system’s ridership. Finally, bus transit routes showed generally higher operating speeds than the light rail lines in these cities.”
Public perception, the report added, often plays a large role in which system is used with greater frequency. “Transit officials repeatedly noted that buses have a poor public image,” it states. As a result, transit planners are designing bus transit systems that offer improved service from standard bus service.”
But economics, it continues, are often more important when it comes to which type of system to create. “Transit officials believed that because light rail is permanent in a given corridor it could influence economic development over time,” the report states. “Such long-term changes, they said, help justify the higher capital cost of light rail.”
An appropriation from the $388 billion, 2,900-page spending bill passed by Congress in November should help hundreds of Twin Cities-area poor people get to work.
The $1.9 million appropriation, to be announced in the Twin Cities today, will be used by area nonprofit groups to finance low-interest car loans of up to $4,000 for families that otherwise couldn’t get them.
The loans-for-cars idea has helped 26,000 families nationwide with loans totaling more than $31 million in the 20 years since it was started as a Minnesota-only program by the McKnight Foundation.
The lack of dependable transportation “is the single biggest barrier to low-income people staying or moving upward in the job market,” said Jeff Faulkner, president of Ways to Work Inc., a Milwaukee nonprofit that will administer the money.
Earmarked for metro-area counties, the new money won’t be available until late fall, and it is expected to be funneled through eight nonprofits. “It takes awhile for this money to work its way through the system” and for training for nonprofits making the loans, said Byron Laher, director of public policy for the Greater Twin Cities United Way, which worked with Minnesota members of Congress to get the money.
The federal appropriation must be matched by local cash or in-kind contributions, and the United Way will pay up to $900,000 in administrative costs over two years as part of that match.
The foundation, based in Minneapolis, started the Family Loan Program to help families in various emergencies, “generally helping families through difficult times,” said Carol Berde, executive vice president of McKnight, which is Minnesota’s largest foundation. Over the years, she added, most of those emergencies have involved transportation.
Public transportation often doesn’t work for many poor people, especially single parents juggling jobs and child care arrangements. In fact, the appropriation was made under the U.S. Transportation Department’s program to help reverse commuters, those who typically need to get from homes in the core cities to jobs located in places where public transportation isn’t much of a factor.
McKnight and the Alliance for Children & Families took the program nationally in 1998, and it includes 55 loan sites in 23 states. It has evolved a great deal, largely because Congress has become more interested in providing funds to help low-income families buy cars,” said Berde, who also is chairwoman of the board of Ways to Work, a sister organization to the alliance.
The program, started with the help of nonprofit organizations, banks and local governments, overcame a reluctance by banks to make the small loans and gave borrowers helpful social service contacts, she said.
Faulkner said Congress has appropriated more than $15 million over the past six years. Most borrowers “have already emerged from public assistance, and this prevents them from cycling back into public assistance,” he said. In recent years, nearly 90 percent of the money has been repaid, so “we’ve gotten a pretty good bang for the buck.”
Car Loan Program
Loan details: Up to $4,000, which may be increased, at no more than 8 percent interest, for up to two years.
When and how to apply: The new federal money won’t be available until fall, and the names of agencies taking applications will be announced then.
Who will be eligible?: Families with at least one child where one parent has been working for at least three months, has the ability to repay the loan, has income of 80 percent or less of the area median and cannot get a standard loan.
Amid stiff competition among Massachusetts cities and towns for transportation money, North Shore legislators have succeeded in adding a provision to the state transportation bond bill that could improve the chances for an extension of the MBTA’s Blue Line to Lynn, over other projects such as an extension of commuter rail service to New Bedford or a Green Line extension to West Medford.
State Senator Thomas M. McGee of Lynn, at the urging of US Representative John F. Tierney of Salem, included language in the bond bill last summer guaranteeing that the state will pick up as much as 50 percent of the project’s construction cost, which could total more than $500 million, if the T is unable to pay its share.
Tierney said yesterday that such a guarantee offers the best chance for the state to receive a 50 percent match from the federal government. “There’s a lot of competition for these projects, so it’s important we have some commitment that the state is absolutely serious about this,” said Tierney, who, like McGee, is a Democrat.
The $2.5 billion bond bill authorizes other projects such as the New Bedford extension, but in those cases it calls for the state and the MBTA to split the funding not provided by federal authorities. With the T facing a $16 million budget deficit this year, a possible $10 million deficit next year, and no ability to borrow more money, the guarantee that the state will pick up the agency’s share of the Blue Line project, if necessary, gives it a distinction its competitors lack.
That could give it a head start over extending the Green Line and several other projects. The Conservation Law Foundation is suing in federal court to force the state to build those projects, arguing that they were guaranteed under a 1990 legal agreement that cleared the way for the Big Dig.
Phil Warburg the foundation’s president, declined to directly address the Blue Line provision, but said the state needs to find the money for the Big Dig transit commitments. “We are very concerned that the state make good on its longstanding promises,” he said.
Still, the provision by no means guarantees that the Blue Line will be extended to Lynn from its current terminus at the Wonderland Station in Revere. The state bond bill merely gives legislative approval to a series of proposed transportation projects.
Governor Mitt Romney, who has the power to select which projects will be funded, has indicated he favors improving rather than expanding transit lines, though he has indicated his support for the Blue Line project. While the US House has approved legislation that would provide the federal share of the money, the US Senate must still follow suit, President Bush must sign the legislation into law, and then federal authorities must deem the Blue Line project worthy of their support.
Nonetheless, McGee said that successfully inserting the provision will help make the project a reality. “The feds, when they’re funding these projects, they want to know that there’s a real commitment from the state for these projects,” the senator said. “They’ve been hearing for 50 years-plus that the Blue Line to Lynn is a priority. This is a way for us to make it clear to them that this really is a priority for us.”
While MBTA General Manager Michael H. Mulhern has expressed support for the Blue Line extension, a spokesman said the agency has little financial ability to support the project.
“After two years of flat revenues, the T is not in a position to fund any expansion projects other than those already in the pipeline,” said T spokesman Joe Pesaturo. Among those projects is the Greenbush commuter rail extension to the South Shore, as well as the final phase of Silver Line construction in downtown Boston.
The agency is conducting an initial environmental review on the Blue Line project. Among the options the MBTA is studying to improve train service along the Revere-Salem corridor are:
Extending the Blue Line to Lynn using old narrow-gauge track bed through Point of Pines, at an estimated cost of $460 million.
Extending the Blue Line to Lynn using existing commuter rail track bed, at a cost of $500 million.
Extending the Blue Line to Lynn and then on to Swampscott and Salem, at a cost of as much as $843 million.
Building a new commuter rail station at Wonderland and improving pedestrian connections to the Blue Line for easy transfer, at a cost of $24 million.
Running commuter rail trains more frequently between Lynn and North Station, at a cost of $29 million.
SOUTH Eastern Trains, the UK’s most crowded commuter network, costs almost double to run under public control compared with when the private sector was in charge, new figures reveal today.
Taxpayers are subsidising SET, which runs services from Kent and south-east London, into Charing Cross, Victoria and Cannon Street, to the tune of £10.2 million a month compared with the £6.16 million a month when French-owned Connex - sacked in disgrace - was in charge.
The SET accounts, the first since the public company was set up by the Strategic Rail Authority, blows a gaping whole in the campaign launched by rail unions to prevent the franchise being re-privatised.
But the unions will claim much of that extra money is to repair damage done by Connex and take on staff it let go to save money.
Since Connex was axed 18 months ago services have improved and 85.1 per cent of its trains were on time between July and September, up from 79.6 per cent for the same period in 2003.
This above-average improvement caused the unions, led by the RMT, to increase their demands SET be kept under public control. Bob Crow, the RMT leader, said: ‘Since Connex was booted out these rail services have shown steady improvement in punctuality in every successive quarter.’
However Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has ignored the pleas. Last year’s Labour Party conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of restoring full public control to the railways - but party leaders made clear then that re-nationalisation would not be included in the general election manifesto.
Last week there was uproar among MPs and the rail unions after ministers refused demands to keep SET under public control and instead launched the official contractual process to sell-off the company.
The franchise reverted to public control when Connex was axed for financial incompetence.
Richard Bowker, the SRA chairman who fired Connex, said then: ‘I’m not convinced the financial management processes are sufficiently robust to allow them any more taxpayers’ money.’ Since then Mr Bowker has left and the SRA itself is to be wound-up.
The sacking came after Connex was given an extra £58 million of taxpayers’ money earlier in the year and there were claims it sought £100 million more. At the time it was claimed the company knew it was to be axed and deliberately allowed the service to run down and refused to spend more than was absolutely necessary. Connex employed 2,957 staff - since SET took over the figure has increased to 3,498.
Under the Connex regime there were frequent complaints that ticket offices were closed through lack of staff. Tim Yeo, shadow transport secretary, said; ‘The improvements people are seeing are not entirely illusory but they are being achieved through a vast increase in public money.’ He said the figures showed the railways, ‘were much better run in the private sector.’
Four bidders have been shortlisted to run the franchise. They are train operator GNER, in partnership with MTR Corporation of Hong Kong, DSB (Danish Railways.), London South Eastern Railways Ltd (a consortium of Go-Ahead Group and Keolis) and First Integrated Railways Ltd (FirstGroup plc.).
ESCONDIDO — The first piece of new rail for the Sprinter light rail line was dropped into place by a rumbling yellow bulldozer at 9 a.m. Friday. “It sure beats pushing paper,” declared project manager Ray Hughes as crews bolted the 120-foot-long, preassembled railroad crossing to the existing east-west rail line Friday morning.
Driving home from a long day of meetings in San Diego, Judy Ritter, a North County Transit District board member and Vista councilwoman, said she wished she could have been present when the crossing was placed. “This is a huge milestone,” Ritter said. “Up until now we’ve seen little grading work here and there, but that should say to people we’re really under way. The steel going down, I’m excited.”
The 22-mile, $375 million light-rail line will run from Oceanside to Escondido through Vista and San Marcos and will stop at 15 stations along the way.
The project is financed with a $150 million federal grant as well as local 1-cent Transnet sales tax revenue and some $80 million in revenue bonds recently sold by the transit district. The rail line, which will run from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m. seven days a week, is expected to be operational in December 2007.
The crossing is alongside Washington Avenue in front of J&W Redwood Lumber Co. on the western edge of Escondido. The industrial neighborhood is home to a range of enterprises, from a concrete plant to a chicken feed manufacturer.
Unlike most of the crossings that will have to be replaced along the rail corridor, the J&W crossing is private, meaning that rail crews did not have to close a public street in order to get the work done. “We have 30-something crossings that are on public streets,” said Ray Hughes, Sprinter project manager for West Coast Rail Constructors. “We wanted to practice on a private crossing before we have to get the work done on one under freight and traffic pressure.”
That pressure came soon enough.
Crews began preparatory work Friday to replace the crossing at Hale Avenue in the same area. Unlike the J&W Redwood crossing Hale is a public street. The crews had to close Hale to all vehicle and pedestrian traffic while the old crossing was uprooted and a new one put in place. “We should have it buttoned up by sometime Saturday night,” Hughes said Friday.
This was a landmark week in the history of the Sprinter light rail project. After two weeks of nonstop rain, it was the first opportunity for workers to begin real heavy work on the rail line itself. Up until now, crews worked primarily on surveying the rail corridor and on smaller projects such as building a fence in Oceanside and clearing away brush and debris from the future site of the Escondido Sprinter station.
It was the first time rail construction crews would have to work within the constraints on continuing freight traffic on the existing east-west rail line.
The private crossing at J&W Redwood had to be removed and replaced by Friday night to make sure that freight trains could deliver materials to three Escondido manufacturing businesses later in the evening.
Hughes said Friday afternoon that there shouldn’t be any problem having the crossing in place in time for the freight shipments to make their deliveries. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which runs all freight trains on the line, agreed to run only on Friday nights instead of all week long during the Sprinter’s two-year construction time line.
As the rail project progresses, rail builders must perform a continual ballet, never removing a larger section of rail than can be replaced in one week so that freight trains have access on the weekends for their shipments. It would be cheaper and easier to simply rip out all of the old rails and replace them with new rails, but federal law requires the transit district to maintain freight access to Escondido during construction.
Jack Feller, recently elected transit district board chair and an Oceanside city councilman, said Friday that placement of the Sprinter’s first steel span signified a turning project for the often-delayed rail project. “I think the delays are over and now we can just move forward with what we’ve all been waiting for,” Feller said. “Having rail down means no turning back.”
While the Sprinter has come under increasing fire from the city of San Marcos, Feller said his faith remains unshaken. “This is probably the most liberal thing I do as an elected official, supporting transit,” Feller said. “It’s so critical for people to have alternatives, because not everybody does have a car to drive. Not everybody can afford to buy gas.”
Earlier in the week, crews also began installing electrical conduit near Barham Drive in San Marcos. They will replace the Barham railroad crossing next weekend, provided the weather cooperates. “Originally we were not going to have to close Barham to build the crossing, but now we’re going to have to because we found out this week that some of the old rail does not match up,”
The MBTA, faced with a $16 million budget shortfall, plans to start running Green Line trolleys with only a single driver, reducing salary costs by removing the second or third trailer employees who ride in two- and three-car trains.
When it makes the change “in the near future,” the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority said it would try to reduce crowding and shorten trip times by allowing passengers to board through all doors, rather than lining up at each car’s forward door to pay their fare.
The change would be the most aggressive cost-cutting move yet by the T, which in recent weeks has announced the end of some night bus and harbor ferry service. Officials estimate the single-driver plan would eliminate about 100 jobs and save the authority $4 million to $8 million annually.
But a letter Wednesday announcing the change triggered an emotional response from the union representing the trolley operators, which warned that pulling employees from the back cars would endanger the public and only add to the authority’s fiscal woes by encouraging fare jumpers.
“We really believe that it’s such a compromise in public safety that it could result in a fatality,” said Steve MacDougall, president of the Boston Carmen’s Union and a 12-year veteran driver of Green Line trolleys.
In particular, MacDougall said he is concerned that a lone operator would not see a person darting between multiple train cars, be aware of people stuck in the doors of the rear cars, or realize when the back cars have been struck by an automobile, as can happen on a line that traverses busy surface streets such as Huntington and Commonwealth avenues.
MacDougall, who pledged to fight the change with an aggressive lobbying campaign among state lawmakers and T riders, also said the switch made little sense with the Green Line’s notorious delays and equipment problems. “The Green Line right now has a body in every car, and they’re barely pulling it off. You’re telling me it’s going to be better with only one person?” he said. “If their claim is they’re having fiscal difficulty, they’re going to stop collecting fares or operate on the honor system?”
The Green Line, whose four branches go to Boston College, Newton, and other destinations, carries the most passengers of the T’s five transit lines. It has 1,266 scheduled trips each weekday, all but 129 of which are run with two- and three-car trains. The line’s 210 street cars are driven by 363 operators, each of whom can interchangeably serve as pilots in the lead cars and trailers in the second and third cars. On multiple-car trains, each employee collects fares, assists with braking, and opens doors, although the latter two functions can be performed by a lone operator.
In the letter to the Carmen’s union, the T said single operators are standard in North American transit systems.
MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said that with the exception of the public transit system in Philadelphia, the T is the only North American transit system that does not allow single-person trolley operation. He also said municipalities such as Salt Lake City and Sacramento allow up to four-car trolleys with a single operator, while Dallas and Los Angeles allow up to three-car trolleys with a single operator.
“With the advent of automated fare collection and pressing need to contain costs, the time is right to halt this perfunctory practice,” Pesaturo said. “Single-person train operation allows us to reduce unnecessary expenses, while reducing crowding and shortening trip times.”
The new automated fare collection system, in which passengers will swipe fare cards instead of paying with tokens or cash, will begin a lengthy phase-in process next month on the Silver Line.
The authority is also in the process of adding 25 police officers to its corps of 247, some of whom will be free to perform spot checks for fare payment. The transit police also have new authority to issue tickets for fare jumping: $15 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and higher penalties that include revoking a violator’s driver’s license.
As for public safety, Pesaturo said, all Green Line cars will be retrofitted with intercom systems allowing passengers to alert the driver to problems in the rear cars, as is the case on the Blue Line, for example. In 1996, the T also switched Blue Line trains to a single operator.
Changing Green Line staffing also would have a significant impact on finances at the agency, which not only faces a deficit this year, but is facing the prospect of a $10 million deficit next year.
Pesaturo said the change would not trigger layoffs and instead be accomplished through attrition. “The goal is to begin implementation this year,” he said.
Brian J. Donohoe, assistant general manager for labor relations, said in his letter to the union that the change would go into effect “in the near future,” although he also said it would not be made “until we have addressed all of the issues related to the safety of authority employees and our customers.”
MacDougall, however, called on MBTA General Manager Michael H. Mulhern to ask state lawmakers or federal authorities for the money needed to continue to maintain current staffing on the Green Line.
The union chief also said that the decision, announced in the letter faxed to the 4,000-member union a day before reporters found out about it, violated a spirit of cooperation between the union and the authority. “I think that the things that brought us together and led to collaboration, I think there is the beginnings of a breakdown in that,” he said in an interview.
MacDougall also declared, “For me it’s not about trying to protect jobs that exist, or that members will be laid off.”
He said the change was bad public policy in the security environment following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States and last year’s train bombings in Madrid. “Post-9/11, a public transit agency is talking about diminishing staffing levels on its light-rail system that has lines that run under the Prudential Center, the Boston Public Library, City Hall, the State House, Boston Common, and the Public Garden,” he said.