Every week for three years, ERA member John Swindler compiled a report of transit news articles from around the world. After a brief hiatus he added eight new reports, for the weeks starting November 27, 2004 through January 21, 2005.
INDIAN Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh formally opened the first section of Delhi Metro’s underground Line 2 on December 19, when he was presented with the first copy of a new book commemorating construction of the network over the past six years.
Delhi Metro Rail Corp began revenue services on Line 2 at 06.00 on the following day. The initial 4km section runs from Delhi University at Vishwavidyalaya to the interchange with Line 1 at Kashmere Gate, serving two intermediate stations.
Services are being operated using four trains, with one more available in reserve at Vishwavidyalaya depot. Two more four-car EMUs are being commissioned following delivery from Rotem. DMRC hopes to open the remaining 7km of Line 2 from Kashmere Gate to Central Secretariat in June.
UNDER AN agreement signed on December 28 with the Ministry of Development and the regional government, Renfe’s suburban route between Valencia and Riba-roja de Túria is to become part of the FGV metro network.
Involving the removal of 16 level crossings, conversion of the route from Quart de Poblet to Riba-roja via Manises Airport is expected to be completed in time for June 2007, when Valencia hosts the 32nd America’s Cup sailing competition. Xirivella-L’Alter is to be replaced by a new station on the Valencia - Utiel route.
FGV has awarded a €7m contract to install track and overhead electrification equipment on the 1·6km Mislata - Quart de Poblet section of Line 5, including a new traction substation. Due to open in 2006 with one intermediate station at Faitanar, this section is being built at a total cost of €47·1m, including signalling and telecommunications equipment being installed under another contract worth €2·35m.
The next phase of FGV’s €250m programme to acquire up to 69 new trains has seen 30 LRVs ordered from Bombardier for €78·6m. Each 32·5m long five-section LRV will accommodate 264 passengers. They are to be deployed on the new Line T2 between Orriols/Torrefiel and Nazaret as well as the extension of T4 to Valterna/Terramelar and La Coma. Two lines in Alacant are also expected to receive Bombardier cars.
SHANGHAI Metro Corp opened the northern extension of Line 1 on December 28, adding 12·4km and nine stations.
Linking Shanghai Main station to Gong Fu Xin Cun, the line runs underground for the first 4·2km serving three stations, and then on elevated alignment. SMC offers 3min headways on the existing route, and every fourth train has been extended to Gong Fu Xin Cun, giving a 12min interval service. This will be reduced to 9min from May.
Test running is due to start this year on the first section of Line 4, and the city hopes to expand the network from four lines totalling 82km to 11 lines with over 400km in time for the World Expo in 2010. Shanghai Tunnel Engineering & Rail Transit Research Institute is currently working on a master plan which envisages an eventual network of 17 lines totalling 810km.
Nanjing Metro has completed tests on Line 1, and expects to start revenue services on May 1. The 16·9km north-south route runs from Maigaoqiao to Xiaohang. Work is underway on the 21·6km east-west Line 2 from Zhonghechun to Maqun, which is due to open in 2008. Two extensions to Line 2 have been approved: 13·4km running west from Jiqinmenlu to Baguazhou and 14·4km from Maqun to a new town at Xianlin.
CONFETTI-GUN salutes and loud cheers greeted the opening of China’s latest metro on December 28, when Guangdong Party Secretary Zhang Dejiang inaugurated the first two lines in Shenzhen.
Under construction since March 2001, the 21·8km first phase has cost 11·5bn yuan. Line 1 runs east-west from the KCR border station at Lo Wu to the Window on the World theme park at Shijiezhichuang, with 15 stations; end-to-end journey time is 35min. The first section of Line 4 runs north-south between Saoniangang and Fumin, serving four stations including an interchange with Line 1 at Huizhanzhongxin. In 2008 Line 4 will be extended south to Huanggang, providing a connection with KCR’s new Lok Ma Chau spur.
Following the formal ceremony at 16.00, the guests rode Line 1 in two reserved trains. The network was opened to the public an hour later for the evening rush hour. Large crowds built up, and some stations had to be closed to relieve the congestion. By 23.45 on the first day the metro had carried over 15000 passengers.
With only eight of the 22 six-car trains available for service, seven trains are operating a 15min interval service on Line 1, and one train provides a 20min shuttle on Line 4. Shenzhen Metro Corp’s General Manager, Operations, Jiang Weibin hopes to cut headways to 8min as further trains are delivered this year.
ON DECEMBER 29 Singapore’s Land Transit Authority announced the go-ahead for a further extension of the island’s existing east-west metro line.
Serving the Jurong West town area and Tuas industrial estate, the 3·8km Boon Lay Extension will be elevated throughout. There will be two new stations at Jurong West Street 63 and Joo Koon Circle.
Total cost of the project is put at S$436m. LTA expects to call tenders in the first half of this year and start construction during the second half. The extension is due to be completed in 2009.
January 29 was due to see the start of passenger services on the eastern loop of the Punggol LRT peoplemover and the western loop of the Sengkang LRT, which are both feeders to the metro’s North East Line. Trains will not serve two of the seven stations on the Punggol loop and three on the Sengkang loop until nearby housing developments have been completed.
SBS Transit Chief Operating Officer Ong Boon Leong said at the beginning of the month that he expected the Punggol line to carry between 3000 and 5000 passengers/day. Traffic on the NEL has risen from 170000 at opening to 190000, against a break-even target of 250000.
FRENCH engineering consultancy Systra announced on January 14 that it had been awarded a contract for project management on the first two sections of Lyon tram line T4. Totalling 9·5km, these sections are expected to cost €177m.
The contract has been awarded by Lyon transport authority Sytral. Detailed design is to get underway immediately, with construction starting in mid-2006. As lead contractor, Systra will work with civil engineering and trackwork builder Arcadis and architectural consultants Attica and Ilex.
Due to open at the beginning of 2009, the first phase of Line T4 will run from an interchange with route T2 at Jet d’Eau via Avenue Berthelot and Boulevard des Etats Unis to meet Line D at Gare de Vénissieux, where a new interchange is planned. The second section to open by the end of 2009 will run from Vénissieux to the densely-populated suburb of Les Minguettes. There will be 18 stations, including two park-and-ride interchanges. Sytral plans to order 13 trams to provide a 7min interval service.
In the longer term, T4 will be extended north from Jet d’Eau to the main station at Part-Dieu, where interchange will be provided to tram route T1 and the Lea line to Mézieu expected to open at the end of 2006. On January 19 Sytral held a ceremony to mark the start of work on Lea, for which three contracts have been awarded to Alstom (RG 9.04 p524). The company is supplying 17 km of track for €28m, 10 low-floor cars for €24m and signalling equipment worth €2m.
Sytral expects to open the first three stops on its 1·8km extension of route T1 in October (RG 1.05 p14), but the new terminus at Confluences will not open until reconstruction of the museum it serves is completed in 2007.
CATALUNYA REGIONAL government’s construction authority GISA has awarded a contract worth €31m for civil works, tracklaying and electrification on the extension of Barcelona metro Line 2 from Pep Ventura to Badalona Centre.
Work is due to start in the first quarter of 2005 for completion within 26 months. Signalling, station equipment and architectural services will be procured under separate contracts.
Public consultation is underway for a 5·2km extension of Line 2 at its western end, from Sant Antoni to Fira 2 on Line 9 via four intermediate stations, including interchanges with Line 3 at Poble Sec and the Zona Franca branch of Line 9 at Foc Cisell. The Sant Antoni - Paral·lel section of Line 2 would be taken out of public service but retained for train stabling.
The extension of Line 2 to Fira 2 has been costed at €414m, and is expected to carry over 15·5million passengers a year. Under the current schedule, work is expected to begin in the second half of 2006 and take 48 months to complete.
Proposals to build a new station on Line 4 between Maragall and Llucmajor at Virrei Amat have also been put out to consultation. Sharing a new 780m2 entrance hall with the station of the same name on Line 5, Virrei Amat would take 18 months to build at an estimated cost of €24·3m.
After many years of delay, the long-planned S-Bahn tunnel below the centre of Leipzig is finally under construction. The 4·3 km twin bores serving four stations will run up to 22 m below the surface and include a short section with a 4% grade. Four S-Bahn and three regional express services will be routed through the tunnel, and they will later be joined by long-distance trains linking Berlin and München. Completion of the tunnel in 2009 will be accompanied by a phased programme of other works to expand the S-Bahn network, Ralf Roman Rossberg reports
Europe’s latest S-Bahn EMUs go head-to-head in the race for orders
The Swiss Flirt, Austrian Elektro-Talent and Polish EN95 are all intended to operate suburban services. The three trains all have their own design virtues. One has equipment duplicated for reliability, another is keenly priced and the third has a lot of development potential. The specific weights are quite similar, but power-to-weight ratios and prices vary significantly. Harry Hondius MSc offers a technical comparison.
The Regional Transit Authority this week decided to move forward with a plan to build a small terminal at the foot of Canal Boulevard that will allow streetcar and bus riders to change lines without having to cross busy streets.
The transfer station, which will be on the neutral ground in the first block of Canal Boulevard, between City Park Avenue and Rosedale Drive, is slated to cost about $8 million. It will be paid for with money left over from the Canal Street streetcar project.
On Thursday, the RTA’s board approved a motion authorizing Chairman Jimmy Reiss to negotiate a design contract for the terminal in an amount not to exceed $620,000. The bids have not yet been evaluated.
The transit authority has been looking for ways to improve the streetcar’s terminus ever since its original plan, to build a transfer station on a privately owned piece of land south of City Park Avenue between Canal Street and Interstate 10, fell through.
Since it first opened last spring, the new streetcar line has ended in the center of Canal Street just below City Park Avenue. Riders must disembark there, cross Canal and board buses at a newly renovated stop along City Park Avenue.
After the new transfer station is in place, streetcars will cross City Park Avenue and stop at the terminal. Several bus lines, including some from Jefferson Parish, also will use the transfer station.
The new station, which should be completed by late 2006, should enhance passenger safety because riders won’t have to cross streets on foot, said James Baker, director of quality assurance. The terminal should make bus operations smoother as well, he said.
RTA officials say the new station also will make riding public transit more pleasant generally. The station will have a kiosk with vending machines, where customers can buy bus and streetcar passes. It will offer shelter from the elements. And perhaps most importantly, it will have a public bathroom.
Marsha Hopper, the agency’s senior director of administration, said the RTA plans to make presentations to the surrounding neighborhood as the project moves forward. “We want the community to see what we have in mind,” she said. Hopper and Baker said the facility should be attractive. Plans call for landscaping throughout the facility and the preservation of a large oak tree as part of a park area toward the lake end of the block.
In the future, the RTA is hoping to build similar transfer stations in other transit hubs around the city, Baker said. Among the locations being considered: Basin Street near Canal; the intersection of Carrollton and Claiborne avenues, where the St. Charles streetcar line ends; the intersection of Elysian Fields Avenue and Gentilly Boulevard; and the intersection of Chef Menteur Highway and Louisa Street.
The Port Authority’s ridership was down for the fourth consecutive year in 2004, a development that does not bolster the transit agency’s plea for more state money.
The number of people using Port Authority of Allegheny County buses and trains dropped 0.07 percent in 2004, according to year-end statistics released Friday. The Port Authority has not posted a year-over-year increase since 2000.
Executive Director Paul Skoutelas likely will be questioned Tuesday about the drop when he testifies before the state Senate Transportation Committee, which is examining the mass transit crisis that threatens service cuts and fare hikes in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
“We are concerned about ridership numbers,” said Craig Shuey, director of the Senate committee. “We’re being asked to provide a significant amount of additional funding. If it becomes evident the ridership numbers are continuing to decline, we have to wonder what’s being done to cause that to happen or not being done to cause that to happen and if it makes sense to throw more money into the system.”
The Port Authority already receives an annual state subsidy of $121 million.
The number of riders fell to 67,824,413 last year from 67,870,486 in 2003. Transit ridership had increased four straight years through 2000, then began falling, partly because of fare increases in 2001 and ‘02. Also, the Port Authority cut 7 percent of its routes in 2002.
Skoutelas said the small decline last year shows that ridership has stabilized. Halfway through the 2005 budget year, which ends June 30, ridership is up 0.86 percent, he said. “Certainly, we are hopeful this is a positive sign,” Skoutelas said. “Calendar year ‘04 broke even with calendar year ‘03, so I think we’ve reached a point where we are ready to show some growth.”
Save Our Transit co-founder Stephen Donahue said ridership fell last year in part because some riders fearing service cuts have found alternatives. “There’s enough talk on a regular basis that cuts are coming that folks have begun planning early for alternatives to public transit,” Donahue said. “I’ve often thought the impact of cuts and fare hikes begins before they’re actually implemented. I think that will be reflected in a ridership loss.”
The Port Authority faces a $30 million shortfall in its current budget and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia faces a $60 million deficit.
Gov. Ed Rendell shifted $18.8 million in state money to the transit agencies, allowing fare hikes and service cuts to be delayed until March. Lawmakers are discussing a bailout for transit but haven’t settled on a plan.
“I grow increasingly encouraged that the General Assembly and governor continue to talk about the funding crisis,” Skoutelas said. If lawmakers are unsuccessful, the Port Authority will raise fares 25 cents to $2 on March 1, cut 12 percent of routes on March 6 and lay off 150 employees.
If the railway companies and the Government that continues to subsidise them seek a large-scale passenger mutiny, they are going about it very purposefully indeed.
As we report today, train fares in Kent appear set to rise by more than 15 per cent above inflation over the next five years, with every prospect of being followed by similar price rises across the network as other rail operators’ franchises are renegotiated. There is, by contrast, little prospect of the country’s most crowded trains becoming much less crowded, or of the commuters who use them suddenly finding alternative ways of getting to work.
Rail travel in Britain is already expensive. The trend is now likely to continue, if not accelerate, against a background of only marginal improvement in the train operators’ performance and some unconscionable pay deals for their executives and unionised drivers. The result will, in many respects, be the reverse of new Labour’s plans eight years ago on taking control of the rail network after its botched privatisation. These hinged on luring the travelling public out of their cars and into more environmentally acceptable alternatives. What has transpired instead has been a costly, chaotic and, all too often, tragic period for the railways and their customers.
No transport system that also serves as a financial black hole is tenable, and it is a major failure of policy and management that Britain’s rail network has, on average, devoured more taxpayers’ money annually since privatisation than before.
Total subsidies are now running at £5 billion a year compared with about £1 billion in real terms under British Rail. The taxpayer’s contribution to the average ticket has risen from 25 per cent five years ago to 55 per cent today.
Network Rail, which receives the bulk of these subsidies in the form of fees from operators, is a non-profit organisation with no private shareholders. In existence for three years, it is already showing the classic symptoms of inadequate accountability, while at the same time heavily burdened by new, post-Hatfield safety regulations. Its task is to satisfy these regulations while cutting costs in real terms. It cannot be allowed to give the impression of doing so by offering inflated estimates only to lower them in its final accounts.
Network Rail’s challenges are hard to overstate, however. The Hatfield crash in 2000 triggered a massive rail replacement programme on an already dilapidated system. The operating companies have, likewise, been forced to absorb the substantial unanticipated costs of the disaster.
It is lamentable that the country that launched the age of rail travel lags so far behind its European and Japanese rivals two centuries later. While they upgrade their bullet trains, George Stephenson’s disparate heirs can do no more than creep towards modest punctuality targets. Yet this is no argument for not making whatever investments are necessary to modernise Britain’s basic rail infrastructure.
In the meantime, that infrastructure is being used more than ever. Last year more passengers used it than at any time since 1959, when the network was half as big again. They have not been priced out of their cars, which, thanks to the freezing of fuel duty, are now a cheaper way to travel. Rather, the Government that promised an historic shift away from roads and on to public transport is now contemplating pricing people off the railways.
They heaped scorn on Angelenos in 1995 when we introduced a light-rail route that bypassed the region’s biggest airport. MTA’s Green Line trains, originating in Norwalk, pulled up two miles shy of LAX before veering south toward Redondo Beach. “A train to nowhere,” critics called it.
Since then, New York, Newark, N.J., San Francisco and Minneapolis have created airport-to-city rail links. Amtrak just opened a station near Milwaukee’s airport where fliers can board trains to downtown.
And LAX? A decade later, we’re still two miles short. No direct train to downtown. Not even a monorail to shuttle us among the sprawling airport’s seven terminals.
That may be changing. An $11-billion LAX modernization plan approved last month by the Los Angeles City Council calls for a people-mover system that would run from the Green Line’s Aviation Station to the airport, then loop around the terminals.
The precise route is not yet determined, and the project is being challenged in court. But at least there’s hope that a people mover could be in place by, say, 2010.
It couldn’t come too soon, I’ve decided, after testing some current transit options. Fewer than 2% of LAX passengers appear to use the Green Line to go to and from the airport, said Nancy Suey Castles, LAX spokeswoman.
I can see why. To get from LAX to downtown’s Union Station — about 20 miles — on a weekday morning this month, I caught a free “G” shuttle bus at 7:35 a.m. from the airport’s No. 7 terminal to the Aviation Station. I took the Green Line to the Blue Line, then transferred again to the Red Line. One bus, three trains. Cost: $3 with a Metro day pass.
The Aviation Station didn’t direct me downtown. The platform sign said “To I-105/I-605.” I had to laugh: Even the rail signs in L.A. refer to freeways. How could a visitor figure this out?
Still, there were elevators at each connection, and the trip time wasn’t bad. With nearly perfect timing — less than five minutes’ wait at each station — it totaled one hour, seven minutes in rush hour. That was 19 minutes longer than my car trip two days later at the same time on the same route.
MTA buses were another story. I passed on the No. 42 because it was a local bus that a shuttle-bus driver said once took one hour, 53 minutes to get her from LAX to Union Station. It also stopped in some dicey neighborhoods.
So I tried the No. 439, an express bus recommended by airport staff. After hopping on a free “C” shuttle from the terminal to the airport’s bus center, I waited 20 minutes for the 439. Starting at 7:59 a.m., it wound through Westchester and Culver City, then crawled through rush-hour traffic on La Cienega Boulevard before finally hitting Interstate 10 at Washington Boulevard.
Total trip time to Union Station: two hours, four minutes. Cost: $1.75.
That takes us back to the Green Line. An LAX people mover would smooth the trip but wouldn’t solve the three-train hassle. So let’s revisit this question: Why doesn’t the Green Line go to the airport?
The main reason, LAX spokeswoman Castles said, is that the line was designed for a different purpose: to take workers to once-bustling aerospace businesses in the South Bay. Commuters didn’t want to go through LAX or jostle with luggage-toting fliers, according to marketing studies at the time.
Over the years, plans for a spur to airport parking lot C were stymied by budget shortfalls and disagreements. The Federal Aviation Administration fretted that overhead train wires could endanger low-flying aircraft. It was rumored that LAX officials resisted rail to protect airport parking revenues, which they deny. On the contrary, Castles said, “We’re trying to get people out of their cars.”
Meanwhile, other airports have pressed forward. Some of their recent transit additions:
* New York: Since December 2003, the AirTrain has been whisking passengers from terminal to terminal at JFK. It then splits into two branches, heading to Howard Beach (where it links to the A train into Manhattan) or to Jamaica Station (with links to the Long Island Rail Road and several subway lines).
Getting into Manhattan this way takes about an hour; it may take longer after a Jan. 23 fire that affected the A and C trains. The cost: $7 each way.
Spend a little more, and you’ll get into Manhattan in less than an hour … from New Jersey. At Newark International Airport, the 3-year-old AirTrain links to a station where passengers can connect with trains to New York’s Penn Station ($11.55) and Newark’s Penn Station, among other options.
* San Francisco: In summer 2003, Bay Area Rapid Transit at last arrived at this city’s airport. BART rides downtown cost less than $5 and take about half an hour. Oakland’s airport runs a shuttle to BART trains.
* Minneapolis: This city last month added Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to its new 12-mile light-rail system. There are stations at both terminals. The trip from the airport to downtown Minneapolis takes about 25 minutes.
You can also make an 11-minute run to Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn., which bills itself as America’s largest retail and entertainment complex. Fares start at $1.25.
* Milwaukee: Amtrak opened a station Jan 18 near Mitchell International Airport on its Hiawatha line, which runs between Milwaukee and Chicago.(A free bus runs between the rail station and the airport.)
From Mitchell, you can reach downtown Milwaukee in less than 20 minutes; the fare is $6. Or you can ride all the way to downtown Chicago, about 90 miles away, in about one hour, 15 minutes; the fare is $20. The downside in either case: The train runs only seven times a day.
In his Jan. 24 letter, “Transit agencies must work together,” Metra executive director Phil Pagano points out how Illinois’ ability to “win critical federal transportation funds” is being jeopardized by the lack of “regional cooperation and stability,” and stated Metra’s desire to work with the CTA and Pace to benefit the northeastern Illinois region as a whole. Besides revamping the state’s operating funding formula, there are other ways that Metra and CTA could prove that regional cooperation is more than just lip service.
The proposed CTA Gray Line L route is a Chicago Area Transportation Study Major Capital Project that would use federal capital funds to significantly reduce both the CTA’s and Metra’s overall operating costs by using the existing in-city Metra Electric suburban rail lines (the South Chicago, Kensington and Blue Island routes) as a new, 22-mile regional CTA L Line, the “Gray Line.”
This would be accomplished by a CTA purchase of service for Metra trains and crews to operate on rapid transit headways and the placement of CTA fare vending and collection equipment in the 37 in-city Metra Electric train stations. (Metra purchases the operation of its suburban train services on the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific railroads from those railroads, whose crews run Metra-owned trains, so there is precedent.) Also, Metra subsidizes the CTA to carry and distribute Metra’s arriving (morning rush) and boarding (evening rush) passengers in downtown Chicago.
The CTA spends large amounts of its very scarce operating funds to run buses throughout Chicago’s South Side that compete directly with Metra Electric trains (another RTA agency) for ridership and revenues, and Metra’s in-city Electric routes have lost more than a million dollars in revenue since the CTA began operating its new South Lake Shore Drive express bus routes.
The Gray Line would benefit Metra by creating many new Metra jobs and enhancing Metra’s image in the city and northeastern Illinois. It would benefit the CTA by allowing it to greatly reduce the number of long-haul bus routes in favor of rail rapid transit feeder services.
In 2002, the Gray Line proposal was accepted for inclusion in the Shared Path 2030 Regional Transportation Plan by the Chicago Area Transportation Study, the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the northeastern Illinois region. In 2003, this plan was recommended for immediate funding, and its $100 million implementation cost is included in the current 2030 regional transportation plan budget.
However, because transit operators are not required to adhere to regional planning recommendations, the CTA and Metra have both chosen to ignore this recommendation (which was submitted by, and would primarily benefit, South Side minority communities). Instead, they have chosen to lobby in Washington for their own, vastly more expensive proposals for the STAR Line, Circle Line, Orange and Blue Line Airport Express trains, etc.
The Gray Line presents an opportunity for the CTA and Metra to use federal capital funds to reduce local transit operating costs, and for the CTA and Metra to demonstrate to lawmakers in Springfield that they can work together for mutual and regional benefit instead of fighting each other.
You live, say, in Chelsea or Everett and you spot in the want ads a job opening on the Boston-Brookline border. You think twice about that because the commute could be too time consuming. Something called the Urban Ring would help ease that traveling, but it doesn’t exist.
Should you live in Lynn and work at Logan Airport, a Blue Line extension would come in handy. But it’s still last stop, Wonderland, not Lynn.
If you’re from Winthrop or Revere, and you want to see your doctor at Mass. General or slip over the Charles to visit quirky Cambridge shops and restaurants, you might like the Blue Line-Red Line connector, if there were one.
The ring, the extension, and the connector, along with a new railroad station in Salem and a commuter rail spur running from that city through Peabody into Danvers, have long been the stuff of dreams by those who believe more public transportation makes economic and environmental sense. It’s always a challenge, though, to determine if never mind when such dreams get to the point where you see hard hats and front-end loaders in the affected neighborhoods.
Take that Blue Line-Red Line connector. It would extend the Blue Line from its Bowdoin Station terminus in Boston’s Government Center to a modernized Charles Street Red Line station on Beacon Hill. It would improve access to Logan Airport and for those living north of the city. It was considered so important that it was on the list of transit projects mandated in a 1990 agreement that made the Big Dig possible. The trade-off was you want to build roads, fine, then expand mass transit, too.
The T has contended that the new Silver Line access to the airport negates the need for the Blue Line-Red Line connector. Critics insist that it does no such thing. The state is now trying to renege on the connector, the cost estimates of which have ranged from $174 million to $220 million. Indeed, the state has done so little on its 1990 transit commitments that the Conservation Law Foundation, which negotiated that agreement, is suing the state to make good on its commitments.
One might infer that if the state cannot live up to such mandates, how will it create stuff that isn’t mandated but is just as important?
The Urban Ring, for example, would consist of new bus and rail lines making a circular connection from Chelsea, through Everett, Somerville, Cambridge, and neighborhoods on the fringe of Boston. The MBTA says it’s a priority and wants to do it in three phases for $2 billion.
As for the long-promised Blue Line extension to Lynn and then maybe someday through Swampscott to Salem, cost estimates vary, depending in part on the ultimate route, from $173 million, to $240 million, to $281 million, to $500 million, and that’s just to Lynn. Building out to Salem might cost $843 million.
Whatever the cost, the MBTA doesn’t have the money. Three years ago February, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation reported that the T was so saddled with debt, it couldn’t afford to build its proposed expansion projects without sacrificing critical maintenance and modernization of the existing system.
Yet expanding transit is crucial, the foundation acknowledged, so it urged that the state take on “the responsibility for expansion as part of a comprehensive, statewide investment strategy.”
Well, Lynn state Senator Thomas McGee has made sure the state would pay for half the Blue Line extension if the feds ever come up with the other half. But that one example does not a “statewide investment strategy” make. The last time Massachusetts had a cogent transportation policy was in 1990, when Mike Dukakis was still governor and Fred Salvucci was his secretary of transportation and construction. The Romney administration is working on one.
Meanwhile, disparate groups of people must lobby for their own projects. So, when word leaked out recently that the state was trying to deep-six the Blue Line-Red Line connector, the Winthrop Board of Selectmen, state Representative Bobby DeLeo, who represents Winthrop and part of Revere, and John Vitagliano, a Winthrop resident and transportation expert, all sent letters to state officials urging that they stick to the 1990 mitigation script.
But what may be crucial to Winthrop and Revere may be deemed irrelevant by some other cluster of neighborhoods. This potential lack of unity among advocates worries Vitagliano, who became a transportation activist in the early 1970s when neighborhood groups from Boston and its suburbs joined to fight planned highways and airport expansion.
They called themselves the Greater Boston Committee on the Transportation Crisis, or GBCTC, and their agitation led to a revolution in transportation thinking, which would mean less emphasis on highways and more on mass transit. Vitagliano played a role in that transformation, first as a GBCTC activist, then as Boston Mayor Kevin White’s transportation commissioner and later as a Massachusetts Port Authority board member.
“This takes me back to the GBCTC,” he said the other day over breakfast at the Crystal Cove Cafe in Winthrop. “We had diverse support groups, geographically, racially, culturally, and the idea was, ‘Let’s come up with a transportation system we agree on and support each other.’ That was a real turn-on for me. Some of that cohesion doesn’t seem to be here now. I’d like to see it get back to that.”
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s “Customer Bill of Rights” states that T officials have an obligation to inform bus, train, and commuter rail riders of delays longer than 15 minutes. But such was not the experience Jan. 19 of tipster Pam Fradkin.
The evening before, a fire had destroyed the First Baptist Church on Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, prompting T officials to reroute bus #39 that Fradkin takes to and from her job each day. Before heading to work the next day, Fradkin checked the MBTA website’s “Transit Updates” page, which indicated that the 39 bus had returned to its normal route. Just to be sure, Fradkin called the T’s consumer service line. An operator assured her that the bus route was operating normally.
“I was lied to,” Fradkin wrote in a Jan. 19 e-mail after hoofing it more than a mile out of her way that day to catch the bus. “It was 4 degrees outside, and a little communication on the part of the MBTA would have alleviated a lot of discomfort,” said Fradkin, who said she would have chosen a shorter alternative route to work if T officials had publicized the rerouting.
“I’m really very annoyed with them. It’s unacceptable,” said Fradkin in a follow-up telephone interview. “I don’t know how they can call that customer service.”
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority responds: “We wrote back to her and apologized,” said T spokesman Joe Pesaturo. “The bus dispatcher certainly took responsibility for not getting the information to the control center and the customer service people.”
Pesaturo forwarded a copy of the T’s e-mail response to Fradkin’s complaint. Below is an excerpt from the Jan. 22 e-mail from David Carney, a spokesman for MBTA bus operations:
“Here’s what happened: On the evening of January 18th Route 39 was diverted due to the fire in Jamaica Plain. At that time, the bus dispatcher made the notification to ensure that www.mbta.com, 617-222-3200, and SmartRoutes [a company the T pays to provide transit updates] would all provide the proper information to the public,” Carney wrote.
“The bus dispatchers assumed that the rerouting information would stay in place until a dispatcher called back to indicate that the normal routing was restored. Since no such call was made, and there was no change to report, the bus dispatchers did not call to update the information on the morning of January 19th.
“The bus dispatchers didn’t know that reroutings that are normally of very limited duration, such as those related to fire department activity, are routinely cleaned off the system every day. This practice prevents stale information from being provided to the public.
“As a result of your e-mail, bus dispatchers are now required to check www.mbta.com at the beginning of each shift to ensure that the status of each bus route is properly displayed. This change should prevent these types of problems from happening in the future,” Carney wrote.
Fradkin said Carney’s e-mail never reached her. After GlobeWatch read her the message, however, she said she was gratified by the response. “It sounds like my complaint effected a change in their policy,” she said. “I’m glad that they now have a system in place to provide the information.”
CHINA — It’s a fast train to nowhere. The fastest, in fact, the world has ever seen. For seven magnetic minutes, passengers hurtle along at speeds that can top 430 kilometres an hour — faster than the old Concorde supersonic jetliners at takeoff.
Welcome aboard the Maglev — the world’s first magnetic-levitation train. Propelled by magnetic fields along a 30-kilometre elevated guideway, it floats on a cushion of air. Unfortunately, it is also sinking into an ocean of debt.
Opened last March, the $1.4 billion Maglev is an engineering marvel — and a commercial flop. Passengers are balking at a high-speed train that leaves them high and dry, laden with luggage and fumbling for taxi fare in the middle of nowhere.
The Maglev track links outlying Pudong International Airport with … outlying suburban Pudong, a dead end for air travellers.
Far from Shanghai’s commercial centre, passengers clamber into taxis for another ride — up to one hour in heavy traffic — across the urban wasteland of Pudong’s high-rise towers, then through congested tunnels to reach their downtown hotels across the river. That detour has made Maglev the world’s fastest-moving white elephant.
Priced too high for most Chinese, it operates with its seats mostly empty, often at barely one-third capacity. The initial price for a one-way trip was slashed by 33 per cent to 50 yuan, or $7.50, but that failed to fill many seats in a city where the average daily wage is about 80 yuan.
As Toronto’s Pearson International Airport prepares for its own rail link into town, to be built and operated by the private sector, Shanghai’s experience is a bitter lesson in how planners can aim for the sky only to come crashing down to earth. Toronto’s planned $200 million “Blue 22” — so-called because it will reach Union Station from the airport in 22 minutes – will ferry passengers straight downtown after a stop in west Toronto.
Not so in Shanghai, where the train’s terminus is so isolated that my taxi drivers got lost both coming and going. That’s why most passengers hire taxis to take them straight to the airport. The taxi costs twice as much as the train, but it’s half the headache. “If you have luggage, it’s easier to take a taxi,” says Peter Fu, a Chinese Canadian architect living in Shanghai. “Otherwise, you have to transfer at the station, so it’s too complicated.”
Fu tried out the Maglev once on a VIP tour with Canadian diplomats. He found the high-speed trip irresistible but impractical. “Everyone will want to try it out once,” he predicts. But not twice.
It’s a long march from the Maglev’s airport terminus to the terminal. And passengers have to surrender their luggage to X-ray scanners before boarding the train. These days, many of the Mag-lev’s passengers are bereft of baggage but armed with digital cameras and videocams — suggesting they are tourists on a joyride rather than travellers with a destination.
It’s easy to see why the Maglev is such a popular attraction for sightseers. Onboard attendants introduce the train to passengers, boasting that it is the world’s fastest form of ground transportation — though technically it operates about one centimetre above ground.
The train accelerates to 330 km/h within a couple of minutes. That’s the cruising speed of an airborne Beech 1900D commuter aircraft. A few seconds later, electronic scoreboards in each coach display readings above 400 km/h — peaking at 432 km/h for all of about one minute. That’s well above the operational speeds of the Japanese Bullet train (260 km/h) and France’s TGV (300 km/h).
At top speed, the view from the window of farms and factories becomes a 21st-century blur. Cars and trucks on an adjacent highway appear to be crawling like caterpillars.
Another Maglev train approaching from the opposite direction on an adjacent track creates the sensation of a momentary shockwave — not surprising if you do the math, since the speed of approach would be in excess of 860 km/h.
As the train begins to decelerate, it feels as if we are slowing to a crawl — until you look again at the cars on the highway receding in the distance. A quick glance up at the speedometer confirms we are moving at a mere 250 km/h.
Most passengers jump out of their plush seats to take snapshots and pose by the window. But it’s a quick thrill. Seven minutes after pushing off, the trip is over.
To generate such unprecedented speeds, the Maglev is kept afloat by powerful magnetic fields that reduce the friction from grinding on steel rails.
Indeed, the Maglev is a train without wheels, unencumbered by an engine, pollution-free and virtually noiseless. Instead of an onboard motor, the lightweight coaches rely on magnets built into the guideway to provide propulsion. Built with German technology by ThyssenKrupp and Siemens, the Maglev is the first of its kind – and so far, the last.
Apart from a test track in Germany, no one has been able to make a go of it. China’s central government, anxious to project an image of high-tech modernity to the world, became the first customer. But after going well over budget, China has quietly shelved plans to link Shanghai and Beijing with the Maglev.
There is talk of extending the line by eight kilometres to Shanghai’s 2010 World Expo site along the Huangpu River, and possibly to the city of Hangzhou, 200 kilometres to the southwest. But the Maglev could face stiff competition from an unexpected quarter: the municipal government has decided to extend a conventional subway line 29.2 kilometres to Pudong airport, connecting it to the vast commuter network for a mere $1.50 per ride.
Facing slow competition from taxis and conventional subways, the futuristic Maglev may be going nowhere fast.
Indeed, for serious travellers, sightseeing only goes so far. “Why would I take the Mag- lev?” asks Yan Minjie, 26. “Isn’t it more convenient to take the bus or taxi to the airport?”
She should know. As a tour guide, Yan would take the train only when showing it off to tourists, not when she needs to get to the airport in a hurry. “The Maglev is simply a tourist spot,” she muses. “I’ll only go there when I’m guiding a group.”
The Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) yesterday demanded a substantial amendment to the subway concession contract signed with private operator Bangkok Metro Plc (BMCL) in return for the latter to reopen the service.
MRTA chief Prapat Jongsa-nguan said contract changes were necessary so as to increase public safety following the January 17 crash, in which hundreds of commuters were injured. He said that the state agency, which awarded the contract to BMCL to operate the subway service, would not allow the private firm to resume its operation unless it agreed to the contract amendment.
The subway service, the first of its kind in Bangkok, was suspended on January 17 after an empty train accidentally ran into another train with 700 passengers onboard, resulting in hundreds of people being injured.
According to an informed source, the MRTA demanded to be empowered under the contract with BMCL to closely supervise the public-safety aspects of the subway operation following the crash, which has hurt commuter confidence.
Under the contract, signed in 2000, the state agency does not have direct authority to intervene in the private firms operations.
BMCL was told that its supposed to accept the contract changes by the end of tomorrow or else the firm would not have approval to reopen the subway on February 1 as scheduled, the source said.
Essentially, the contract amendment would require BMCL to overhaul its system-operating plan and appoint MRTA representatives on its operation and maintenance committees as well as its safety committee.
Second, both parties are required to hold joint meetings on public safety at least once a month.
Third, MRTA officials must be appointed as co-chief controllers on train services, and Siemens, which supplied the train system, must provide additional training to MRTA and BMCL personnel at the latter firms expense.
Fourth, BMCL must hire foreign experts on subway operations as consultants for an entire year one month after service is resumed.
Fifth, BMCL must reorganise the management of its subway service to ensure maximum safety for the public.
Sixth, all personnel operating the trains, the signalling system and train maintenance services will be required to pass technical tests to qualify for licences to be issued by the MRTA.
Meanwhile a banking source said commercial banks that provided loans to BMCL would have to endorse the contract changes before the private firm could agree to the changes as sought by MRTA.Krung Thai, Bank of Ayudhya, Siam City Bank and Thai Military Bank are the firms major creditors.
A NEW BOOK has just appeared on the scene, one I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the history of public transit across our country. A Century Of Moving Canada, Public Transit 1904-2004, by well-known transportation historian Ted Wickson and published by CUTA, the Canadian Urban Transit Association, contains 104 pages and is chock full of old black and white transportation photos plus numerous colour views of modern-day transit scenes.
CUTA was originally established in 1904 under the name Canadian Street Railway Association. One of its founding members was W.H. Moore, assistant to Sir William Mackenzie, president of the Toronto Railway Co., the city’s privately-owned transportation company that in 1921 would give way to a municipally owned operation we know today as the good, old TTC.
Membership in the new organization was limited to privately owned transportation companies (as most of those across the country were at the time) and initially included a half-dozen operators scattered throughout New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. Within two years, that number had grown to 20 representing almost all the major communities across the young nation.
The objects of the fledgling association were (and I paraphrase slightly) to increase the accommodation of passengers, improve service, reduce costs and to encourage cordial and friendly relations between the members and the public.
Interestingly, one of the most significant issues facing the public transportation business back then was the provision of adequate vehicles during “rush hour.” After extensive research was carried out by the association, it was determined that (and this was a century ago, mind you!) “congestion at rush hour cannot be avoided.” In addition, it was strongly recommended that cities “provide a clear right-of-way to allow for more vehicles.” Sound familiar?
For those who might have moved to Toronto in recent years, Ted’s book has numerous references to other Canadian communities and their respective public transit histories.
The book’s retail price is $40 and, though not available in stores, it is available through CUTA’s website or by calling 416-365-9800, ext. 118.
Passengers in last week’s Metrolink crash described how the impact threw them from their seats, slammed their heads and faces against walls and tables and tossed bodies around the cars. “People were flying everywhere,” said passenger Susan Eisenbarth of Northridge.
The Wednesday morning crash, which involved three trains, killed 11 and injured at least 180, has sharpened debate among safety experts over whether trains can be built to better protect passengers from death or injuries in a collision.
Trains lack safety features that have long been standard on automobiles, such as seat belts, padded interiors and impact-absorbing crumple zones. In addition, some say that the tables between train seats can become deadly during a crash.
But safety experts are split over whether such safety features should be required on trains. Meanwhile, the relative safety of trains makes it difficult to justify adding costly protective features, transportation experts said.
Although last week’s collision was the deadliest on a U.S. railroad since 1999, the nation’s rail system seldom exceeds 10 passenger deaths a year, according to federal transportation statistics.
In the “cold, hard way” that decisions are made about building and regulating train safety, few will be willing to take steps “that will cost tens of millions, even if it saved everybody,” said Tom Peacock, director of operations and technical services for the American Public Transportation Assn., which represents transit agencies, including Metrolink.
The value of seat belts for trains remains an open question. Rail workers’ unions have advocated for seat belts on trains, while some experts say they are unnecessary.
In most accidents, train passengers are less likely to be thrown about, as in an automobile, because heavy trains do not react as violently in collisions. But passengers can be thrown in severe impacts, as riders in the Metrolink crash experienced.
Peacock said seat belts could be costly because existing train seats might need to be replaced before belts could be fitted. In some cases, “you have seats that are three-across. If you had to [restrain] three 200-pound passengers you would need very strong anchors,” he said, which the undercarriages of some train cars might not be strong enough to support.
Ron Mayville, an expert on crashworthiness, said, “The general consensus is seat belts would help. The question is whether they would actually be used.” He said rail passengers would resist using them. “One of the things I like about riding a train is not having a belt,” Mayville said.
“It took more than 20 years to overcome public resistance to seat belts in cars,” Peacock said. “We’d be starting all over.”
Passengers in last week’s crash said they hit the tables between seats.
A federal study released in July on the 2002 Placentia Metrolink crash concluded the two passengers killed in that wreck probably died from injuries caused when their bodies were thrown into the tables in front of their seats. Several other passengers in that crash who suffered serious injuries were seated at tables, the study found.
Eisenbarth, who was at a table in the last car of the Los Angeles-bound train in Wednesday’s crash, said the woman seated next to her was thrown into the table. “It hit her right in the ribs. She was moaning, in serious pain,” Eisenbarth said.
Some are now questioning the safety of the tables. “Maybe the regulations got it wrong,” Peacock said, adding that the tables are required to be strong, to hold passengers in place in a crash.
The tables could perhaps be made to give in at impact, he said. But each solution presents new challenges. If the tables are removed entirely, the facing passengers “might fly into each other, which could be worse,” Peacock said.
Along with protecting passengers inside the rail cars, the cars themselves could be modified.
In Europe, train cars are designed with crumple zones. In a crash, the front of the car is built to collapse in a controlled manner, absorbing the impact. The trunks and engine compartments of automobiles have long been designed to absorb collisions in this way. “The conclusion among knowledgeable people is that’s a good thing,” said Peacock of crumple zones.
But the same kind of consumer demand and regulatory pressures that can alter the way car manufacturers build automobiles do not apply to train builders.
In the U.S., trains lack crumple zones but are built to a heavier, more rigid standard.
To get manufacturers to equip U.S. trains with crumple zones, “you would need a big order from some railroad to buy a couple hundred cars and pay the additional cost.” In the U.S., however, “orders typically come in the tens,” Peacock said.
Trains are built to safety standards set by the federal government and the public agencies that buy them. Manufacturers do little research and development, leaving that work to researchers with the federal government.
Along with low volume, the public agencies that purchase trains seek the lowest bidder, which gives manufacturers no incentive to build beyond contract specifications. And passenger rail systems — all of which are heavily subsidized — must keep ticket prices competitive with driving cars, so few costs can be passed on.
Some experts believe the Metrolink crash was more severe because the train that slammed into the Jeep Grand Cherokee was led by a lighter cab car, a modified passenger car, instead of a heavier locomotive.
Mayville said European trains led by cab cars now have longer noses to better handle crashes. The drawback of this design is that such cars cannot be used in the middle of a train, limiting a rail line’s flexibility to quickly add or remove cars.
Alan Bing, an engineer with ICF Consulting, a Lexington, Mass., firm that advises the federal government and railroad companies, said that in England, the lead car must meet minimum mass requirements, and passengers must be kept a certain distance from the front of the train.
Such measures “might have helped in this case,” he said.
SHADY GROVE - Sandra Friedman has a bad case of the Red Line blues - a virulent form of the Metro malaise affecting the Washington area.
The Gaithersburg resident has been a faithful rider of the Washington Metro system since the 1970s. At 71, she still hops a Red Line train here each weekday to commute to her job downtown near the Union Station stop.
There was a time when she would have given Metro a grade of B-plus. Now she’d give the system a C-minus. “It seemed to me that it was much more reliable 10 years ago than it is now,” Friedman said as her morning train rolled south toward the city. “We’ve had so many problems on the Red Line, starting about two years ago.”
Since the late 1970s, the Washington Metro has been the crown jewel of the national capital’s transportation system and the envy of Baltimore transit advocates. Even now it remains relatively clean and crime-free.
Unlike Baltimore’s subway system, it goes a lot of places - 86 stations, including 26 in Maryland. It carries more than 650,000 passengers on a typical day - about 260,000 of them from Maryland, and more than 15,000 of those from metropolitan Baltimore.
But nearly 30 years after its opening, Metro is showing its age. Breakdowns, delays, accidents, crowded cars, parking shortages and out-of-service escalators have taken their toll on the patience of Friedman and other riders. “I just don’t think it’s getting better. They just keep increasing the fares, but I don’t see better service,” said Lydia Smith of Wheaton. “You pay like $3 or $5 to stand up or be packed like sardines.”
Metro’s woes have prompted a six-year capital improvement plan - Maryland’s share of which will cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. But transit advocates say that is not enough. Without additional revenue, they say, the system will continue to deteriorate.
Signs of that decline have been abundant over the past year.
In November, 20 people were injured and Red Line service was curtailed for days after one train rolled backward into another at the Woodley Park station. Metro blamed the accident on operator error.
On several occasions, cracks were discovered in Metro tracks, hampering service while crews repaired the damage. On Friday, Blue Line passengers were delayed after cracks were discovered at two locations in Virginia.
In September, Metro officials reported that the system’s rail cars were breaking down at twice the 2001 rate - largely because of deferred maintenance during a budget crunch. August brought a derailment that delayed Red Line service. In March a station fire stranded thousands of commuters.
Richard White, chief executive of the transit system, isn’t denying the problems. “Obviously, we know it was a tough year,” he said last month.
In addition to a series of system breakdowns, the agency has been buffeted by negative publicity. Articles in The Washington Post revealed that about half the system’s board members seldom ride the Metro. Some arrests of Metro riders for petty infractions have brought complaints that the system’s police force is heavy-handed.
Some problems are those that come with popularity. Ridership continues to grow each year, and the system opened three new stations recently.
The worst problems have surfaced on the Red Line, the oldest and busiest segment of the system. On that line, which runs from the Interstate 270 corridor through downtown and Silver Spring to Glenmont, deteriorating track has led to accidents and service interruptions.
Problems are evident on other lines as well.
Dave Spevack, a retiree and frequent Metro user from Laurel, pointed out the discolored walls of the Mount Vernon station on the Green Line, the line used by many Baltimore-area residents who pick up trains at Greenbelt to commute into Washington. “See the marks on the wall. … Water is an extreme problem,” he said. “That’s what happens when the pumps fail.”
When Metro pumps fail in Washington, it’s a problem all over Maryland. That’s because the state - not just the Washington suburban counties - is a partner in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, which runs the capital region’s Metro and bus systems.
Under the authority’s funding formula, Maryland is paying $207 million toward the system’s $978 million operating budget this year. The District pays $202 million, Northern Virginia localities $134 million, and Metro riders contribute the rest.
Metro spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said that in addition to the operating money, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has pledged $329 million toward Maryland’s share of a six-year, $1.5 billion capital rehabilitation program known as Metro Matters. The District and Northern Virginia have also anted up, but the transportation authority is awaiting a decision from the federal government on how much it will contribute to a system that transports more than 300,000 of its workers on a typical weekday.
In a report issued this month, a commission led by former Congressional Budget Office Director Rudolph G. Penner concluded that Metro Matters is no more than a stopgap solution.
The panel said the system urgently needs a dedicated source of revenue that will reduce its dependency on annual appropriations from Maryland, Virginia and the District. It recommended a regional sales tax of up to 0.5 percent that would apply in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, as well as the District and the closest jurisdictions in Northern Virginia. “How that sells politically, we’ll all wait and see over the next year or two,” White said.
The idea has not been well received in Maryland. An Ehrlich spokesman said the governor opposes any increase in the sales tax. Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan said he would consider a regional sales tax only in the context of what he called a “statewide solution.” A spokesman for Prince George’s County Executive Jack B. Johnson said he would prefer an increase in the gasoline tax.
White said that without additional funding, the system faces trouble. The Metro Matters plan will pay for such improvements as adding rail cars to alleviate crowding. But White said it falls far short of meeting the system’s long-term needs. For instance, he said, it will not cover the costs of repairing water damage at several Green Line stations.
Critics of WMATA say part of the problem is what they call the agency’s bloated bureaucracy. One of the first things the Ehrlich administration did after taking office in 2003 was to lean on the authority to cut spending and rein in salary increases. “WMATA management was getting 4 percent raises at a time when state employees were getting zero,” said Maryland Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan. He said that pressure from Annapolis helped cut the increases to 2 percent.
Flanagan said Ehrlich’s two appointees to the six-member authority board, especially former Chairman Robert J. Smith, have been pushing for changes in the way the system does business. He said Smith and Ehrlich appointee Charles Deegan were among the board members who do ride the system frequently. “The goal there is to change the culture of the WMATA management and work force,” Flanagan said.
Although Metro has had its difficulties, it also has a base of riders who are proud of their subway system. John G. Robertson, a court supervision worker, has been taking it from Bethesda to Union Station every day the past four or five years. He believes Metro is still an excellent system. “It saves me a lot of time, a lot of trouble and the government subsidizes my ride. I can’t drive for this price,” he said.
Many Baltimore transit advocates, stuck with a subway system consisting of a single line, say they would love to have the Washington region’s problems.
Donald C. Fry, president of the Greater Baltimore Committee, said Washington’s Metro remains one of the “premier” subway systems in the country. “We hope that over the next 20-30 years the Baltimore Rapid Transit Plan will be developed, and we’ll have a comparable situation - and then we’ll worry about maintaining it,” Fry said.
Once again, another major US disaster has provoked an hysterical rush to judgement and cry for precipitous, ill-advised “remedies”. This time, it’s the recent Metrolink regional (“commuter”) rail wreck in Glendale, California (within the Los Angeles urbanized area), caused when an apparently deranged motorist placed his SUV (a Jeep Cherokee) on the tracks, reportedly with initial intentions to attempt suicide. According to news details, the vehicle was not placed on the tracks at a grade crossing; instead, the motorist evidently drove his vehicle over rough terrain and then onto open tracks.
In addition to the usual media-driven finger-pointing, there’s also the familiar stampede of “knee-jerk” rail transit opponents who have emerged to denounce regional rail service (by far one of the safest modes of urban transport) — fulminating against the “dangers” of regional passenger rail transit and, in particular, “push-pull” operation.
Push-pull operation is widespread throughout the North American transit industry. In this very common practice, passenger coaches are pulled behind a locomotive in one direction, then, in reverse for the return trip, they are pushed forward by the locomotive in the other direction. This requires the end coach to be a “cab-car”, i.e., equipped with a cab and appropriate apparatus to control the locomotive from the opposite end of the train. In such configurations, the engineer (train operator) operates the train from controls in a front compartment (cab) of the cab car, where passengers also ride. Cab cars are typically built to more rigorous structural requirements than ordinary passenger coaches.
According to the Los Angeles Times (27 January 2005), push-pull operation has been widespread since at least the 1950s, and “is viewed by many transportation experts as the best way to run a commuter rail system, from a logistical and practical standpoint.” The practice “is also less expensive because train operators don’t have to buy additional locomotives or build turnarounds to move engines from one end of the train to the other” the Times points out. Without this flexibility, a number of regional rail transit operations would be significantly less cost-effective.
Little wonder, then, that rail transit foes have been quick to seize on the fact that the Metrolink train which struck the SUV on the tracks was a push-pull train being operated in “push” mode — it was the leading cab-car which struck the SUV. “If you are going to hit something, you want to hit it with a locomotive. It just makes sense” anti-rail crusader Tom Rubin told a Los Angeles Times reporter.
It should be noted that, while Rubin was blithely described as an “expert” by the Times reporter, he is actually well-known nationally for his anti-rail transit campaigns, on occasion teaming with other “professional” rail critics like Wendell Cox.
Jim Moore, an engineering professor at the University of Southern California and another longtime, well-known rail opponent (many of whose tracts are published by the far-right, fanatically pro-highway Reason Foundation), intoned that Metrolink service should be ceased immediately, not only because it was a killer, but because it was an “irrelevant” boondoggle that should be replaced by a freeway bus system. Moore was also presented as a “rail safety expert” on CBS News (27 Jan.) — although their report apparently edited out his more extremist remarks about shutting down Metrolink.
Such remarks lead Frank Miklos, a leader of the Electric Railroaders Association and a retired New Jersey Transit employee, to observe that “The extremists would have the Metrolink system shut down because of this accident. Yet there are no extremists who insist that SUV’s should be banned because that type of vehicle was the actual cause of the crash. The only views that seem to matter are those which place the blame on rail transit.”
Sifting the story for sensational issues and opportunities to point fingers, a number of journalists have picked up on the anti-push-pull criticism. Several reporters have glommed onto a 1996 Federal Railroad Administration study which assessed (theoretically) the implications of a head-on crash between a locomotive and cab car — finding that, above 35 mph, “occupants in the cab car likely would suffer severe injury or fatality” according to one summary in the San Francisco Chronicle (28 January 2005). But that’s a head-on crash with a locomotive — not the situation faulted in the recent Glendale crash. By this same scenario, self-propelled diesel multiple-unit (DMU) and electric multiple-unit (EMU) trains would be equally vulnerable — and certainly no one is singling out those very commonplace forms of regional rail vehicles (widely used worldwide) for prohibition (yet).
The same San Francisco Chronicle article goes on to report “regulators and passenger rail lines, including Amtrak and Caltrain in the Bay Area, believe the [push-pull] practice is safe.” Steve Kulm, a Federal Railroad Administration, told the reporter that “There’s no strong or clear evidence that indicates one method of operation is less safe than another.”
Nevertheless, all the anti-”push-pull” hysteria has been having an effect. In Los Angeles, Mayor Jim Hahn formally notified Metrolink’s management that “an issue has arisen concerning the placement of locomotives at the rear of passenger cars to push the passenger rail cars along the tracks. If the safest alternative is to place the locomotive in the front of the passenger cars, then Metrolink should adopt this policy.”
But the rush to condemn push-pull operation raises concerns among many in the transit industry, even abroad. Bill Bolton, a Sydney engineer and consultant, questions the argument that safety is invariably enhanced by placing a locomotive on the front end of trains — particularly since “a 56 ton car is about 40% of the weight of a loco, and a definitely non-trivial weight in its own right.” Bolton further challenges the notion that a heavier locomotive would have more propensity to resist derailment, pointing out that “Given the motor vehicle involved was probably about 3% or so of the weight of the passenger car, its hard to see how having a 56-ton passenger car or 140-ton loco at the front of the train would have made much difference as far as the derailment is concerned.”
And would locomotives on the front end, in a derailment or other situation like this, really provide more protection for passenger coaches? Bolton questions this assumption:
Now, assuming a 4-car train … the leading car is going to have 168 tons of other passenger cars behind it, so even if had a 140-ton loco in front of it, the buffing push force from behind by the other 3 cars in sudden deceleration is going to be substantial. Looking at it another way, the leading car in a 7-car train with a leading loco would have more weight behind it than a 4 car train with trailing loco.
As a result, Bolton concludes, “It seems to me from considering those numbers, the position of the loco is not particularly relevant factor in this accident.”
Transportation engineer (and longtime public transport advocate) Ed Tennyson argues that, indeed, “The fire hazard is a worse problem with a locomotive.” Tennyson cites the example of a MARC (Maryland- Washington, DC) regional rail accident of a few years ago, when the MARC train collided with an Amtrak locomotive at Silver Spring, Md. “The upgraded, supposedly impenetrable fuel tank let go and burned up passengers in the commuter train” Tennyson recounts, pointing out that Tom Rubin and other push-pull critics “would have been all wrong in the Maryland case.”
“The collision did not kill them, the resulting diesel fuel fire did” notes Tennyson. “In the present LA case, diesel fire from the UP locomotive [struck by the derailed Metrolink train] might have added to the tragedy.”
Also, Tennyson asks, “With locomotives on the head end, how does that help a rear-end collision where the heavy, bulldozing locomotive runs into the passenger car ahead, not even as well strengthened as a cab car?”
“With airplanes, we accept that they cannot be designed to survive a free all out of the sky” Tennyson points out. “We justify the rare [air travel] fatalities by showing how many lives were saved by people flying aircraft every day instead of forcing them to drive autos which crash many times a day.” The same safety yardstick should be applied to rail transit, including push-pull regional rail operations, he argues.
TRANSTU (formerly SMLT), the company in charge of the Tunis light metro system, has awarded ALSTOM two contracts worth a total of EUR91 million for the supply of 30 CITADIS trams and infrastructure work for the city of Tunis. The contracts, provisionally awarded to ALSTOM in June 2004, were signed today in Tunis by MM. Patrick Kron, ALSTOM’s Chairman and CEO and Chedly Hajri, Chairman and CEO of TRANSTU, in presence of MM. Jean-Pierre Raffarin, French Prime Minister, and Mohamed Ghannouchi, Tunisian Prime Minister.
The first contract, worth EUR80 million, is for the supply of 30 CITADIS 30-meter long air-conditioned trams.
The second contract, worth EUR11 million, is for the infrastructure work of the first of two extensions. ALSTOM will be responsible for the energy systems and for a part of the trackwork. Beginning of service on the extension is planned for mid 2006.
A$ 4 billion project to put San Francisco’s rail and bus lines into new digs and develop the surrounding neighborhood has the board overseeing the project looking for a PR firm to handle community and public media outreach.
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority, set up by local and county authorities in 2001, is guiding the project to build a modern terminal for buses, commuter trains and the future California High Speed Rail Line — a proposed bullet train to Los Angeles — on the site of the city’s current facility at Fourth and Townsend Sts. The California Dept. of Transportation handed over the 20-acre property and existing terminal to the city and Authority in 2003 and Bay Area voters okayed a one-dollar toll hike on state-owned bridges to infuse $ 150M for the project. It is said to be the largest transit integration project west of New York City.
Representatives from 19 firms attended a pre-proposal conference in January and 55 firms in all hold the RFP, including Edelman, The Allen Group, Singer Assocs. and Public Affairs Management.
The Authority — which has $ 175K allocated for the initial stages of a PR program from a $ 9.3 million kitty of federal and regional funds for planning preliminary design of the project — is interviewing firms to develop and implement a PR plan, including policy and strategy recommendations for addressing public issues and concerns, developing and maintaining the project’s “identity, visibility and consistent positive media coverage,” and supporting the Authority’s in-house staff.
A firm should understand the history of the project, along with the social, public and political context of the program, according to a copy of the RFP provided to this magazine.
Other tasks the Authority is looking for in its firm, is an ability to decipher technical information and communicate to the public in layman’s terms, summarizing public issues and concerns for the benefit of Authority staff, and daily briefings for the staff.
In addition to knowledge of the Bay Area and PR experience relevant to the project, the Authority wants experience in culturally sensitive marketing, like targeting different demographic groups with the project’s goals.
The Authority does not currently have any PR firms under contract, said a spokeswoman.
Proposals were accepted through Jan. 19 and a final decision pending approval by the Authority Board is expected sometime in Jan.
But whichever firm takes up the task, there is some negative public sentiment toward the area that needs to be reached. “San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal is gray, dark, dank and harbors revolting odors underneath the many overpasses that flank it,” a reader wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle recently. The Chronicle notes the $ 4B price tag for the new terminal is almost as large as the city’s annual budget.
A $ 32M eminent domain land grab has put the project in headlines in recent months.
The Terminal and high speed rail, along with a new neighborhood, would be implemented over the next two to three decades, according to the Authority, including 3,400 housing units and 1.2 million square feet of office space. The San Francisco Examiner called the entire project one of the largest public works projects in West Coast history.
The Authority said it also plans to hire an in-house PR manager in the near future.
It’s always interesting to follow the dialogue between rail supporters and rail opponents on the Internet. It seems that the more progress rail transit makes, and the more public support it gains, the more ferocious the anti-rail barrage becomes.
Just about a year ago, in February 2004, urban rail opponent Randall O’Toole released his anti-rail screed titled Great Rail Disasters, wherein he proclaimed that “rail transit has negative net impacts on every urban area in which it is located.” O’Toole writes:
The stampede to plan and build rail transit lines in American cities has led and is leading to a series of financial and mobility disasters. They are financial disasters because rail projects spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars and produce little in return. They are mobility disasters because rail transit almost always increases regional congestion and usually reduces transit’s share of commuting and general travel.
O’Toole is recognized as a particularly virulent rail opponent, even though his professional background is in forestry and he does not appear to have any formal training or experience in transportation planning or engineering. His writing generated several responses from rail proponents, including a rebuttal document by Tod Litman from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute entitled Rail Transit In America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits. Here are some excerpts from the abstract:
…[C]ities with larger, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer transportation expenditures than otherwise comparable cities. This indicates that rail transit systems can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, and benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures. This analysis indicates that rail investments can be a cost effective way to improve urban transport. Parking, vehicle and congestion cost savings from rail transit are estimated to exceed total U.S. public transit subsidies. [This analysis] critiques Great Rail Disasters (O’Toole, 2004), a report which argued that rail transit systems fail to achieve their objectives and are not cost effective. It finds that many claims in Great Rail Disasters are inaccurate, based on inappropriate and biased analysis.
Litman goes on to critique O’Toole’s publication:
When critics conclude that rail transit is ineffective, the failure is often in their analysis, not in rail transit. Out of ignorance or intention, Great Rail Disasters fails to use current best practices for transit evaluation. It makes no reference to the literature on the subject, indicating the author intentionally ignored current concepts and practices. Its statistical analysis is flawed and biased. It fails to isolate rail transit effects from overall trends and confounding factors. It ignores many benefits of rail and overlooks some costs of bus and automobile transport. Much of the information is outdated, inaccurate or misrepresented. Data sources are not referenced and analysis methods are not described, preventing independent review. The author left substantial mistakes uncorrected. These errors and omissions violate basic evaluation principles and significantly distort results.
A .pdf file of the entire document is available at the following URL: http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the urban rail debate.
More recently, staff from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis offered an economic analysis of St. Louis’s light rail system in their magazine The Regional Economist, in an article titled Light Rail: Boon or Boondoggle? available at the following URL:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/light_rail.html
In this article, economic researchers Molly D. Castelazo and Thomas A. Garrett write:
Light-rail transit systems have become a common fixture in many American cities over the past several decades. Proponents of light rail argue that rail transit increases community well-being by creating jobs, boosting economic development and property values, and reducing pollution and traffic congestion — all while providing drivers with an economical alternative to the automobile. Opponents counter that light-rail transit provides little of these benefits to citizens and that, even if some benefits are realized, the costs still outweigh any potential benefits to society. Whether light-rail transit is a boon or a boondoggle depends on whether the societal benefits of light rail outweigh its costs.
This underscores some of the fundamental differences in perceptio n between rail proponents and rail opponents. In this case, the article focuses mainly on costs, largely ignoring societal benefits. Castelazo and Garrett suggest that light rail is inefficient because its cost of providing service is supposedly far higher than people are willing to pay (i.e., it requires subsidies to operate). They suggest that toll roads would be a more efficient means of reducing overall congestion and expanded bus service or express buses would be more efficient ways of providing public transportation to low income citizens, even though they assert that all public transportation is less cost-efficient than the private automobile. The article even contains another variation of the tired and flawed “for the money spent on rail, you can buy a car for every transit rider” argument (although this time, instead of a Mercedes or Lexus, the car of choice is a Toyota Prius).
The Castelazo and Garrett article elicited a response from Michael Setty at publictransit.us, in which he states:
The real disagreement over transit lies in two areas; (1) what constitutes relevant “facts,” and (2) what should be considered “costs” and “benefits.” This ongoing, increasingly tedious debate is further confused when economists, such as article authors Molly D. Castelazo and Thomas A. Garrett insert an analysis that fails to go beyond mere economics and considers the fallout from political choices regarding the role of the automobile made many decades ago (e.g., tacit acceptance of motor vehicle “externalities — “road pricing” will be far more difficult than most economists like to assume). Unfortunately, Castelazo and Garrett also come to incorrect conclusions based on rather glaring methodological errors and an apparent unfamiliarity with transit in general, and light rail transit (LRT) in particular.
Setty’s complete analysis can be viewed at the following URL: http://www.publictransit.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=139&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
I personally am of the opinion that economists who focus completely on the monetary “efficiency” of light rail and use that as the sole means to evaluate its utility are missing the overall picture because there is so much more to the debate. However, not everyone in the field of economics believes rail transit is inefficient. Dr. Haynes Godddard, for example, a professor of economics at the University of Cincinnati, argues in favor of rail transit and takes issue with its critics. His analysis can be viewed at the following URL: http://www.cmt-stl.org/images/Goddard%20Comments%20Castelazo%20Garrett.pdf
And finally, there is the ongoing resistance to rail transit from within the federal government itself. The Sierra Club has recently released a report entitled Missing the Train: How the Bush Administration’s Transportation Proposal Threatens Jobs, Commutes, and Public Transit Ridership. It’s another good read, even though I’ll readily admit that the Sierra Club is not an unbiased entity in this debate. For example, it suggests that Cincinnati’s proposed light rail system is one of the projects threatened by the Bush Administration’s proposal to reduce the federal funding share for mass transit in the transportation authorization bill currently being debated in Washington. In actuality, the Cincinnati project was doomed by the negative outcome of a 2002 referendum, not by anything the White House has done.
Even though opponents continue to “rail” against them, urban rail systems are being opened and expanded at a rapid pace. In addition to the January 1, 2004 opening of the 7.5-mile light rail line in Houston, recent extensions to streetcar systems began operation in Memphis and New Orleans. The Hiawatha light rail line recently began service in Minneapolis and the new monorail in Las Vegas was finally put into service on July 15th, 2004. The refurbished Overbrook line in Pittsburgh is up and running this past summer (2004), and the Yellow Line (Interstate MAX) in Portland began service May 1st, 2004. Extensions to the light rail networks in San Jose and Sacramento have recently opened as well. St. Louis is busy building the so-called “Cross-County Extension” to their light rail line, and installation of new light rail systems in Phoenix and Seattle in under way. And this is by no means a complete list — but you can find a good listing of all US urban rail transit lines opened or expanded since 1980 at the following URL: http://www.carquinezassociates.com/ptlibrary/usnewurbanrail.htm
For all the ranting and raving that the anti-rail faction is doing, it’s obvious that few cities are listening to them.
Thomas B. Gray is an urban planner in Houston, Texas and webmaster of his own website at the following URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~tbgray/index.html
His transportation pages can be found at: http://www.mindspring.com/~tbgray/transpor.htm
Mark this in your diary: The great American free ride is fast coming to an end. In the years ahead, the solution to traffic congestion will be toll roads. From San Francisco to Houston, Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, transportation officials have decided that the next great wave of highway construction will come with an explicit price — and sometimes not a cheap one. In Atlanta, rush-hour travelers may fork over as much as $4.65 to get to work in the future. What’s going on here? Part of it is philosophical: Many state legislators, particularly Republicans, have a problem with the free part of freeways. They think people ought to pay in proportion to the public benefits they receive, just as they do for water or electricity. But there’s economics at play here, too. Road construction is dauntingly expensive, especially in urbanized areas. Result, said one Atlanta area official: “There’s simply not enough money” to pay for road expansion out of existing gasoline taxes. There’s yet another factor: Some states, such as Georgia, have opened the door for private companies to build and manage toll roads, including new lanes on existing highways — and these companies are busy building legislative and bureaucratic support for these projects. Many commuters are appalled by the idea of paying to drive, but toll-road advocates say drivers will get used to it. Said one Texas legislator who’s pushing toll roads. “ [People] are not mad someone is charging two bucks for bottled water.”
Who’s Running This Train?
Most big-city transit systems are in deep financial trouble these days. This may be a good time to step back and ask the larger question: Why doesn’t transit work better in the U.S.? Consider transit’s advantages: In densely populated areas, it’s a cheaper way of moving people than requiring that families buy cars and governments build roads. It’s more easily scalable — that is, you can add cars to a train more easily than lanes to a road. It’s kinder to the environment. And voters consistently support transit, particularly when the alternative is more roads. So what’s wrong with transit? Libertarians say it’s that Americans love their cars and won’t be herded onto buses or trains. Maybe, but here’s another explanation: We’ve so divided responsibility for decisions affecting transit that, in reality, nobody’s in charge. Think about how it works in your city. Very likely you have a transit system that’s run by a regional board, highways that are built by the state, and land-use decisions that are made by the city — all operating independently of one another. The result is all kinds of crazy decisions: regional rail systems extending lines alongside brand-new state-built roads; cities and counties approving new subdivisions that can’t be served by transit and will require new roads in the future; and (surprise!) transit systems that are underutilized and broke. What’s the answer? Some sort of system that combines land-use and transportation decisions. Don’t be surprised if such a system produces more support for trains.
Construction of the Orange Line has passed the halfway point and can proceed without further legal battles after a grass-roots group dropped its long-running lawsuit, officials said Monday.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will pay Citizens Organized for Smart Transit $ 350,000 in legal fees to end its effort to block construction of the 14-mile-long busway. MTA officials estimated that they spent nearly $ 500,000 fighting the COST challenge.
The east-west busway is on track to open in early September if the weather cooperates, the officials said.
“We’re in the home stretch,” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who has championed the project, standing at the Laurel Canyon station. “Weather permitting, we hope to have this line open by Labor Day, in time for school, the academic year. … This line is long in coming, and we believe it will be a huge success. While it’s not a subway, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.”
COST Chairwoman Diana Lipari said the group agreed to settle because the project was moving forward despite the two-year court fight. “We ran out of time to make any meaningful change to this busway,” Lipari said in a phone interview. We’ve been going at it and going at it, … but ultimately, where is that getting us? Our whole point is for MTA to truly consider the alternative of the east-west lines.”
COST filed suit in 2002, shortly after the $ 330 million project was approved, saying the MTA should have studied a system of Rapid buses instead. After COST lost in Superior Court, the state Court of Appeal agreed last summer that alternatives should have been studied and shut down construction for nearly a month.
The transit agency conducted a study, which determined that the Orange Line was preferable to Rapid buses. That report was approved in December.
MTA attorney Steve Carnevale said the agency would have been responsible for paying COST’s legal fees because the group won in appellate court, so the settlement just put an end to the legal dispute. “The sad part about the lawsuit is it cost us money … for no reason whatsoever,” Yaroslavsky said. “That was a shame.”
The busway, originally scheduled to open in August, promises to take riders between North Hollywood and Warner Center in 38 minutes. Officials hope the busway — which is being built at one-tenth the price of a subway — can someday be replicated elsewhere in Los Angeles County.
Crews have been working 10 hours a day, six days a week, to make up for time lost because of the work stoppage and the recent rainstorms.
The project remains months behind schedule. The MTA has agreed to pay the contractor, Shimmick/Obayashi, $ 7.9 million to get the busway done on time.
City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said the project is important for San Fernando Valley commuters — especially after the traffic jams during last month’s storms. “It’s time that we have public transit — public transit for a modern era — that will help us to solve our transportation gridlock.”
At first, the estimate was grim, a subway rider’s nightmare. It could take up to five years to get the A and C trains running normally after a fire in an underground signal relay room last month.
Then the forecast improved: transit officials said it would take only six to nine months to fix the disruptions.
Now the estimate has come down once more. The new prognosis for restoration of most service on the subway lines?
Today. Just nine days and 15 hours after the fire.
The president of New York City Transit, Lawrence G. Reuter, announced yesterday that C trains would begin running again at 5 a.m. and that the A train would run at nearly its regular frequency, after what he called a herculean effort by repair workers toiling nonstop in 12-hour shifts since Jan. 23, when a fire at the Chambers Street station in Lower Manhattan halted the C and crippled service on the A, the third-busiest line in the system.
Peak-hour service on the two lines will be at 70 percent of normal frequency on Manhattan-bound trains and 80 percent on Brooklyn-bound trains, Mr. Reuter said, and service at other times will be close to normal, except for partial shutdowns on occasional nights and weekends as repairs continue.
With the revival of C service between 168th Street in Manhattan and Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn, the V train, which had replaced the C in Brooklyn, will resume its normal route between Forest Hills, Queens, and the Lower East Side of Manhattan. The B train, which has run more frequently at peak hours to serve riders on the West Side, will return to its normal schedule.
The new timetable was only the latest episode in a bizarre chapter that began when the relay room, which transmitted vital information about train positions and movement, was gutted by a mysterious fire. On Monday, fire investigators said they had all but ended their investigation into the blaze, concluding only that the cause was “not ascertained.”
Mr. Reuter’s initial estimate that service on the two lines could be impaired for three to five years was met with bewilderment from riders, outrage from public officials, widespread attention from the news media and incredulity from historians, who noted that the entire first segment of the Independent Subway System, including the A and C lines, was built in seven years, from 1925 to 1932.
Mr. Reuter later apologized to the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, of which his agency is the largest component, for the incorrect estimate, and said that regular service could be restored in six to nine months.
Only on Monday night, Mr. Reuter said yesterday, did it become clear that C service could be restored far more quickly than expected. He added, however, that full or regular service would not return for at least three months and it could take several years to repair or replace the damaged equipment.
Borrowing relays from other areas of the subway system, officials said, signal engineers devised a “very basic, temporary automatic signaling” system that will permit trains to run with automatic signal protection.
That means workers will not have to clear every A and C train passing through the area around Chambers Street, as they have done since the fire. “Some people might have called this a Rube Goldberg operation,” Mr. Reuter said in describing the signaling system that will be in temporary use for at least several months. He later added, “The engineers are literally drawing it on backs of paper right now.”
Mr. Reuter emphasized that he believed the trains using the temporary signaling configuration would be “just as safe as the rest of the system is now.”
During peak hours, the time between trains will be about 5 minutes on the A line, instead of the usual 3 to 5 minutes, and 10 minutes on the C line, instead of the usual 7 minutes. In sum, 18 trains - 12 on the A line and 6 on the C - will operate in the peak Manhattan-bound direction during rush hours, down from the usual 26.
Several factors contributed to the speedy recovery, Mr. Reuter said. The most affected segment of the two lines in Lower Manhattan was closed last weekend and on several nights, giving workers time to assemble and connect new circuits and switches and run complex simulations of restored service.
In addition, the relative straightness of the tracks used by the two lines around Chambers Street, and the fact that the trains there do not regularly switch tracks, allowed for the kind of improvisational signaling system that has been created.
Finally, Mr. Reuter conceded, his initial estimates were made before workers had made a full assessment of what he called “extreme damage” to the relay room that left behind “80-year-old wires that have been burnt and damaged, many beyond use and repair.”
Such damage required days of assessment to determine which cables, circuits and switches could be salvaged. “This is not like building a brand new rail car or a brand new signal system,” Mr. Reuter said.
Even so, Mr. Reuter appeared contrite for having altered his public pronouncements so dramatically. In the future, “we’ll be more cautious in our estimate,” he said.
The handling of the fire’s aftermath has been an embarrassment for Mr. Reuter, 54, who took over New York City Transit in 1996 after leading the metropolitan transit agencies in San Jose, Calif. and Washington.
A transit veteran said he was still surprised that Mr. Reuter had given such an extreme estimate for the duration of the disruptions. “That was off the top of somebody’s head and was unrealistic,” said Charles Kalkhof, who worked for the transit agency from 1950 to 1984, when he retired as general manager for rapid transit, overseeing the subways. “When you’re in an emergency situation, there’s no reason why you can’t jury-rig temporary signaling.”
Mr. Kalkhof, 78, emphasized that full repair of the signals would still take a long time. “After six to nine months, there will still be a lot of work to be done to make it a viable, permanent installation,” he said. “It’s never done overnight. It takes some engineering know-how and people that are aware of the safety implications.”
Mr. Reuter expressed similar caution during a news conference outside the agency’s headquarters on Jay Street in downtown Brooklyn. “The job is nowhere near complete and there is still a tremendous amount of work to be completed before we can return to full service levels,” he said.
Among the officials Mr. Reuter singled out for praise were Barbara Spencer, his top deputy; Michael A. Lombardi, the senior vice president for subways; Keith J. Hom, chief of operations planning; Jerome Martin, chief electrical officer, and Tracy Bowdwin, assistant chief signals officer.
Riders reacted with a mixture of relief and confusion. “I am totally frustrated by all the jumpy changes,” Caspar Stracke, 37, who normally uses the C train from his home in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, said as he stepped off an E train in Chelsea. “Ultimately, I’m happy to have a better way back to Manhattan. I was already imagining the hell of not having C service for such a long time.”
Christopher Elcock, 39, who lives near the Rockaway Avenue station on the C line, expressed disbelief when he heard of the officials’ latest prognosis. “They’ve done a good job at confusing riders,” he said.
The new train tunnel at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport sprang a leak this winter that has ice forming near the rails, slowing northbound trains as drivers ease through the icy areas, rail officials said Tuesday.
A fix won’t be possible until spring, said Metro Transit spokesman Bob Gibbons. The slowdown delays trains by one to two minutes, but the time can sometimes be made up elsewhere on the route, he said. The water comes from both underground springs and leaks in the tunnel walls, Gibbons said.
The ice started to form the week before Christmas. Workers regrouted the tunnel walls to prevent more ice from forming, said Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
He said the tunnel was not built to be waterproof because doing so would have been too expensive. “We’re working with Metro Transit right now to reduce the leakage and help ensure that we can get the water down to the pumping area,” he said. The problem was worsened as cold air rushed into the tunnel as trains passed in and out.
Transit employees also laid hoses across the ice and pumped them full of hot water to melt some of the ice. A drain and pump system carries the water out of the tunnel, he said. The tunnel affected by the icing carries trains between the Humphrey and Lindbergh terminals. The ice has formed on the south end of the northbound train tunnel. The ice has not formed on the rails, but drivers have been ordered to go slowly to avoid displacing the hot-water hoses, Gibbons said.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission spent $87 million to construct the tunnel and the stations at each terminal.
The Las Vegas Monorail was closed this morning as engineers were investigating what caused a 30-foot rail that powers the train to short- circuit this morning.
Technicians for Bombardier Inc., the Canadian firm that built and is contracted to operate the trains, worked this morning to replace the metal rail that runs alongside the elevated track and were expected to have the repair completed later today, monorail spokesman Todd Walker said.
Engineers had initially predicted the system would reopen by 9 this morning, although crews were still working to determine what caused the problem at 10:30 a.m. today, he said. “They’re reading off a laundry list,” Walker said. “It could have been a problem with the power rail itself or it could have been a number of different things. It could have been weather-related or it could have been something installed improperly. We’re expecting to know later today.”
Workers preparing to open the $650 million system noticed the problem about 6:30 a.m., roughly half an hour before the day’s first passengers were expected to board the trains, Walker said. The monorail normally runs from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. daily.
While engineers had not pinned down what caused the short circuit, Walker said it could have been caused by wind or debris falling nearby. He said he did not know when the incident occurred or whether trains were running at the time.
Ron Lynn, the county building official, said the problem may have stemmed from misaligned “collector shoes,” a coupling mechanism that guides the train along the power rail, grinding against the power rail. It was too early to say what may have knocked the shoes out of alignment, although weather or something hitting them could be to blame, he said.
As required, monorail officials notified the Clark County Building Division, which has direct oversight of the system, shortly after the malfunction, Lynn said. County engineers are expected to continue investigating the problem this afternoon.
Recorded announcements at the system’s seven stations alerted would-be passengers lined up outside the platforms to the delay, Walker said.
Walker and Lynn said the problem was unlikely to present a major setback for the system. “Basically it’s just a delay and a minor repair,” Walker said. “If there was a problem that caused a safety risk, we’ll keep it closed. It doesn’t appear to be that right now.”
The system reopened Dec. 24, after a 107-day closure prompted by a string of six-inch-wide washers falling from a moving train Sept. 8. That closure came less than a day after the monorail reopened from a six-day closure that began when a 60-pound wheel assembly fell from another moving train.
On Jan. 5, the system did not run for about 20 minutes after a Bombardier technician apparently failed to adequately reset a door mechanism that had been interrupted when a passenger block a door leading from the elevated train to the platform outside the Sahara hotel.
PTP COMMENT: Most major public transport projects tend to need right- of-way and often face community conflicts over this issue. However, many monorail promoters have portrayed monorail projects as requiring little new right-of-way because of this mode’s supposedly “small footprint” - and thus to be virtually immune from right-of-way needs and conflicts. Experience with the Green Line monorail project in Seattle suggests otherwise.
The Seattle Monorail Project has filed a condemnation lawsuit against a boat-repair business that sits in the path of bridge supports for the proposed Green Line elevated train. The agency is seeking a permanent right of way through Fishing Vessel Owners Marine Ways, which was founded in 1919. The business sits at the southern end of what would be a high Ballard monorail bridge, spanning the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
In a court filing last week, monorail attorneys said construction “will effectively eliminate FVO’s use of the property.” That would displace about 30 workers, many of whom have unusual skills, such as rebuilding a wooden boat keel or patching hull cracks with a ropelike fiber called oakum. Much of the Alaska halibut fleet was built and repaired at the facility. Despite months of talks, the monorail agency and FVO President Don Lindblad haven’t agreed on a way to save the company at an affordable price to taxpayers.
One reason is that the business relies on railways and century-old winch equipment to pull boats from the water for dry-dock repairs. To replace that with hauling devices somewhere else would cost more than $6 million, monorail consultants found.
Lindblad thinks the tracks should be moved to the east side of the current Ballard roadway bridge instead of the west side where FVO operates. But the monorail and City Council approved the west side.
A month ago, workers filled a monorail board meeting to testify about the loss of their livelihoods. The business has a lease with the Port of Seattle that extends through September 2008. “We’re not going to evict FVO. They’re a tenant and we’re just as happy to have them there,” said Port spokesman Mick Shultz.
The monorail agency will have to win access in court or negotiate an amicable deal with the marine business, Shultz said.
The monorail’s deputy director, Anne Levinson, said the agency is looking at ways to solve the problem but wouldn’t elaborate.
Air-quality regulators say they began clamping down Tuesday on idling trucks and buses belching unhealthful pollutants.
State inspectors, aided by local police and the California Highway Patrol, are enforcing a new rule that prohibits diesel-fueled trucks from standing with engines idling for more than five minutes and buses for more than 10 minutes. The rule took effect Tuesday.
Drivers caught ignoring it could get a citation carrying a minimum civil penalty of $100 and one of a range of criminal penalties.
Long-haul truckers who sleep by the side of the road en route to destinations are exempt from the time limit for now, but must abide by the part of the rule that bans any diesel vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds from idling within 100 feet of a residence or a school.
The trucking industry and big-fleet companies such as the San Francisco Municipal Railway and Sunset Scavenger said Tuesday that they’re aware of the rule and have policies that instruct drivers to turn off the engines when leaving their vehicles for breaks. “The drivers aren’t supposed to sit with the buses idling,” said Muni spokeswoman Maggie Lynch. “When they exit the vehicles, they’re supposed to turn off the engines and take the keys with them.”
Exceptions arise at the end of a route where some drivers have 15-minute layovers before they go out again. In those cases, drivers may warm up their buses for five minutes before leaving, Lynch said. Muni has 495 diesel-fueled buses and 550 electric vehicles.
The state Air Resources Board passed the anti-idling rule last July to reduce the amount of carcinogenic and toxic contaminants emitted into the environment from diesel exhaust. “We think when drivers learn that idling for an hour uses a gallon of diesel fuel, then this problem will go away,” said agency spokesman Jerry Martin.
Stephanie Williams, senior vice president of the California Trucking Association, sent bulletins about the new rule to her 4,500-member group of big-rig, lumber-carrier, refrigerator-truck and waste-hauler drivers. “Idling is a bad habit that should be broken,” said Williams. “As long as the driver’s health and welfare is put first, we’re fine with the rule.”
Occasions exist when idling is necessary, she said, such as when drivers are in the 115-degree Mojave Desert and need their air conditioners or on top of Mount Shasta and need their heating systems. Those are exempt from enforcement, Williams said.
Paul Giusti, business manager of Sunset Scavenger, said that in the old days diesel fuel wasn’t reliable and drivers were loath to shut off their engines because they feared that they couldn’t start them again. “The new diesel motors are very reliable,” Giusti said. “If a driver takes a break, our policy is that they’re to shut the truck off immediately. If a driver is not doing that, we need to find out why,” he said.
But, Giusti said, there are exceptions. “If a driver is actively collecting on a block, the truck can idle,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to turn it off when moving from stop to stop.”
The company is experimenting with two compressed natural gas garbage and recycling trucks in San Francisco, and adhering to a state rule requiring improved capture of exhaust particulates in a certain percentage of the fleet.
Spokesmen for the CHP and the San Francisco Police Department said they would respond to complaints. “We’ll follow up on complaints from communities where trucks sit and spew out diesel pollutants for 20 to 30 minutes at a time,” said Sgt. Wayne Ziese, public information officer for the CHP in Vallejo.
The CHP has a commercial division with staff dedicated to educating the trucking industry regarding the new rules and about other safety operations, Ziese said.
Dewayne Tully, an SFPD spokesman, said police are aware of pollution from idling buses at tourist spots such as the Cliff House. “Citizens are encouraged to lodge a complaint whenever they see buses and trucks idling beyond the allotted time, and an officer will respond,” he said.
North American sales by Rail Europe of tickets for the Eurostar high-speed train connecting London with Paris and Brussels grew 24% from 2003 to 2004. Rail Europe is the official representative of Eurostar sales in North America. Eurostar celebrated its 10th year of service in November 2004.
Market share growth
Eurostar’s share of the combined rail/air market between both London-Paris and London-Brussels also increased last year, from 64.9% in 2003 to 67.99% for London-Paris, from 50.52% to 63.34% London-Brussels. The total number of passengers carried by Eurostar in 2004 was 7.27 million, a 15% increase over 2003.
On-time performance and more services
The train’s punctuality — defined as percentage of trains arriving within 15 minutes of schedule — in 2004 was 89.2%, up 10.9% over 2003. In one week in January of this year, Eurostar’s punctuality rose to an historic 97.58% — with 100% on-time arrivals on three days. Civil Aviation Authority data shows average punctuality for the airlines operating on these routes was 63% in October 2004.
Service improvements - Wi-Fi and refurbished interiors
And while short-haul airlines are cutting costs by cutting service, Eurostar continues to invest in service improvements. Wi-Fi Internet access is now available to all passengers in the departure lounges in Paris Gare du Nord terminal and in London Waterloo and Ashford terminals. It will soon be launched in Brussels Midi station and will be trialed on board the trains themselves later this year. Eurostar is also refurbishing all the train interiors, including providing power sockets for laptops and cell phones.
Frequent service, low fares
The train takes just 2 hours 35 minutes (London-Paris) and 2 hours 15 minutes (London-Brussels) on the fastest schedules (fewest stops). Service is frequent, with up to 16 daily departures in either direction (London-Paris) and nine (London-Brussels).
The lowest fares start at $90 US/$118 CAN roundtrip (standard class) for a limited number of seats on each train.
Councilman Jay Batt voiced opposition Tuesday to a new transfer station for streetcars and buses at the foot of Canal Boulevard in Lakeview that the Regional Transit Authority intends to build.
RTA Chairman Jimmy Reiss responded that, while he sympathizes with Batt’s concerns, he plans to proceed with the $8 million project — which will allow commuters to change buses and streetcars in the neutral ground, without having to cross busy streets — because it will make public transit safer.
The RTA’s board last week took its first major step toward completing the project, voting to authorize Reiss to award a design contract for the facility.
Batt said in a prepared statement that he was “surprised to learn the RTA was moving forward” with the project. He said he had met once with RTA leaders in August but was unaware they were proceeding. “Much opposition has been expressed to this project and I do not feel that it would be appropriate at this time for me to support a project that could have far-reaching and negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood,” Batt said.
Batt, whose district includes the site, also said he would oppose the project “to the extent City Council approval is required.” It could not be determined Tuesday whether any aspect of the project would require council approval. Batt could not be reached to elaborate.
In his statement, Batt said he was concerned specifically about the effects of any additional traffic caused by the transfer station and possible negative impacts to Wedell Park, which occupies part of the neutral ground that the RTA plans to use.
Reiss said the agency had done a traffic study that involved computer modeling of how the intersection would flow after the terminal is in place. The study found no negative impacts, he said.
The park, Reiss said, should be enhanced rather than harmed by the station. Preliminary designs for the station incorporate some of the initial concerns raised by neighborhood leaders, he said. “There’s a statue commemorating Mr. Wedell that we will simply move to the farther end of the neutral ground,” he said. “And we’ll relandscape the area so that it’s in better shape than it is now.”
Reiss likewise said he doesn’t think the transfer station will harm the neighborhood. “I want to work with Jay to help in any way we can, but we have to look at the transit system overall — the people we serve on all the lines that feed into that location,” Reiss said. “What we’re doing is, I think, in the best interest of our passengers from all over the city.”
If you think traffic is bad now…
Be prepared for worse in years ahead as highway improvements keep getting postponed.
Cars will be stuck in traffic longer as roads and rails fail to keep up with population growth and lengthier commutes.
Deliveries are sure to be slower.
And the economy will suffer from delays in shipments to and from California ports.
California’s budget crisis is to blame for severe funding cutbacks. Since June 2003, Caltrans has been unable to start new projects, and hundreds of repairs have been postponed.
The state has raided highway funds to balance the budget, circumventing three-year-old Proposition 42, which requires gasoline sales tax revenue to be spent on transportation. Such a waiver must be OK’d by the governor and two-thirds of each house. Gov. Schwarzenegger, who wants to use this loophole in his 2006 budget, will probably seek more private toll roads as a long-term solution.
Bond money backed by revenue from Indian casinos is questionable. This source of funds, replacing Prop. 42 revenue, is tied up in lawsuits.
Federal money is lagging as well. Congress and President Bush, deadlocked over new spending, will extend old funding as a stopgap.
Volatile revenue makes long-term construction planning difficult. The state is way behind on seismic retrofits of major bridges. The design of the new S.F.-Oakland Bay Bridge span had to be changed when the cost turned out to be $3.2 billion more than was expected. It’s still not clear whether funds will come from tolls or tax revenue.
No new projects will be added in 2006, and many will be delayed. Among rail plans on hold are BART to San Jose, light rail in Sacramento, a Caltrain extension to Salinas, Capitol Corridor upgrades from Sacramento to San Jose and Pacific Surfliner work in San Diego.
Major road improvements are being stalled, including the widening of Highway 91 in Riverside, I-205 near Tracy and I-10 through Redlands. Plus carpool lanes on I-10 near Pomona and Highway 22 in Orange County. Alameda Corridor upgrades are waiting, worsening freight logjams.
Meanwhile, vehicle travel is growing 5% faster than population.
Only local bond and tax issues are providing new money for roads. Some projects get funds from bonds issued against future grants from the federal government. Among them: Widening Highway 99 from Selma to Kingsbury, an I-5 interchange in L.A. and widening I-80 near Crockett.
Yet another mechanical glitch halted the Las Vegas Monorail for nearly 13 hours Wednesday, the fourth time the line has been sidelined since first opening to the public in July.
The latest shutdown was prompted by the short-circuit of a 30-foot electrified rail section, which was discovered as a train passed over the rail just before the line’s scheduled 7 a.m. opening.
Service resumed about 7:40 p.m. after the stricken section of rail was replaced. What caused the 750-volt rail to short was not immediately known, though an inquiry focused on the rail itself. “It doesn’t appear it was caused by the train” or a part falling from it, monorail spokesman Todd Walker said.
Nonetheless, monorail officials considered the problem to be fairly benign and not a sign of more serious flaws in the $650 million line. “This is something that occurs on all electrically powered transportation systems,” Walker said. “As we become more experienced with operating the system and dealing with this type of event, this sort of event will be far less of a problem.”
Given the monorail’s glitch-plagued operational record, Wednesday’s service interruption was an additional blemish to the line’s brief history.
“Until we know what caused it, it’s tough to put it into context of what’s taken place in the past,” Walker said around midday. “It’s mildly disappointing. It’s certainly disappointing that we’re unable to provide service to the passengers right now. We want to make sure everything is working right,” Walker said. “The procedures that are put in place to operate this system safely worked.”
The problem was discovered during a routine system “sweep” that is done each morning, when four trains do a full loop of the 4-mile line before opening to the public, Walker said. That’s when the No. 6 Monster Energy-themed train came across the deadened section of rail on a northbound track just north of the Las Vegas Hilton station.
It was not immediately known whether the section of rail short-circuited when the train passed it, or whether the short had occurred sometime overnight after the monorail’s 2 a.m. close.
The rail in question supplies power to passing trains. The short did not disable power to the entire line; rather, a “line segment” between one- fourth and one-half of a mile long around the Hilton was left powerless.
Out of caution, it was decided that the entire system would be closed until the faulty rail was replaced, even though limited operations could have taken place outside of the affected segment.
It’s the second time the line has been closed this year. There was a 15- minute shutdown Jan. 12 after a train pulled out of the Sahara station with its doors incorrectly propped open by technicians.
That incident occurred not long after a 107-day shutdown that ended Dec. 24. That closure was spurred by the last of three instances of metal parts falling from moving trains in 2004. In that case, the metal part fell onto an electrified rail near the Paris hotel, sparking a tiny electrical blast. The power rail hangs alongside the monorail’s concrete track.
The line also was closed for six days after a wheel fell from a moving train Sept. 1.
In addition to those incidents, the system’s testing was put on hold for three days in January 2004 after a drive train fell from a moving train. In the 203 days through Wednesday since the system first opened publicly in mid-July, it has been closed for part or all of 115 days.
The monorail’s inability to prove its ridership potential because of the repeated shutdowns led federal officials to pass on funding a significant chunk of a planned $450 million downtown extension, which was shelved last month.
A group of state lawmakers on Wednesday blessed a bill that paves the way for construction of a private toll road on the plains of the Front Range.
An 11-member panel of state representatives voted unanimously to give a private company the power to acquire land from Wellington to south of Pueblo to build a high-speed toll road. “This is a fascinating project,” said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder. “It’s so massive and relies on a law that is so old that I have to say I’m a little leery. It’s going to be interesting.”
Ray Wells, president of the Front Range Toll Road Co., said the road would appeal to truckers who want to bypass the congested Interstate 25 corridor that links Front Range communities.
Wells did not say when construction would begin, but he said once it starts, construction would proceed promptly. “Once you light the fuse on money and you start paying that interest, it behooves you to move as quickly as possible,” Wells said.
The cost of the proposal, which has been under consideration for 20 years, is estimated at $2 billion.
The private road builder would also construct parallel rail lines that would relocate coal-train routes that run through metro areas.
House Bill 1030 would give the company powers of condemnation to acquire land from private property owners if they didn’t agree to sell to the company.
Wells said there are fewer than 200 property owners along the 12-mile- wide stretch of land it is considering for the road. “We don’t expect a lot of need to use the power of condemnation,” Wells said.
The bill now goes to the House for review.
A TERRIBLE possibility is dawning on the daily commuter. The Big Dig improved the look of Boston’s highway system. It will not improve the drive into Boston.
This conclusion is unrelated to snow removal and pothole patrols, which are blamed for recent horrendous tie-ups. Even after the snow melts and the potholes are repaired, the daily commuting grind won’t be less onerous, according to Fred Salvucci, the former state transportation chief who championed the Big Dig. He says people forget the second half of what he championed: expanded public transit.
“We always knew that this thing would create a very brief improvement and things would recongest if we did not improve public transportation,” says Salvucci. Computer-generated predictions of improved traffic flow assumed “that transit improvements on the books would in fact get built in the timeframe talked about,” he says.
The public transit improvements on the books did not proceed according to plan, which is why the Conservation Law Foundation is taking the first steps toward suing the state to force it to live up to public transit commitments made two decades ago when seeking approval for the massive highway project. In that case, the $15 billion spent on this project is comparable to an extreme makeover that turns an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan, but does nothing to unclog the patient’s arteries. In other words, the Zakim Bridge is lovely, and there will be plenty of opportunity to contemplate its loveliness on the way into work.
Because the public transit component never received as much attention as the road project, average commuters are confused about exactly what the Big Dig is supposed to accomplish.
The trip in and out of Logan Airport is faster, people agree. But as for the overall commute, particularly from the north, “It’s getting worse,” offers state Representative Harriett L. Stanley, whose perspective was colored by a just-completed commute Wednesday. She left home at 7:15 a.m. and arrived in Boston two hours later. Stanley, whose district covers parts of Georgetown, Groveland, Haverhill, and the towns of Merrimac, Newbury, Rowley, and West Newbury, says constituents “are wild about” the traffic situation. In this case, wild means unhappy.
Matthew Amorello, beleaguered chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, disputes all pessimistic predictions. As evidence, he cites his commute from Wenham since additional lanes opened on the Leverett Connector. This is his route: Route 1A to Route 128 to Route 1 south to the Tobin Bridge, through the City Square tunnel, around the Leverett Connector to Storrow Drive, then off at Beacon Street on his way to 10 Park Plaza.
If he leaves his home at 6:30 a.m., Amorello says he arrives in Boston by 7:15 a.m. That, he contends, is at least 20 minutes quicker than before, and he also insists it happens without flashing lights or a State Police escort.
He suggests that people who see no improvement in their commute, or perceive a worsening commute, may be stuck in old driving patterns and unaware of new options into and out of Boston, such as the Ted Williams Tunnel. The Big Dig is supposed to redistribute traffic onto roads that people will discover “over time,” says Amorello.
Over the next six to eight weeks, additional lanes will open on the Zakim Bridge and inside the Dewey Square tunnel.
However, according to Salvucci, once those extra lanes open, traffic will improve - for a while. “It will work better, but that will disappear inside of a year, if it is not subsidized by aggressive public transit improvements,” he warns. First, the Sumner Tunnel will reclog, then the Ted Williams Tunnel.
So, you can depress the artery, but, without additional public transportation, you can’t reduce the traffic.
Now they tell us.
Although the ice has cleared for now, Hiawatha light-rail trains continue to move slowly through an airport tunnel where dripping groundwater has been freezing periodically on the walls and floor since mid-December, officials said Wednesday.
Metro Transit disclosed the problem this week and said a temporary ice-melting system has been installed in the northbound tunnel between the Lindbergh and Humphrey terminals at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
That is keeping the trains safe, but they must enter the northbound tunnel at 10 miles per hour rather than 25 mph to avoid dislodging the hot-water hoses, insulating blankets and sandbags that are lining the tracks to keep them free of ice.
The tunnels and track linking Fort Snelling and the Mall of America opened for service on Dec. 4. Ice started to form near the south entrance to the northbound tunnel when temperatures hit zero later in the month, officials said.
No problem with seepage water or ice has been reported in the southbound tunnel. Some seepage was expected in the unheated tunnels, which have drains and pumps to deal with the water, officials added.
Patrick Hogan, director of public affairs for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said no one was sure how cold the tunnels would get.
Officials say they now believe the trains act like pistons, bringing in cold air that freezes water in the tunnels before it can drain away, he said. The Airports Commission paid for and supervised tunnel construction.
Ice has never been a safety threat, but officials were concerned that ice might build up around the tracks and damage or derail rail cars, said Vince Pellegrin, Metro Transit’s new chief operating officer for bus and rail. The ice has not been a problem since the heating equipment was installed.
Metro Transit officials said they didn’t notify riders of the problem or issue a press release, because slowing the trains through the tunnel resulted in only a 1- to 2-minute delay that can often by made up on the trip to downtown Minneapolis. “This delay is minor in terms of time and impact on customer service,” Pellegrin said. “It’s part of running a railroad. We are going to run it as best we can on time.”
Ryan Ballbach, of south Minneapolis, rides the train to the Mall of America where he transfers to a bus to his job at Best Buy in Richfield. He said he noticed delays getting home when the icing started. He sent Metro Transit an e-mail asking for an explanation and received an apology for the delay but no explanation. “Metro Transit never was up front about what was happening. They need to be communicating better, letting people know we are having problems,” said Ballbach, who described himself as a rail advocate.
Transit and airport officials said they will work with tunnel builders in the spring to find a solution for next winter.
A temporary fix to ice buildup in tunnel
1. Seepage in the LRT tunnel occurs because the surrounding porous bedrock is saturated. Although seepage was expected, freezing was not. Trains help sweep cold air into the tunnel.
2. Hoses circulating warm water have been placed along the rails. The problem occurs on the first half mile of the northbound tunnel near the Humphrey Terminal station.
3. Above-ground heater (not shown) pumps warm water into the hoses. A permanent solution will be sought later.
Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metro Transit.
New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to issue $ 500 million of fixed-rate revenue bonds next week in the first deal to come out of the $ 2.84 billion 2005 borrowing agenda the agency’s board approved last week.
Merrill Lynch & Co. will price the bonds next Tuesday after a one-day retail order period. MBIA Insurance Corp. and Ambac Assurance Corp. will insure the bonds. Some early maturities may be uninsured, though that decision will be made on pricing day, MTA finance director Patrick McCoy said.
Last month, Gov. George Pataki submitted a budget to lawmakers that included $ 19.2 billion for the MTA over the years 2005 to 2009, which is roughly $ 8.5 billion less than the authority had sought from Albany.
The Republican governor’s proposed budget included increases in the mortgage recording tax and motor vehicle fees as new revenue sources for the MTA, which must be approved by the state Legislature. And later this month, the authority will increase some of its ridership fees. These measures still may not be enough to satisfy the MTA’s enormous needs, observers have said.
“It’s a simple equation — at some point, they need to add revenue or cut service,” said Moody’s Investors Service analyst Robert Kurtter.
Kurtter said he did not expect the authority to ever be flush with cash. “The MTA is always going to be a hand-to-mouth entity, and that’s reflected in our rating,” Kurtter said. Moody’s rates the authority’s transportation revenue bonds A2.
Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s rate the MTA’s $ 500 million transportation revenue bonds A.
Kim Paparello, a principal at Banc of America Securities LLC and former director of finance at the MTA, said the authority’s revenue situation should not pose any immediate concerns for investors. “The MTA has always been very well received in the past,” Paparello said, adding that it has a history of working with the state to close what are often big shortfalls.
The MTA operates buses, subway service, commuter trains, and bridges and tunnels in the New York City metropolitan region. It is a state-charted public benefit corporation that is essentially controlled by the governor through key management appointments. As one of the more robust and extensive mass transit systems, it serves one in every three mass transit riders in the U.S. In 2003, the system supported 2.3 billion trips, according to authority figures.
McCoy said it’s too early to predict exactly how much debt the MTA will issue this year. Last January, the MTA board approved the authorization of $ 2.6 billion of new borrowing for 2004, and the authority ended up selling $ 2.2 billion, McCoy said. The MTA’s fiscal year ends Dec. 31.
Don’t go there. Don’t even think it. If a pretty girl with a clipboard steps forward to ‘ask you a few questions’ about Tube maintenance, reply no to every one. She will charm you and baffle you with figures and take your money and wreck your life. Just say no, a thousand times no.
From the moment two Treasury officials, Steve Robson and Shriti Vadera, screwed up London’s Tube in a Treasury parlour game in the 1990s, disaster has been waiting to happen. The privatised Tube is less efficient, less reliable and more expensive than ever was the public one. And we have not seen the end of it.
When I served briefly on the Underground Board back in the 1980s, a single battle was joined day after day, week after week. On the one side were the Tube operators struggling to give the public a reliable train service. On the other were the engineers and sub-contractors eager to grab the track for as long as they could with never a passenger in sight. They were implacable foes. Mercifully, the operators always won.
It was a matter of pride for London Transport (as for old British Rail) that the trains always ran. The public had paid their taxes and their fares and were entitled to the same service afforded Parisians, New Yorkers and Muscovites. Trains should never be cancelled and should be as punctual as humanly possible.
There were no excuses because the system was vertically integrated and no one could pass the buck. The Tube ran, even during the Blitz. It was the pride of London.
I believed in privatisation, but only if it could retain this esprit de corps. It did not. The Treasury ‘disintegration’ model wrecked it. The moment of truth came in 2003 when the Central line was closed for 11 weeks after a derailment, on the basis of a computer cost-benefit model showing that this ‘made more money for London’. It disrupted the lives of millions of users and when the line reopened it did not work properly.
We now read each week of District and Circle closures, of late starts and passengers left stranded outside locked gates like Russian peasants. Then on Tuesday came the news that the Mayor had capitulated. The engineers allegedly ‘need to close down an entire section of track for lengthy periods’ to provide us with our old friend, a 21st-century railway.
First, do not be fooled. This is not a temporary gambit to save money and hasten change by means of a short, sharp shock. It is an attitude of mind. The Tube contractors want to ape Network Rail and motorway repairs. They want to work when it suits their convenience and their profit.
The Tube will become like the roads, a perpetual confusion of cones, locked gates, weekend closures, ‘statutory works’, bus substitutions and complete unreliability. It will never be finished because the Tube, like the Forth Bridge, is never finished. All that will cease is Tube reliability. The engineers will have won the day, forever.
If is, of course, expensive to maintain an Underground railway. It always was. Work must be done at night because during the day the Tube is in use. I do not have my car mended while I am driving it. Since the London Tube closes soon after midnight, the engineers get more time to work than on most other underground systems.
Privatisation certainly exposed the cost of this nocturnal activity. Those who know the Tube know its upkeep to be the worst managed business in London. In the old days five hours of ‘possession’ of track rarely yielded more than two of work. Gangs were walking to and from their site. Some were drunk, asleep, working too many shifts and hopelessly undermanaged.
The escalators were the worst. Those at Warwick Avenue took four years to replace, those at Holborn almost 10. The Holland Park lifts took longer to renovate than the original Central line to build. The Jubilee line was a legend of inefficiency even before it was finished.
The arrival of health and safety has brought chaos to confusion. As many as two hours can be spent filling in dockets and forms and donning moon boots and protective clothing more appropriate for a space walk. Hand rails must be fitted. Equipment must be checked. Inspectors must be on hand. Every conceivable way of delaying work and making it more expensive has been introduced. The Health and Safety Executive has wrecked productivity, here as throughout British industry, and become the engineer’s excuse from heaven.
If privatisation was meant to impose discipline something has gone wrong. Why is it that late finishing of nightwork is now endemic? Why is so much spent on lawyers to fight inter-managerial fines and compensation claims? Why are dedicated gangs, their collective memory once crucial to efficiency, now things of the past?
There is only one rule in Tube management. The trains must always run. Everything else is subordinate. London fares are the highest in Europe. Managers’ profits and bonuses are exorbitant. Metronet and Tube Lines walked away with £100 million in profit last year. Londoners in the 21st century are entitled to a first-class service, reliable trains, no excuses, no boasting over targets. If contractors want to operate the worst-managed engineering sites in the capital that is their decision.
The Tube is a passenger railway not an engineer’s toy. The passengers should never agree to give the engineers daytime track closures.
They will never get them back. Give these people an inch and they will take a mile - forever. And if any overpaid Tube engineer dares tell me, ‘It will cost you, now’, I will refer him to the Home Secretary’s helpful definition of ‘reasonable violence in self-defence’.
A high-stakes gamble for a downtown monorail extension has come-up short. Clark County’s Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) won’t be receiving a $159.7 million Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant needed to finance a proposed $454 million, 2.25-mile public monorail extension, connecting the Sahara hotel-casino to downtown. The addition would attach to the privately owned $654 million, 4.2-mile-Las Vegas monorail, which reopened on December 24 after a 107-day mechanical shutdown.
The RTC will review its options after the formal federal notice is published later this month, says Ingrid Reisman, an agency spokesperson.
Transit Systems Development, LLC, the monorail’s developer, was awarded a $394 million maximum-price design-build-equip-finance- operate-maintain contract for the public extension in 2003. The joint venture was the only team that responded to the RTC’s development request-for-proposal. Bombardier Transit Corp., a unit of Montreal, Canada-based Bombardier, Inc., and Granite Construction Co., Inc., Watsonville, California, have since received a $336.6 million design-build-equip contract for the downtown addition. Bombardier also holds an additional five-year, $87 million operate-and-maintain contract.
The FTA stipulated that the monorail must operate for six months without incident before recommending the project for funding approval, says Todd Walker, spokesman for the Las Vegas Monorail Co., which owns and operates the line. Pursuing a downtown monorail without federal monies isn’t financially feasible, he adds.
The problem-plagued monorail, however, opened six months late on July 15, after a driveshaft fell off a Bombardier train during a test run. That was followed by computer software difficulties with the automated guidance system, which were eventually resolved. After a bumpy initial start, the dual-lane elevated guideway took flight only to close on September 1, after a 20-inch, 60-pound rubber steering tire broke off a monorail train in transit. An inspection found that system operators failed to act on 149 warnings of an unstable wheel assembly before the accident occurred.
After replacing the wheel assemblies, the automated transit line was reopened on September 7, only to close the following day when a 2- pound, 6-inch driveshaft flange fell from a train. It struck the 750-volt track and caused a small electrical explosion. No one was injured. Investigators determined that the monorail’s driveshaft carriages, mounted at a 5.7- degree angle, were being unduly stressed by the track’s high-speed sharp turns. Since being remounted at a 1.8-degree angle, the monorail has closed twice more. including a temporary shutdown last Wednesday. It has averaged 37,000 riders a day or slightly below its anticipated 45,000-a-day estimates since its December opening.
Construction of the Las Vegas monorail was underwritten by state-issued tax-free revenue bonds. The debt is being retired over a 20-year period with monies made from advertising and passenger fees. But issuing revenue bonds for a downtown extension isn’t a likely scenario, Walker says. The lengthened line wouldn’t bring in the additional monies needed to justify the expense, he adds.
Meanwhile, the RTC is pressing forward with another mass transit project. The agency plans to seek $150 million in FTA funding next year for a 33-mile at-grade light-rail commuter line, connecting North Las Vegas to Henderson. Although still in the early planning stages, the light-rail would use the existing Union Pacific rail tracks extending from Henderson along the west side of the Strip finishing in North Las Vegas. If approved, the proposed light-rail project wouldn’t finish until 2014.
The RTC received federal matching credits for the monorail’s construction since it was a private project. And while those monies must be applied toward a “fixed guideway,” it doesn’t stipulate that monorail technology must be used, Reisman says. In other words, the RTC has some wiggle- room to pursue other transit options, shifting its focus from a tourist- intensive downtown extension to a local commuter line relieving traffic congestion.
Both projects have their merits: An estimated 20,000 new residential units are now being planned or built downtown, while another 150 cars join the local road network every day. Presently, the RTC plans to solicit funds for both projects. The application deadline for the 2006-07 FTA budget is August.
A year’s worth of testing and sporadic passenger service could have been enough to wear out an electrified rail, triggering Wednesday’s Las Vegas Monorail shutdown, Clark County inspectors said Thursday.
But authorities believe the problem was a routine hiccup for a high-tech rail line, and not akin to systematic glitches that kept the monorail sidelined for most of last year. “These are things you learn in the early operation of a system,” said Todd Walker, a monorail spokesman.
County regulators said it now appears that a protective stainless steel “cladding” that covers a power rail peeled away on a northbound track just north of the Las Vegas Hilton station.
The loss of cladding, just 1/32 of an inch thick, caused electricity to arc on the 750-volt rail as a train passed by just before 7 a.m. Wednesday morning. The system was then closed for almost 13 hours.
“It’s at a stress point, at a change of elevation coming out of the Hilton station, and it’s on a curve,” said Ron Lynn, who heads the county’s development services department’s building division, which regulates the monorail. “It looks to be wear. This is a wear point.”
“It seems to have worn quickly. In reality, that’s not all that quick,” Lynn said. nothing that although the system has only been open to the public sporadically since mid-July, it has been running almost every day since the start of 2004 if testing is figured in. Effectively, we put a good year of wear and tear on this system,” Lynn said.
Walker agreed with Lynn’s findings. Kathryn Nickerson, spokeswoman for monorail builder and operator Bombardier Inc. of Montreal, Canada, declined to immediately second the opinion. She opted to await a formal incident report that may take two weeks to complete. But she called the problem an “isolated incident.”
“It unfortunately shut down the system for a period of time, but we don’t see this as related to anything else, or any other problem,” Nickerson said. “This is a pretty simple issue. We had a part failure. We fixed it.”
Wednesday’s shutdown was the fourth time the system was closed to the public due to operational or mechanical issues since the line first opened to the public in mid-July.
Lynn said the arcing did not disable the entire $650 million monorail line, and was not a short-circuit as some monorail officials originally thought. “The monorail didn’t need to be closed for this incident. The other rail could have been used” on the southbound track, Lynn said, though officials opted to play it safe and sideline the whole system until repairs were complete.
Similar future incidents could be dealt with more swiftly. “We definitely think a similar disruption will be less disruptive in the future. You have to go through these kinds of events to see” how to handle things, Walker said.
Engineers were extra-cautious, especially given the monorail’s balky history. “As well as replacing the power rail section, we wanted to perform a rigorous inspection of all the power rail and we also inspected all of the trains, to make sure it wasn’t train-related,” Nickerson said. “This takes time.”
Lynn said a simple change in maintenance procedures should prevent or minimize similar future problems.
The monorail was operating normally as of mid-afternoon Thursday. “Not a bump in the road,” Walker said.
The successor to the Penn Central Railroad paid $38 million yesterday to settle a near decades-old lawsuit with SEPTA and two other rail companies that helped pay for the cleanup of toxic waste at the former Paoli Railyard site.
Penn Central’s successor, American Premier Underwriters Inc., paid $23 million to SEPTA and $15 million to Amtrak under the terms of an agreement reached in November, lawyers said.
SEPTA will pay $9 million of the settlement money to Conrail, a third rail company involved, in accordance with a prior indemnity agreement between the companies, lawyers said.
The settlement averted a federal trial scheduled for Jan. 15 that had been estimated to last six weeks and involve retracing the history of electrifying railroad lines on the East Coast - a process dating to the 1930s.
The locomotive industry began using a fluid containing the chemical compound polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCB, to cool electricity transformers on train cars by 1950. PCBs - later classified as hazardous substances - were used at the 28-acre rail yard in Paoli, Chester County.
The federal government declared the property a Superfund Site in 1986, and it cost millions to clean up the site and the surrounding watershed since.
The recent settlement was a victory for Thomas Biemer and Marianne E. Brown of Dilworth Paxon, who worked with SEPTA lawyer Nicholas Staffieri in representing the transit agency, and attorneys for Amtrak at DLA Piper Rudnik Gray Cary. They include John E. Griffith Jr., W. Roger Truitt and F. William DuBois III in Baltimore and Jennifer E. Clark in Philadelphia.
Staffieri made the decision to reactivate the lawsuit in 2002 after it had lay dormant on the federal docket for nearly a decade. “I’m not a chemist, but I thought there were enough facts there to prove that the PCB pollution was there before we were involved on the site,” said Staffieri, who became general counsel of the transit agency in 2000.
He said the settlement amount was nearly a dollar-for-dollar recovery for SEPTA, which spent $25 million to $26 million in clean-up costs.
Counsel for American Premier Underwriters, Pat Cipollone at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., did not return calls for comment yesterday.
The agreement in Amtrak v. Penn Central Corp. was reached through mediation, Biemer said.
The settlement stemmed from a 1992 counterclaim to a 1986 lawsuit. The Environmental Protection Agency sued SEPTA, Conrail and Amtrak in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia in 1986, demanding reimbursement for the cost of cleaning up the Paoli site - a process that’s taken 20 years. The state intervened as a plaintiff in the suit.
In 1992, the three rail companies filed a third-party complaint against APU, seeking to hold APU liable for its share of the costs and expenses of cleaning up the contaminated site, according to court documents. The counterclaim was never pursued, Staffieri said.
In the meantime, a federal judge in 1999 approved a settlement between the government agencies and the three rail companies. The three companies agreed to pay 67 percent of what was estimated at the time to be $53 million in clean-up costs.
As a condition of the settlement, the rail companies were promised that APU - which was not part of the settlement - wouldn’t be permitted to seek contribution from them for its portion of the liability.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals effectively affirmed the settlement in 2000, according to court documents.
Penn Central owned and operated the Paoli Railyard from 1915 until the property was transferred to Conrail and then Amtrak in 1976 following Penn Central’s bankruptcy and Congress’ passing of the Rail Reorganization Act.
SEPTA took over operations of the yard in 1981 from Conrail, and the transit agency kept and serviced commuter railcars there. The yard closed in 1995.
Amtrak never operated the yard but was involved in the lawsuit as the most recent property owner, lawyers said.
Brown said experts for SEPTA determined through what’s called “chemical fingerprint” testing that 85 percent of the PCBs found in the soil at the rail yard were PCBs that were a type or aroclor of PCB manufactured before 1972, or five years prior to SEPTA, Conrail and Amtrak’s arrival on site.
Aroclor 1260 was not manufactured in the United States after 1971, explained Eric Butler, a chemist at Gradient Corp. in Boston and an expert for SEPTA.
“SEPTA, Conrail and Amtrak had no contact with 1260,” Brown said. “We proved the PCB dated that far back in time.” According to Brown, American Premier Underwriters contended that the Silverstar IV railcars used by SEPTA starting in the 1970s were prone to leaking PCB fluid and had also contributed to the rail yard’s contamination.
SEPTA, however, argued that the Silverstar IVs used aroclor 1254, and “that wasn’t what was in the ground causing the problem,” Biemer said.
Griffith said Amtrak was glad to put the litigation behind it. “They’ve been involved in cleaning up the site for 20 years now, and they’re pleased to get reimbursed for most of what they paid to clean it up,” he said. The use of PCBs in the railroad industry was phased out in the early 1980s.
Electrical wires installed in the 1930s leave many subway control rooms vulnerable to fires similar to the blaze that knocked out A and C service, transit officials said yesterday.
At least 40 control rooms in Queens, midtown Manhattan and other areas are connected to 70-year-old wiring like that in the burned-out relay room in the Chambers Street station, officials said.
Michael Lombardi, senior vice president of the Department of Subways at New York City Transit, told the City Council’s Transportation Committee the wires were so old that they helped pushed the fire directly into the relay room. “A fire lit those cables; it got hot enough to burn through the insulation; it was a rubber fire, so it was an extremely smoky situation,” Lombardi said.
Lombardi added that “all the wires started to short out, and it started to create an electrical fire inside the relay room that was perfectly secure.”
Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing), who conducted the hearing, repeatedly asked why the old wiring was not fully replaced after a 1999 MTA report called for that. “It’s almost like the cable was acting as a fuse here taking the fire directly into the relay room,” Liu said. “What’s going on here?”
During a nearly 90-minute exchange that got testy at times, the officials said it might be until 2020 that all the rooms are rebuilt with modern wires and technology less susceptible to fires. Authorities have not determined the cause of the fire, having backed away from an early theory that blamed a homeless person. The incident raised questions about the vulnerability of the 24-hour system.
MTA officials initially said it would take up to five years to restore service, but near normal service returned this week. Liu and other council members asked when the relay rooms with 1930s wires could be fixed, but transit officials said they couldn’t give a clear answer.
Lombardi and another transit official, Keith Hom, said it’s a slow process. “It’s the money, it’s the time, it’s the impact it makes on the subway,” Lombardi said.
Liu and other council members were skeptical. “It is ridiculous that today you have no plan, you can’t even give the public a timetable for when you’re going to be able to fireproof,” he said.
Other council members took issue with the responses, offering their own criticisms. Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria) said the MTA was accountable “to no one except Gov. Pataki” and that the witnesses’ testimony was an example of the “incompetence and arrogance” at the agency.