Related Links
Light Rail Progress can be contacted at:
Light Rail Progress
lightrailnow@lightrailnow.org
 |
PTP Digest – August 2003
CONTENTS
* URGENT * ALERT * TAKE ACTION
US House vote threatens to dismantle ISTEA
Surface Transportation Policy Project September 2, 2003
* Istook: Fund highways, not transit, peds, bikes
insight on the News Aug. 26, 2003
* Vancouver: Ottawa calls RAV rapid transit project "too risky"
Vancouver Sun Saturday, July 19, 2003
* Vancouver: BC govt. ready to scuttle RAV transit line for highway
Vancouver Sun Saturday » August 9 » 2003
* Vancouver: Ottawa calls RAV 'a very good project'
Vancouver Sun Tuesday, August 12, 2003
* Vancouver: RAV line back on track for 2010
Vancouver Sun Tuesday, August 26, 2003
* Orange County: 8-mile CenterLine LRT to John Wayne Airport approved
OCTA Press Release July 21, 2003
* Orange County: No recall vote on CenterLine LRT
Los Angeles Times August 6, 2003
* Orange County: LRT opponents play on 'fear factor'
OCWeekly August 15, 2003
* Dallas: Richardson seeks 5th LRT station
Dallas Morning News 07/29/2003
* Dallas-Ft. Worth planners eye regional authority
Dallas Business Journal - July 14, 2003
* Dallas: Time for region to unite for transit
Dallas Morning News Thursday, August 14, 2003
* Dallas-Ft. Worth: Unity for regional transit needed
Dallas Morning News 07/25/2003
* How light rail pays its way in Dallas
Railway Age 2003/07/24
* Dallas: DART rains make Trinity Fest a 'sparkling success'
Dallas Morning News 07/06/2003
=PTP============================================
=======================================================
URGENT * ALERT * TAKE ACTION
=======================================================
Surface Transportation Policy Project
Alliance for a New Transportation Charter
September 2, 2003
HOUSE TO VOTE ON AMENDMENTS AFFECTING TRANSPORTATION
CHOICES IN US
BACKGROUND
On Thursday, Sept. 4, the US House of Representatives will vote on the
FY'04 Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 2989) -- it includes
provisions that dismantle key transportation programs established in the
landmark 1991 reform law ISTEA that allow local communities to provide
the public with more transportation choices. if approved by Congress,
H.R. 2989 would shut down Amtrak, terminate the Transportation
Enhancements program, stagnate transit funding while expanding
highways, and slow development of new transit systems.
At this time, two of these areas -- restoration of the Enhancements
Program and additional funding for Amtrak -- will be addressed through
amendments during House action on H.R. 2989. We will keep you posted
on further details regarding the Amtrak amendment and potential action to
amend changes to transit funding levels, the New Starts program, the
Jobs Access Reverse Commute program. (These issues will likely be
taken up by the Senate Appropriations committee in their FY'04 budget
bill).
On Enhancements, Representatives Tom Petri (R-Wi) and John Olver (D-
MA) are leading a bipartisan effort to ensure the continuation of the
Transportation Enhancements (TE) program. Simply, their amendment
eliminates Section 114 from H.R. 2989, the provision that eliminates
Enhancements as a separate program. Others joining with Petri and
Olver include Rep. Bill Lipinski (D-IL) and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-
NY); these Member will send a "Dear Colleague" letter to all House
Members on Wednesday urging support for the Petri/Olver amendment.
For further details and a sample letter, see our previous Action Alert at
.
ACTION NEEDED
Contact your delegation TODAY and ask them to 1. Support the
Petri/Olver amendment to continue the Enhancements program, and 2.
Support an amendment to increase funding for Amtrak and keep
passenger rail service in America.
Find your Member's contact info at www.congress.org, or simply dial 800-
839-5276 for the Congressional switchboard and ask for their office.
TALKING POINTS
On Enhancements --
* Don't undermine a decade of success through the backdoor -
attaching this change to an appropriations bill as the authorizing
committee is working to develop a multi-year TEA-21 renewal is wrong
* The Enhancements program has the greatest degree of local control
- Enhancements projects are locally-initiated and locally-selected
* it is a program where a modest commitment yields big results - less
than 2 cents of every dollar for pedestrian and bicycling safety has made
a real difference in communities
* The protection provided in current law - a 10 percent set aside of
Surface Transportation Funds (STP) funds - is key to continuation of the
program
On Amtrak --
* Amtrak President David Gunn has already announced that he will be
forced to end all intercity passenger rail service -- including services to our
community and state -- under H.R. 2989's funding level of $900 million,
only 50% of his request
* A majority of House Members have already indicated their support of
the $1.8 billion level in a letter sent earlier this year to the leaders of the
House Appropriations Committee
FOLLOW THROUGH
Report back what you hear to abroaddus@transact.org. Spread the word
through your email networks, but make some calls and ask state and local
elected officials - especially Mayors - to contact your Congressional
delegation, also associations of cities, health orgs, and transportation orgs
and ask them to make calls.
=PTP===========================================
[PTP NOTE: US Rep. Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-Ok) has spearheaded the
effort in the US Congress to bollix Sound Transit's light rail program in
Seattle and pull the plug on national rail passenger service (Amtrak).
While he has raised a flurry of extraneous issues to justify his actions, the
following exposition of his views in the rightwing insight on the News
(affiliated with the Washington Times) makes it clear that his agenda is to
fundamentally wreck the current federal program for funding urban mass
transportation and alternative mobility infrastructure such as pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. Istook's ranting against "robbing the Highway Trust
Fund" hearkens back decades and would effectively reverse sound
transportation planning achievements and scuttle the progress made
since the implementation of the federal ISTEA program.]
insight on the News
Aug. 26, 2003
Opinion: Highway Robbery
By Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr.
it sparks justified rage whenever anyone suggests diverting money from
the Social Security Trust Fund. Those dollars should be used for their
intended purpose - Social Security - and nothing else.
Yet another diversion of trust-fund dollars has been under way for many
years, and it's time to stop the practice. Taxes paid by drivers don't all go
to our roads. Almost one-sixth of federal fuel taxes are diverted to pay
transit subsidies - mostly to benefit states with elaborate (and heavily
subsidized) mass-transit systems. That diversion now totals $5 billion per
year at a time when too many roads are in disrepair.
Nowhere in government is the principle of "user pays" better
demonstrated than with our roads. Road users pay for their vehicles: to
operate them, fuel them, maintain them, house them and insure them,
plus a tax that pays for other people's transportation. Transit users
typically pay a fare that covers only a fraction of operating expenses and
nothing toward the capital costs of vehicles, tracks or systems. Of course,
they and everyone else pays some when general-revenue funds are used
for any project - whether transit or highway.
While diversion and inflation have hurt our Highway Trust Fund, the needs
have grown immensely. More than 90 percent of America's passenger-
miles and 71 percent of the freight tonnage go by road, because no
alternative offers the huge flexibility provided by roads and highways.
Yet when fuel-tax dollars aren't used to improve highways, congestion
results, and gridlocked cars generate avoidable pollution when they stand
idling. A full 40 percent of urban traffic constantly is congested due to lack
of road investment and improvements. No other form of transportation can
move as many people as roads, nor create the network that extends to
every destination.
Another challenge is that many light-rail systems across the country too
often are planned as status symbols rather than to reduce congestion. In
the proper situations, rail can reduce congestion, but that doesn't mean it
always will do so. Some systems have too few riders to provide much
relief. Others may have more riders, but mostly from people who formerly
took a bus, meaning an inexpensive transit system has been replaced
with a very expensive one. We need closer scrutiny of which systems
work well and which do not.
Unfortunately, heavy federal subsidies have skewed cost-benefit ratios
and created such a clamor for light-rail funds that it's hard to separate the
good projects from the bad. That is why the Bush administration deserves
support for its proposal that communities must provide at least half the
money to build the systems, rather than seeking 80 percent federal
funding as current law permits.
Meanwhile, our roads and bridges are being shortchanged. The country
now has 167,000 deficient bridges. The national backlog of needed road
and bridge work now tops $325 billion, and some say it's $400 billion.
Narrow roads need to be widened; broader pull-over shoulders are
needed; dangerous curves need to be realigned; safety dividers are
lacking; bumps, potholes and rough pavement need to be repaired. This
backlog costs lives - contributing to the 42,800 lives lost annually in
America's backed-up traffic.
Yet there's another major diversion, even after transit takes its cut.
Another federal law dictates that each state must spend another 10
percent of all surface-transportation-program funds on "transportation
enhancements."
What are those? in part, these are bicycle and pedestrian trails - but our
fuel-tax dollars also are spent restoring old buildings, creating
transportation museums and buying rail right-of-way.
These enhancements are popular with many people, but they don't move
any of the traffic that paid the fuel taxes. These mandated diversions take
another $648 million per year that could help fix roads and bridges.
Sadly, those who clamor for enhancements don't offer to pay for them.
Instead, they insist that fuel taxes must be diverted from road and bridge
repairs, even at the expense of safety. The issue is not whether the
enhancements offer "some" benefit, but whether they have the same high
priority as traffic improvements.
This practice of diverting Highway Trust Fund dollars can be changed. In a
few weeks, Congress will be asked to agree that enhancements should be
permitted rather than mandated. This change would permit states to use
the $648 million for roads and bridges if they wish.
Proponents of other uses should offer better ways to pay for them than
the current robbing of the Highway Trust Fund. For example, communities
that have (or want to encourage) widespread bicycle use should provide
local funds for that purpose, rather than insisting that all 50 states are
required to force road users to pay the costs for bicycle users.
The Highway Trust Fund comes from the fuel taxes paid by each state's
drivers, and we should trust states to assess their own needs and decide
for themselves how to spend the money. It would greatly help to relieve
congestion and correct unsafe roads and bridges.
Diversions into so-called "enhancements" began at a time when fuel-tax
revenue was constantly rising, so it was easier to afford these
"enhancements." Today things are different; now highway funding is
billions of dollars short of even covering the basic needs. Today lives are
lost and the whole country is slowed down because we need better roads.
The backlog is so great that many support raising fuel taxes to address it.
Naturally, road users object because they're already paying extra money
that is siphoned away from roads. Before raising taxes, shouldn't we
maximize how we use what we already collect?
it's time to revisit how our transportation dollars are spent. Each mode of
transportation should help pay for itself, rather than expecting road users
to pay for everyone else. Instead of overtaxing America's drivers, let's
keep America moving.
Istook, a Republican, is serving his fifth term representing Oklahoma's fifth
Congressional District and is chairman of the U.S. House Appropriations
subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/453049.html
=PTP=========================================
Vancouver Sun
Saturday, July 19, 2003
RAV too risky, secret report says
Peter O'Neil; with files from Matthew Ramsey, Doug Ward and Maureen
Gulyas
OTTAWA -- A secret federal government report dismisses B.C.'s request
for $450 million for the proposed Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid
transit megaproject and warns it faces "significant" risk of cost overruns, is
unlikely to meet ridership projections, won't reduce traffic gridlock, and will
do little to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.
The 16-page internal federal cabinet document, prepared by officials in
several government departments and stamped "secret," warns that a
federal investment in the $1.7-billion project would drain resources from
other federal-provincial initiatives in B.C., such as twinning the Trans-
Canada Highway at Kicking Horse Canyon.
it dismisses B.C.'s request for $450 million, suggesting instead that
Ottawa could contribute at most $350 million, despite repeated warnings
from the provincial government that a lesser amount may be meaningless.
"The province . . . has been verbally unequivocal that, unless the federal
government contributes this amount, the project will be terminated," states
the report from infrastructure Canada that was completed last month and
obtained by The Vancouver Sun.
But even a $350 million commitment would entail considerable risk and
could open the floodgates for similar applications from other Canadian
cities, according to the report.
Ken Dobell, the formerTransLink director who is now deputy minister to
Premier Gordon Campbell, said Friday he was aware of but had not seen
the report. Dobell, in Ottawa this week to discuss the RAV project with
senior federal officials, suggested that some of the concerns may be
dated.
"We had very positive discussions," Dobell said.
"Federal officials had indicated there were no technical issues, they were
satisfied with management of the project, that it was a good project, and
that they would like to see if proceed if we can work out the details."
The report warns that the federal government's two prospective partners,
the B.C. government and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority
(TransLink), may turn to Ottawa for help if more cash is needed.
"The other public sector contributors at this time appear to be potentially
over-extended with major capital commitments and there is significant risk
that construction costs will be higher than currently estimated," the report
warns.
"The risks of potential pressures to increase the share of public financing -
-and a particular risk to the federal government if it is an investor in the
project -- are significant."
The bureaucrats suggest that federal cash be subject to several stringent
conditions, including completion of underground geotechnical testing that
could expose the risk of potentially higher costs.
"Tunnelling in bedrock in the downtown core and in the area adjacent to
and below False Creek may present particular challenges, since these
sections of the construct will be below the water table and subject to
infiltration," according to infrastructure Canada.
"To add further complexity to the project, significant efforts will be needed
during design and construction to address seismic considerations, as
Vancouver is located in an area of high seismic risk."
The report was published before Natural Resources Minister Herb
Dhaliwal angered project proponents by saying Ottawa would contribute,
at most, $300 million.
The RAV line, according to its proponents, is needed by 2010 to deal with
exploding growth, traffic congestion, and pollution in the Richmond-to-
Vancouver corridor.
"We need to add capacity in a sustainable way," states a project
backgrounder on TransLink's Web site.
in addition to the $450 million requested from Ottawa, the RAV project is
to be funded with contributions of $300 million each from the provincial
government, TransLink, and the Vancouver international Airport Authority.
An additional $300 million is to come from a yet-to-be-determined private
sector partner, representing 18 per cent of the capital costs.
But the report lists seven areas of risk "that present particular concern to
the federal government as a potential investor."
Among those concerns:
- The $1.7-billion estimated project cost doesn't take into account the final
results of geotechnical testing of the areas to be tunnelled under Cambie
Street, False Creek, and beneath various downtown streets leading to
Waterfront Station near Canada Place.
"Unanticipated ground conditions leading to delays in the construction
schedule and changes in construction approaches can significantly drive
up costs. Experiences in other jurisdictions indicates that tunnelling costs
can be significantly higher than initiation estimates.
-The project's current estimate on capital and operating costs is
dependent on transit ridership in the corridor increasing from its current
40,000 daily to 100,000.
"However, all rapid transit and commuter rail projects constructed in the
Vancouver region during the past 20 years over-estimated ridership
projections," it states.
"Based on previous experiences, the estimates of riders on RAVP could
be over-optimistic, thereby impacting on the rationale for the project."
The report says significant usage of the RAV line is dependent on the
region's bus fleet of 1,200 growing by one third to feed into the line.
However, the RAVP project team is proposing to "decrease bus services
in the Richmond-Vancouver corridor and apply savings to the costs of
operating the new rapid transit line."
-A May report on the impact of rapid transit on greenhouse gas emissions
suggestions the line would contribute less than 0.5 per cent of Canada's
target, and this estimate "may in fact be an over-estimation."
The study's estimate didn't take into account the "quite high" emissions
caused by project construction as well as the potential increase in car
usage "that would result from roads gaining capacity where the subway
would replace current on-street bus routes."
-The report says B.C.'s request for RAV funding would effectively use up
all of the province's share of the infrastructure budget, even though the
province told Ottawa in March that the Kicking Horse project was "its
highest priority."
The B.C. government, according to the report, wants $270 million from
Ottawa to complete the highway on top of the $100 million Ottawa has
contributed so far for the project.
"A commitment to RAVP would therefore allow no room for the federal
government to contribute to the completion of the twinning the Trans-
Canada Highway through Kicking Horse Canyon."
Ottawa could therefore only commit to rapid transit if contributions to
Kicking Horse were terminated for the "foreseeable future."
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said the "secret" report sounds a lot like
the one his city's transportation planner wrote months ago.
"There was very little interest at the time in what we were saying," said
Corrigan, who took the Burnaby report to Greater Vancouver regional
district and TransLink boards but said it barely caused a ripple. That local
report, written by a former transit employee, said the ridership statistics
were unrealistic and, like the federal report, concluded tunneling was too
risky and would leave taxpayers on the line for cost overruns.
Richmond Councillor Bill McNulty, who is that city's acting mayor, insisted
local statistics on ridership and the reduction of greenhouse emissions
and traffic contradict the leaked federal report. In addition, he said, the
$350-million maximum federal contribution is actually good news for the
project, considering Dhaliwal's earlier statement that Ottawa would
contribute no more than $300 million.
"We're up $50 million, so that's very positive," McNulty said.
Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell was travelling and unavailable for
comment, but his executive assistant Jeff Meggs suggested there was
nothing new in the federal report.
Vancouver 2010 Bid Corp. president John Furlong said the RAV line was
never included in the official Vancouver 2010 bid book because the fate of
the RAV line has always been uncertain.
"RAV wasn't in the Olympic plan so this report doesn't really change the
status of the bid," Furlong said.
The RAV line's importance to Olympic organizers was always somewhat
limited because the mega-project would be primarily used by visitors -- not
by the "Olympic family" of athletes, coaches and officials.
if the RAV project collapses, regional transit officials will need to find other
ways to move the huge number of visitors expected to arrive in 2010 when
Vancouver and Whistler host the Winter Olympic Games.
Nevertheless, Furlong said the RAV line is a worthy project. Bid
organizers, he added, had hoped that the Olympic process might
accelerate the RAV line's completion by bringing the various levels of
government together behind it.
=PTP========================================
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=3B0A1C08-8708-4693-
AF91-4E406D7ED1AB
Vancouver Sun
Saturday » August 9 » 2003
B.C. ready to sacrifice RAV line for highway project
Kicking Horse project would get nod ahead of urban transit
Frances Bula
Vancouver Sun
B.C. has told Ottawa that concluding a deal on the $1.7-billion Richmond-
Airport-Vancouver line may not be possible, The Vancouver Sun has
learned.
in what appears to be an abrupt U-turn in negotiations, Premier Gordon
Campbell has indicated to federal officials within the last week that if the
federal government can't commit to both the long-term $620-million
Kicking Horse project and the RAV line, then the RAV project may not be
possible.
That's at odds with where negotiations were headed just prior to that,
according to documents obtained by The Sun.
in a July 25 letter and proposed memorandum of understanding to Prime
Minister Jean Chretien, Campbell outlined a modified offer from the
province, where Ottawa would be asked to contribute only $400 million,
instead of the $450 million it has insisted on for the past year.
That new provincial offer came a week after a critical federal report on the
RAV line was leaked to the media, with a fairly negative appraisal of the
project and a recommendation that the federal government commit no
more than $350 million and only after certain conditions were met.
in the proposal, TransLink's contribution to the project was set at $327
million, up from the $300 million currently committed, and the province's
commitment was raised to $374 million, up from its previously committed
$300 million, in order to "support the project via performance payments to
improve the public-private partnership."
in that positive and optimistic-sounding letter, Campbell wrote: "We
support the allocation of $250 million from the Strategic infrastructure
Fund, acknowledging that will limit British Columbia's future access to
those funds." That $250 million represents all the money B.C. is due to
get in the $2-billion, 10-year strategic infrastructure fund, which would
mean there was no money left over for any other infrastructure.
The province committed to naming the new line the Canada Line, with the
Canada logo prominently displayed, and it outlined a staggered federal
payment schedule of $50 million in 2004, $200 million in 2005, and $50
million in each of the three years after that.
in a separate July 28 letter to deputy head of infrastructure Canada Andre
Juneau, Campbell's chief of staff, Ken Dobell, also indicated that the
federal government would be protected from any cost overruns.
However, shortly after that, Campbell reversed positions, saying that
Kicking Horse was the province's first priority and that, if the federal
government was going to provide money for RAV, it should look for project
funding outside the infrastructure fund. It has been estimated that the cost
for creating a wider road for the crash-plagued stretch of mountain
highway is $620 million. The province and federal government have
already committed about $60 million each.
Campbell also said that it might be necessary to recognize that an
agreement on the RAV line may be impossible, despite everyone's best
efforts.
The province's apparent move to back Kicking Horse over RAV raises the
possibility of an urban-rural fight over infrastructure money that has
various political dimensions. Campbell and the provincial Liberals have
presented themselves as champions of B.C.'s "heartland." However,
federal Liberal MPs will likely be looking to argue for improved urban
transit -- an issue close to the hearts of potential federal Liberal voters in
their political power base -- as they head into an election year under a
new prime minister.
A representative from industry Minister Allan Rock's office, which has
been handling the federal-provincial negotiations on the issue since MP
Herb Dhaliwal withdrew after a perceived conflict of interest related to his
airport limousine company, declined to speculate on the consequences of
Campbell's letter to Rock outlining his new position.
"Minister Rock continues to work with the B.C. government on a host of
B.C. Infrastructure projects, with the understanding that Kicking Horse is
the province's number one priority," said communications director Selena
Beattie.
Dobell, the province's chief negotiator for the line, dismissed the idea that
the province may be looking for an exit strategy to a deal that looks
increasingly tough for the province, especially if it cannot ask the federal
government for help with cost overruns.
"The province is not looking for an out," he said.
Several deadlines the province imposed since the end of June have come
and gone already and Dobell acknowledged that "ultimately, you run out
of deadlines."
But Dobell said the province is still in intense negotiations with federal
officials.
"We are in discussions with them today, we may well be in discussions
Monday and Tuesday. It's very much the 11th hour."
He also said that the province had not changed positions. It had always
said that Kicking Horse was its first priority and that remains true.
TransLink CEO Pat Jacobsen said that "all the dialogues I've heard make
us very optimistic" and that it would surprise her if the province backed off.
Jacobsen that although the province's priority for infrastructure funds is
Kicking Horse, there are other places the federal government could go to
fund the RAV line.
"When Toronto was bidding for the Olympics, they didn't take [the federal
contributions towards that] out of the infrastructure funds. Or the airport-
rail link," said Jacobsen. "I think there is some interest that some of it be
outside the infrastructure fund."
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who has been a vocal critic at Greater
Vancouver regional district meetings of the process for developing the
RAV line, said he's flummoxed by what the province is doing.
He said GVRD directors were pressured to vote in favour of motions
needed to enable the RAV line to proceed because they were repeatedly
told that if they didn't, they would be giving up a substantial federal
contribution.
Now, he said, the province appears to be ready to pass on that federal
contribution -- which was never firm to begin with -- with no suggestion of
getting money for any alternative mass transit project.
"I don't understand how things could be so disorganized, to move down a
path so far and spend so much money, without the commitments in
place," he said.
Corrigan said he will be hugely disappointed if federal and provincial funds
don't come into the transit system, even if the RAV line doesn't go ahead.
=PTP========================================
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=D895856A-2824-4038-
888A-62AAC31234EC
Vancouver Sun
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
PM, Campbell try to keep RAV line on track
Jim Beatty
VICTORIA -- Premier Gordon Campbell and Prime Minister Jean Chretien
got together by phone late Monday afternoon to discuss the cost-sharing
dispute threatening the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line.
But officials refused to say whether they reached any agreement on the
future of the project.
"Our position is that it is a very good project. We hope at some point we
can be a partner," said Thoren Hudyma, a spokeswoman for the Prime
Minister's Office. "We're still working on it."
Hudyma refused to reveal any details regarding the conversation.
The $1.7-billion rapid-transit line faces an uncertain future after Ottawa
announced last month that it wouldn't contribute the $450 million it had
been asked to put up.
While Ottawa would normally fund the RAV line through its infrastructure
fund, it is believed Campbell asked Chretien to contribute to the
megaproject with money from a different fund.
"Both levels of government clearly recognize the urgency of the situation
and the need to get it resolved as quickly as possible," Campbell
spokesman Mike Morton said Monday.
Campbell, who interrupted a vacation to address the RAV issue, could not
be reached for comment.
The province wants Ottawa to contribute to both the $1.7 billion RAV line
and to the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway at Kicking Horse
Canyon, a $620 million project.
initially, the province maintained that both projects are of equal
importance, but it has recently said the Kicking Horse project is the top
priority.
it is believed Campbell asked Ottawa to commit its infrastructure money to
the Kicking Horse project and fund the RAV line from another,
undisclosed source.
Proponents of the RAV line say it is needed by 2010 to address exploding
growth, traffic congestion and pollution in the Richmond-Vancouver
corridor.
But the fate of the RAV line is in significant doubt, after Ottawa expressed
serious concern about its cost and effectiveness. In fact, Ottawa's
contribution to the RAV project has never been assured.
Although B.C. requested $450 million from Ottawa, a report leaked to the
media last month shows the federal government has serious reservations
about the megaproject.
The report says the transit line faces significant cost overruns, limited
ridership, won't reduce traffic gridlock and will do little to reduce
greenhouse gases.
At most, Ottawa has suggested a commitment of $350 million to the RAV
line. Even then, the money would only be granted after the completion of
underground geotechnical testing, which could expose the risk of higher
costs.
Provincial officials say time is of the essence. If the RAV line doesn't go
ahead now, it won't be ready for the 2010 Winter Olympics.
"We haven't heard anything," admitted Ken Hardie, communications
manager at TransLink, the regional transportation authority. "We're
counting on the province to do the negotiating."
Sam Corea, spokesman for those organizing the 2010 Olympics, said the
RAV line is not crucial to the transportation needs of the Games.
While Olympic officials have no official comment on the current financial
controversy surrounding the project, they acknowledge the need to make
an immediate decision to ensure the RAV line construction is complete
before 2010.
jbeatty@direct.ca
=PTP=========================================
Vancouver Sun
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
RAV line back on track for 2010
Ottawa agrees to pay $300 million toward the $1.7-billion project
Jim Beatty
"The province is quite entitled to assume there will be future infrastructure
money . . . to draw from."
VANCOUVER (CP) - A key cog in the effort to provide a smooth 2010
Winter Olympics was realized Tuesday with the announcement that public
funding is in place for a transit line connecting Vancouver, the airport and
suburban Richmond.
"The RAV (Richmond-Airport-Vancouver) project is proceeding as of
today," said Doug McCallum, mayor of Surrey and chairman of the
Greater Vancouver Transit Authority, also known as TransLink. "it's a very
exciting day for the region."
The expensive rapid transit line now has $1.2 billion in secured funding,
$300 million each from the federal and provincial governments, the
Vancouver international Airport Authority and TransLink.
The additional $300 million needed to get the minimum $1.5 billion
required was to come from the private sector.
Four short-listed companies have been selected and asked to submit
"requests for proposals," which are detailed submissions that require the
four companies to submit plans for construction and technology, said
McCallum.
He expressed confidence the additional $300 million would not be a
problem for the winning private-sector builder.
"We've been assured of $300 million from the private sector, which is
within the range we've always said we were looking at," he said.
The RAV line is a key part of the transportation plan for the 2010 Games
and also aimed at improving public transit to Richmond, a city of about
165,000 just south of Vancouver.
The line's route has been controversial with some residents, since it will
involve tearing up a broad, picturesque boulevard from downtown
Vancouver to the southern edge of the city.
The B.C. government had initially requested $450 million from the federal
government and indicated the project could not proceed otherwise.
But McCallum and Ken Dobell, the deputy minister in the premier's office,
said cost-estimate reductions assisted in getting the project to proceed
regardless.
They said the project's estimated cost was reduced by $50 million after
that initial request, leaving the federal government request at $400 million.
But although the federal government offered $400 million, the local
authorities decided they didn't want Ottawa to commit all its B.C.
Infrastructure allotment to one project.
The local authorities agreed to allocate $300 million of the federal money
to the RAV project.
"We didn't want to be seen as taking all the infrastructure money (for one
project)," said Dobell. "We felt comfortable the $300 million would leave
money for other projects in B.C."
Dobell and Jane Bird, the project director, also said they don't anticipate
cost overruns, but if that occurred they would be borne by the corporate
partner through contractual agreements.
"Contract documentation will place the risk of overruns on the private
sector," said Bird, acknowledging that didn't apply to tunnelling, which is
still under negotiation regarding cost overruns.
in Victoria, NDP Leader Joy MacPhail was predicting overruns and said
the public needs to know all the facts about the funding.
"He (Premier Gordon Campbell) has to release the
PriceWaterhouseCoopers study about what the cost projections are on
this," said MacPhail.
"He has to explain why the federal government is assuming no risk of cost
overruns."
There has been too much secrecy surrounding the project, she said.
"The facts around this have been kept secret," said MacPhail. "TransLink
won't release the studies, even to their own board members. Mr.
Campbell has released no studies to show the viability of this project."
James Moore, the Canadian Alliance transport critic, suggested the
federal contribution was inadequate.
"In 2002, B.C. motorists paid Ottawa roughly $750 million in federal fuel
taxes and an additional $378 million in GST on that fuel, making Ottawa's
total tax bite just over $1.1 billion in 2002 alone," he said.
Last year, Ottawa returned only $37 million to British Columbia for
infrastructure improvements, said Moore.
"And we're supposed to thank Ottawa for this money for the RAV
project?"
=PTP==============================================
http://www.octa.net/news/late/072103.asp
OCTA Press Release
July 21, 2003
OCTA Approves CenterLine Light-Rail Route Between Santa Ana and
John Wayne Airport
Board Votes 9-2 to Proceed With Work on Eight-Mile initial Operating
Segment
ORANGE - After hearing testimony from 75 elected officials, business
leaders and community members during a five-hour meeting, the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of Directors voted 9-2
today (July 21) to support a CenterLine light-rail route between the Depot
at Santa Ana and John Wayne Airport.
The eight-mile initial operating segment will provide service to John
Wayne Airport, the South Coast Plaza shopping center and Orange
County Performing Arts Center, Mater Dei High School, the Santa Ana
Civic Center, the County Government Center and Courthouse, the Santa
Ana Artists Village, and the Depot at Santa Ana, where it will connect with
Amtrak and Metrolink commuter trains as well as several OCTA bus
routes.
"OCTA's decision to proceed with the CenterLine project represents a
major milestone for Orange County, " said OCTA Chairman Tim Keenan.
"CenterLine is a crucial link in a balanced transportation system that will
serve Orange County residents for years to come."
The Board considered a variety of alternatives to CenterLine during the
meeting, including a bus rapid transit system, light-rail lines to western
and northern Orange County, increased Metrolink service, and shifting
money to other highway and road projects. Of the 75 speakers who
attended the meeting, nearly two-thirds voiced support for the CenterLine
route between Santa Ana and John Wayne Airport.
The revised CenterLine route will cost between $900 million and $1 billion
to build and is expected to carry 15,000 to 20,000 riders per day when it
opens in 2008.
in a related motion, the Board voted unanimously to explore options for
increasing the frequency of Metrolink commuter rail service between
Fullerton and Laguna Niguel to offer day and evening service every 30
minutes, seven days a week.
For More information:
Ted Nguyen
(714) 560-5334
tnguyen@octa.net
=PTP==========================================
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
centerline6aug06,1,4011599.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Los Angeles Times
August 6, 2003
ORANGE COUNTY
CenterLine Won't Be on Recall Ballot
Supervisors decline to seek an Oct. 7 straw vote on the light-rail project.
Supporters say a vote would have put talks for federal funding at risk.
By Jean O. Pasco
Times Staff Writer
Orange County supervisors on Tuesday rejected the idea of asking voters
whether they approve of the CenterLine light-rail project, a move
supporters said would have jeopardized negotiations for federal funding.
Supervisor Chris Norby had suggested a CenterLine straw vote on the
Oct. 7 recall ballot. Norby, who opposes the project, said a favorable vote
would "silence most of the critics, including me."
But, several speakers at the board's meeting insisted that the prospect of
a vote would have killed chances of keeping funding for the project on
target in the federal budget, which takes effect Oct. 1.
"There's a lot of scrutiny and a lot of people playing politics to get their
projects funded and not funding other people's projects," Rep. Loretta
Sanchez (D-Santa Ana) said. "it's always easy to turn back federal funds,
but it's never easy to get back our place in line."
it could be another six years before money would be available if the
project weren't funded this year, said Arthur Leahy, executive director of
the Orange County Transportation Authority, the agency planning to build
the $1-billion light-rail system using federal, state and local funds. The
local money would come from voter-approved Measure M in 1990.
Supporters should have welcomed a vote, Norby said after he managed
to persuade only Supervisor Bill Campbell to support the ballot question.
Supervisor Tom Wilson cast the deciding "no" vote but didn't comment on
his reasons.
Norby predicted that the project would "limp along" with questions about
funding and its disappearing route, which shrank last month for the fourth
time to 8 miles after irvine voters rejected city participation in the project.
The line was once envisioned to stretch 28 miles.
Leahy said federal financing had been approved and would stay on track
without a divisive political campaign against the project. An environmental
impact report is expected to be completed by early fall.
"This allows us to continue," he said.
Several speakers chided supervisors for getting involved in the issue,
accusing members of meddling in the business of OCTA, a separate
state-authorized agency. Norby and Campbell, who sit on the OCTA
board, have opposed CenterLine on that panel.
Last month, the transportation board voted 9 to 2 to continue with
planning for an 8-mile line between John Wayne Airport and the Santa
Ana Transportation Center. The same arguments that swayed a majority
of transportation board members were reiterated Tuesday for supervisors
by 19 people supporting the project.
Among the arguments: Students at Santa Ana College, working-class
people and senior citizens on retirement incomes need other forms of
transportation than cars; expanding freeways won't accommodate all the
county's future traffic needs; and voters approved the light-rail project 13
years ago when they voted for Measure M.
The latter argument prompted a sharp response from Norby, who
reminded the audience that some of the same people who favor
CenterLine also argued in favor of voting repeatedly on whether a
commercial airport should be built at the former El Toro Marine base
despite an initial 1994 vote approving the plan. After three subsequent
votes, the airport was defeated last year.
About half a dozen speakers criticized the project, saying it would bleed
riders and money from the bus system, not unclog freeways.
"If the people want CenterLine," Anaheim City Councilman Tom Tait said
in supporting an Oct. 7 vote, "I will fold my tent and shut up."
=PTP==============================================
http://www.ocweekly.com/printme.php?&eid=46304
OCWeekly
August 15, 2003
Fear Factor
The four horsemen of the suburban apocalypse
by Julian Smith-Newman
There are very good reasons to oppose the CenterLine light-rail project.
Just eight miles long, it's only slightly longer than your average thrill ride,
and—at $1 billion—about 10 times as expensive. Studies show it probably
won't seduce people out of their cars, or decrease congestion or pollution.
But that's apparently not enough for the anti-rail group Fund Alternatives
instead of Rail (FAIR). Tearing the Willie Horton page from the smear-
campaign playbook, FAIR now warns that CenterLine might trigger a
crime wave. A headline on the group's website suggests light rail would
bring to Orange County the four horsemen of the suburban apocalypse:
"Home Values Down/Noise, Congestion, and Crime UP."
The site offers links to just two sources to support its fear factor. One, a
2003 Cal State Fullerton study of property values near light rail, mentions
crime just three times in its 50 pages. The only line that appears remotely
relevant—"there are possible negative effects for properties adjacent to
the line itself and properties too close' (i.e. less than 300 meters) to a
station that could suffer the negative nuisance effects of noise,
congestion, and increased crime"—appears in bold on the FAIR site. But
"possible" and "could" are pretty tepid, and the study offers no evidence to
support the obvious speculation.
The other link is to a 1999 article in Austin Review—a conservative
publication managed by University of Texas students and funded by a
free-enterprise booster group—that emphasizes the "dark side" of light rail
by describing how a "criminal class" will "regard [the light rail system] as a
hunting ground." The author vaguely refers to "FBI statistics," but doesn't
tell us what they are, and cites numbers from the Santa Clara County
Transit District, circa 1998, that show you're about 60 percent more likely
to get hassled on a bus than on a train (23 vs. 14 assaults, respectively).
CenterLine's friends—and many foes—don't take the crime argument
seriously. "I don't think crime is a big problem," said Wayne King, a
leading figure for Drivers for Highway Safety and a staunch light-rail
opponent. Roy Shahbazian, a regular transit user and member of the Rail
Advocates of Orange County, agreed. "Nobody's going to try to do a
robbery on a light-rail line," he said. "This issue always comes up [in
transit discussions]. People play on the fears of affluent neighborhoods in
the area." Sarah Catz, a rail supporter and one-time member of the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) board, said, "Those
accusations sound so silly and ridiculous. They are obviously just scare
tactics."
But John Kleinpeter, FAIR's founder and director, swears they're not.
"There's no personal fear [of something crime-related]," he said. "I don't
want to be made out as someone who is afraid of the [light rail] system
because of crime. I don't want it to be written that i'm afraid someone from
Santa Ana is going to rob me. i've never said people riding trains are bad.
Never once have I said that. What you can gain from the [FAIR] website is
what's been written about light rail in other cities. Just like there's impact
from noise and congestion, there's also impact from crime."
But Bureau of Transportation Statistics studies from 1995 to
2000—compiled from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration and National Transit Database figures—show violent crime
is lower on light rail than on other modes of transportation.
Just in case, OCTA is willing to take extra precautions. "Customer safety
is obviously a priority," said Ted Nguyen, OCTA spokesman. "Once
platforms and stations are constructed, there'll be an overall plan set up to
address safety issues. Transit police, contracted through the sheriff's
office, will be an integral part of that."
=PTP===============================================
http://www.lightrail.com/news03-07-29-4.htm
Dallas Morning News
07/29/2003
5th Richardson rail station sought
Council offers to pay $8 million if DART will pledge to build site
By SARAH POST / The Dallas Morning News
RICHARDSON The City Council, seeking to keep alive the idea of a
downtown light-rail station, voted Monday night to relieve Dallas Area
Rapid Transit of any commitment to pay for the facility.
Council members voted, 5-2, to send a letter to DART offering to pay $8
million toward construction of a Main Street station, if the agency would
commit to building it. City officials say they need DART's pledge to build
the station because, without it, the city stands to lose $8 million in federal
funding that would pay half of the project's cost.
Ray Noah, Richardson's representative on DART's board, told council
members that a new transportation bill in the Legislature could jeopardize
the federal funding. He encouraged Richardson to "get a finger in the
dike" before serious changes are made to transportation funding
mandates.
"Or you will pretty much be stuck with what you've got because all the
money will be put to areas that haven't had funding," he said.
DART and the North Central Texas Council of Governments are trying to
determine whether there is a market and rider demand for a station, which
officials envision building just south of Jackson Street and west of
Greenville Avenue, less than a mile from the station on Arapaho Road.
City Council member Jim Shepherd said he could not support the letter
because it did not mention what sources of funding the city might use
besides taxes. He said he wanted funding spelled out and preferred voter
approval.
"What I see is a black-and-white commitment in which the city hopes to
raise money outside of taxes," he said.
Council member Bob Townsend also voted against sending the letter.
Mr. Noah said the funding source is not important to DART. irving and
Dallas have made similar offers to DART, for a Texas Stadium station and
a Love Field station, respectively. Neither city specified how it would pay
for the construction.
Richardson Mayor Pro Tem John Murphy said that any discussion of
funding is premature and that the city's priority is to get the station onto
DART's drawing board.
"No developers or land owners are going to commit to something that's
not on DART's plan," he said. "We are not shoving money across the
table tonight. We are talking about a long-range commitment."
Officials said it could be seven years or more before the station can be
justified.
"We're just trying to hold our place while we sort all this out," Assistant
City Manager Michael Wanchick said.
About 40 residents attended the meeting, but they were not allowed to
address the council before its vote. Some were opposed to spending city
money on the project.
"Number one, the station is not needed," resident Jay Dalehite said after
the meeting. "And at a time when the city is trying to pay its bills, I don't
think this is fiscally responsible."
Some in the community argue that the Jackson Street site is unnecessary
because it is minutes away from another station in Richardson.
But others said they came to the meeting to learn more about the city's
involvement with the proposed station.
"I don't know which side to take," said Ruth Mintline.
"I see both sides," said Bob Macy. "But I tend to be conservative."
E-mail spost@dallasnews.com
=PTP==========================================
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2003/07/14/focus1.html
Dallas Business Journal - July 14, 2003
IN DEPTH: LOGISTICS
Workin' on the railroad
Area planners already are studying options for a North Texas regional
transit authority to present at the 79th legislative session in 2005
Margaret Allen
Senior Writer
in an attempt to resolve a long-running Metroplex dilemma, area planners
hope to present the 79th Texas legislative session in 2005 with options for
a new regional transit authority.
The idea is to come up with a local solution, rather than have state
lawmakers force one on the region, according to Michael Morris, executive
director of the 16-county North Central Texas Council of Governments.
NCTCOG is a voluntary association of local governments established to
assist in planning regional development
"By this time next summer, we'd like to have something in place to present
to our legislative delegation, so (that) by next session, we have a specific
proposal on how the region will develop an institutional structure to carry
out this multicounty seamless transit system," Morris said. "If we don't go
out and present the options, someone else will do it for us."
Planners hope to create a single agency to oversee development of public
rail and bus transportation in a six-county North Texas region. The
Metroplex already has three separate transit agencies: Dallas Area Rapid
Transit; the Fort Worth Transportation Authority; and the recently formed
Denton County Transit Authority.
The issue of a regional transit authority proved controversial during the
78th legislative session, when lawmakers wrote bills without local
consensus.
Driving the issue is gridlock on Dallas-Fort Worth highways, a shortage of
funding and the area's non-conformance with the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments. By 2007, the region must meet standards set by the law or
risk losing millions in federal highway dollars.
A regional rail corridor study now under way is considered a key to solving
the regional transit problem. A fundamental premise of the study is
efficient land use and "sustainable development," which envisions people
living close to where they work and shop. The traditional model called for
factories on one side of town and homes on the other.
"The region can't sustain itself in the traditional mold," said Morris, noting
that legislators are no longer willing to boost taxes to pay for costly
highway construction, and that "the public will never tolerate paving the
region."
One of those continuing to lead the charge is well-known community
leader and Dallas businessman Walt Humann, a staunch advocate of a
regional approach to transportation.
Humann has met during the past few weeks with executives from DART,
the T, DCTA and the chambers of commerce from various cities to talk
about forming the regional transportation authority.
"We need to get to work now," Humann said. In April, he was among a
handful of Metroplex officials testifying in Austin against HB 2953. The bill
-- sponsored by Rep. Steve Wolens, D-Dallas, to create a regional
transportation authority -- was criticized widely in North Texas for its lack
of local input.
"We almost lost regional authority to the state in the last legislative
session," Humann said. "We had a lot of internicene warfare. We didn't
have our act together.
"it's time for us to work together as a united front because we only have
400 days left."
The 18-month, $1.5 million Regional Rail Corridor Study was
commissioned by NCTCOG to come up with solutions. Fort Worth-based
Carter & Burgess Inc. is a lead consultant.
The project is just now getting under way in earnest, said Tom Shelton,
project director for Carter & Burgess in the company's Dallas office.
The study takes a look at eight existing freight-rail corridors identified by
NCTCOG in Dallas, Collin, Tarrant, Denton, Johnson and Ellis counties.
NCTCOG has said a regional rail system could carry 58,000 riders a day.
Through a process of public hearings, NCTCOG and its hired consultants
will determine when and how corridors should be developed for commuter
rail, light rail and bus service; the cost for each corridor; the priority
corridors; a development timeline; and the development of adjacent real
estate for efficient land use.
"We can no longer continue to build more and more lanes of highways
and freeways," Shelton said. "There gets to be a point of diminishing
returns. It's not just money. But we physically cannot build the highway
lanes fast enough to alleviate the congestion."
Many options are being considered and will be presented, he said. For
example, it might be that freight and commuter rail lines could operate on
shared track; or that the commuter track might be built inside existing
rights of way and operate alongside freight lines.
With three transit agencies already in place, Shelton said the region wants
to avoid competing with itself for tight federal dollars.
"The first hurdle has been cleared," he said. "Everyone realizes we have a
problem on a regional basis and that it needs to be addressed."
Besides Carter & Burgess, which is handling the western subregion
routes, consultants hired to help are San Francisco-based URS Corp.
(NYSE: URS), lead consultant, eastern subregion routes in the Dallas
area; Atlanta-based Manuel Padron & Associates Inc., revenue and costs;
Fort Worth-based interStar Marketing & Public Relations, public
participation; Bloomington, ill.-based Dunbar Transportation Consulting,
feasibility, travel markets and planning services; and California-based
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (NYSE: JEC), railroad coordination.
Six "policy" and "technical" committees were formed to lead what Morris
envisions as a grassroots process. Each committee will have 20 to 30
members. Public hearings scheduled through early fall will enable
NCTCOG, the consultants and the committees to assess community
reaction to commuter rail, where rail stations are required and the
commercial and residential development needed around stations.
When completed, NCTCOG can apply to the Federal Transit
Administration's "New Starts Program" for federal funding for the system.
Contact DBJ writer Margaret Allen at mallen@bizjournals.com or (214)
706-7119.
=PTP===============================================
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/stories/072703dnedidmntran
sit.c4e4dbd6.html
it's time for region to unite for transit
Dallas Morning News
Thursday, August 14, 2003
in an unprecedented collaboration, the editorial boards of the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram and The Dallas Morning News have linked arms to invite
1,600 North Texas political and transportation leaders to a public transit
summit in the city of irving on Friday, Aug. 15, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The
summit will be held at the Omni Mandalay Hotel at Los Colinas, 221 E.
Las Colinas Blvd. The goal is to convince the leaders of the need to
create a unified, all-encompassing public transit agency as a means of
obtaining cleaner air, less-congested highways and a better economy. As
the invitation states, the summit may be the region's last chance to build a
self-directed solution as it moves toward a new era of sustainability.
Satan should don a parka and mittens, for Hell has officially frozen over.
No, Osama bin Laden didn't renounce violence. No, President Bush didn't
hire Molly ivins to write his speeches. No, Metallica didn't recruit Tony
Bennett to be its lead vocalist.
it's more radical and startling than that.
The editorial boards of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Dallas
Morning News have stacked their rifles and furled their standards. They've
put their mortal competition in abeyance and temporarily joined forces to
advance a noble cause in which both fervently believe: the creation of a
unified, all-encompassing public transit agency to which all the region's
more than 200 municipalities and counties would belong and contribute.
it doesn't mean that the newspapers will suspend their rivalries. It does
mean that, on this single issue, which both hold to be supremely important
to the common good, the editorial boards will take the unprecedented step
of advocating and arguing as one.
Many editorial writers for the newspapers would rather swallow fetid fish
oil than cavort with the enemy. We do it because the need is great and
the consequences of inaction enormous. We do it because we hope to set
an example of public spiritedness for a region that sometimes makes the
former Yugoslavia look like Switzerland.
if we can do it, so can the region's often fractious and quarreling political
subdivisions. If we can do it, so by God can they.
Why create a unified public transit agency?
Concisely put, because the roads are congested, the air is filthy and the
quality of life is eroding. To make matters worse, the federal government's
threat to sanction the region unless the state fulfills its 14-year-old
commitment to write an adequate clean-air plan has become a de facto
sanction. Some companies are declining to invest here either because the
roads are already chockablock or because they're concerned about what
the future costs might be.
it doesn't help that the state is failing in its responsibility to lead and that
there is no coherent instrument for helping the region to operate more as
a team and less as a bunch of strong-minded individuals with conflicting
agendas.
The region already has two good transit agencies -- Dallas Area Public
Transit and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. Another transit
agency is aborning in Denton County. But not all municipalities belong. In
fact, more don't than do. As a consequence, fewer residents are
commuting by train, bus or high-occupancy vehicle than otherwise might.
That translates into denser traffic, dirtier air and an unsustainable pattern
of economic development.
The region's jurisdictional fragmentation, its division into consortia of
public transit haves and have-nots, also translates into a reduced ability to
compete for scarce federal public transit funds. Washington tends to
frown on communities that allow their opposing interests and petty
rivalries to impede the efficient use of such funds; it tends to smile on
communities that work and plan together.
inaction is guaranteed to make the problem worse. That's because the
population is exploding. By 2030, the region's 5 million people are
expected to multiply to 8.4 million.
The impact on crowded highways, distressed air sheds and a jumpy
business climate will be predictably dire unless we act immediately, and
concertedly.
Therefore, we challenge the region's mayors, city council members,
county judges and commissioners and transit planners to come together
at a transit summit on Aug. 15, in the neutral and central city of irving.
Our goals are humble and presuppose no particular method of structure
or funding. Delegates will agree that there's a problem requiring urgent
and combined action. They'll agree that any solution Washington might
impose would be inferior to any that we might develop on our own. They'll
agree that the risk of federal sanctions in the form of freezes on highway
funds and planning and strict limits on industrial development fortify the
case for action. They'll agree to adopt by the same time next year an
implementation plan for such a transit agency, which they will in turn
propose to the 2005 Legislature.
May the 1,600 people to whom we are mailing formal invitations accept
our extraordinary challenge. May they choose to be present at the
creation. May they seize the opportunity to make Dallas-Fort Worth a
world-class place to live, work and visit. May they grasp that this may be
the last chance to create the kind of institution that the region emphatically
needs to preserve and increase its prosperity and attractiveness.
They'll be glad they did.
Besides, it's not every day that you get to see Satan wearing mukluks and
a balaclava.
=PTP==============================================
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/stories/072703dnedifwtransit
.c4e3a799.html
Dallas Morning News
07/25/2003
it's time to get on the same road
Reprinted from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
it's not fair to even imply that there is a lack of effort in North Texas to
solve the area's growing transportation and air quality problems.
People are working and studying all over the place -- 16 different groups
involved in air quality issues alone, according to the North Texas
Commission.
At least four alliances are involved in policy and advocacy on
transportation and at least two in planning, three in public transit (four if
you count the Trinity Railway Express joint venture between DART and
the T) and others working on toll roads and the like.
But there is no truly central authority that can call all of these groups
together, along with the elected and appointed officials who sanction them
and the various issue-oriented groups that would like to influence the
process.
And there certainly is no one with the authority to involve the ordinary
citizen -- made king in the process because he or she pays the tax bill.
There are 200 or more municipalities and counties in the area and,
frankly, they don't have a history of working particularly well with one
another.
The state hasn't taken a lead role. And the federal government is looming
out there somewhere both as a source of money for the right plans and as
a stern and punishing taskmaster for those who fall short of the standards.
On Nov. 10, 2002, the Star-Telegram Editorial Board, after extensive
study of the issues and years of concern, called for the formation of a
regional transportation authority as the only entity that could deal with the
magnitude of the problems.
"The term 'rush hour' is virtually obsolete in the Fort Worth-Dallas area,''
the editorial said, noting that people can seldom "rush'' anywhere, given
the area's congestion. It urged public officials throughout the Metroplex to
"accelerate discussions on forming a regional transit authority.''
That same Sunday, The Dallas Morning News called for "a unified transit
agency.''
The News said the "region's Balkanization -- into cities with separate
public transportation agendas -- hinders its ability to solve its grave
congestion and pollution problems and to make itself more attractive to
investors.''
The two editorial boards reached those conclusions independently. But
last week, the two boards took an unusual step.
invitations are going into the mail to elected and appointed officials to
attend a brief Aug. 15 meeting in irving, co-hosted by the papers, to see if
those officials can agree to bring multiple efforts under one umbrella.
With the invitations, the newspapers included a protocol statement that
said in part that "If we can agree that we have a problem that threatens
our collective well being, and if we can agree that we are powerless to
solve the problem individually, we will have moved far toward a solution.''
it asks those invited to agree that:
North Texas has a problem that won't solve itself.
The problem won't get solved without cooperation.
One of the biggest impediments to a solution is the lack of a public transit
system that encompasses and unites the region.
We will commit ourselves to keep meeting and talking and brainstorming
until we've figured out how to create that kind of system.
"The uncomfortable truth is that Washington tends to frown on
communities that let their opposing interests and petty rivalries impede the
efficient use of such funds,'' the protocol says. "It tends to smile on
communities that work and plan together.''
The document notes that if The Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram can hold their fierce competition in abeyance and work
together for this common good, so can the region's elected officials.''
it asks them to sign this statement:
"Therefore, be it resolved that we -- sundry mayors, city council members,
city managers, county judges and commissioners and transit leaders of
the region -- hereby pledge ourselves to this task. We know that the
excellence of our leadership and our collaboration will produce results that
make our communities better places to live and prosper.''
You might ask what the newspapers expect to come immediately from
such a meeting. There's no good answer beyond the obvious desire of
both editorial boards to see some form of transportation authority that can
plan and implement regionally.
That may -- no, will -- be difficult to achieve.
in 1980, voters in Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas overwhelmingly
rejected the proposed regional Lone Star Transit Authority.
But since then, the DART and the T have been formed, and a
transportation authority was just recently approved in Denton County.
Since then, the Environmental Protection Agency has demanded that the
area clean up its air or face sanctions that could halt expansion.
Since then -- 16 years ago, to be exact -- Airport Freeway traffic passed
its stated capacity of 140,000 vehicles per day.
Since then, the average amount of fuel wasted annually per motorist
because of gridlock has increased from 20 gallons to 120 gallons,
according to the Texas Transportation institute at Texas A&M University.
A typical Metroplex driver spends nearly two workweeks -- 74 hours --
stuck in traffic each year, and the congestion costs the region $1.4 billion
annually. That's about $1,390 per rush-hour driver in wasted fuel,
accidents and other expenses, the institute says.
Officials working to overcome the problems are quick to point out that
mass transit issues, highway transportation issues and air quality issues
pose differing challenges. But all those problems are best addressed via a
unified, regional approach.
Of course, there will be problems.
Some communities, at least at first, will pay for more than they get.
DART has a penny on the sales tax, but the T only has a half cent. How
will that difference be made up?
in fact, how will any of this be funded?
Some will argue that this is a problem belonging primarily to Tarrant,
Dallas, Denton and Collin counties.
To those we say: if the people and the congestion aren't in your backyard
yet, they will be.
This is already the nation's fifth-largest metropolitan area under new
federal guidelines that include Collin, Dallas, Delta, Denton, Ellis, Hunt,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties.
The population of the entire North Texas area has grown more than 30
percent in 10 years. Projections are that it will be up 20 percent in a dozen
years and up 65 percent 15 years after that and will reach nearly 10
million people by 2040.
The newspapers are not endorsing any specific plan. But they are
endorsing the concept and the effort.
The climate for regional cooperation is more favorable now than it was in
1980. The need is greater -- and more pressing.
And although the Aug. 15 meeting is directed primarily to elected and
appointed officials, it also is up to other interested groups and individuals
to seek a place at the table, volunteering their time and expertise on
committees and in public forums to address an almost overwhelming
problem.
You know what they say about shade trees, don't you?
The best time to plant one was 20 years ago. The next best time is today.
Perhaps we can plant a seed Aug. 15.
=PTP============================================
http://www.railwayage.com/feb01/dart.html
Railway Age
2003/07/24
How light rail pays its way in Dallas
Thinking outside the farebox, this southwestern metropolis is reaping big
rewards from a fast-growing LRT system.
By Luther S. Miller
The $1 fares that 37,500 riders a day pay to board light rail trains in
Dallas, Tex., cover only about 17% of the cost of their rides. Rail transit's
think-tank critics call it highway robbery. Dallas calls it something else.
The fact is that the light rail service introduced in this sprawling
southwestern metropolis five years ago is widely viewed as a solid
success, not only by the people who ride it but by a business community
that has benefited hugely from its stimulus.
That's why Dallas is pushing ahead with the nation's largest passenger rail
expansion program. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's 20-mile, 21-station starter
light rail line will soon be more than doubled in size, and then will be
doubled again to a system totaling 95 miles. It's also why outlying areas
that are not among DART's 13 member cities are beginning to clamor for
rail service. The spreading appetite for rail is whetted by a
regional/commuter service, Trinity Railway Express, that will connect
Dallas and Fort Worth by the end of this year, and in its incomplete phase
is already carrying more than 4,000 riders a day.
Urban areas elsewhere that have failed to win voter support for
transportation bond issues may take heart from the Dallas experience.
After voters rejected a transit bond issue in 1989, DART's constituent
communities voted to impose a one-cent transit sales tax. Half of that
goes for capital costs and half for an operating subsidy. This enabled
DART to build its $848-million starter system with 80% local funds, and
20% federal, a reversal of the usual formula. There's a greater federal
contribution to the ongoing building program. DART has a $330 million
full-funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration to help pay
for the 12.3-mile North Central extension that will reach Richardson in
2002 and Plano in 2003. The 11-mile Northeast extension to Garland will
be fully funded by the local sales tax.
Still more new lines are planned, and based on light rail's initial success,
taxpayers are enthusiastic. Last August DART's member cities voted by a
three to one ratio to approve long-term financing to accelerate
construction of future LRT lines to Carrolton, Farmers Branch, North
irving, South Dallas, Fair Park, Pleasant Grove, and Rowlett.
More services mean more cars, and in about five years DART will be in
the market for 80 to 100 vehicles to augment the 95 that have been
supplied by Kinkisharyo.
A class act pays off
Wherever DART has gone, business development has followed. Both
business and residential developers cite proximity to DART as important
determinants in site selection.
The economic benefits produced by DART derive from the fact that the
system is a demonstrated crowd-pleaser.
"The main secret to our success is that the system is designed to save
people time and money, and do it in a way that is safe and secure and
pleasant," says DART President and Executive Director Roger Snoble. "in
Dallas, you know, you have to do things in a way that's worthy of people's
interest. We have modern-looking trains, we have great stations, we have
art projects, we have helpful, friendly, uniformed security officers on our
trains. I think this says to people that DART is an attractive alternative to
driving in congestion." Adding to DART's reputation as a class act was the
opening late in 2000 of the $50 million, stylishly-designed Cityplace
Station in the subway section of the initial line.
"Some people said Texans would never give up their pickup trucks," says
Snoble. "That undersells the qualities of Texans. They're very upbeat,
very modern people, and they've just been waiting for some alternatives."
if rail transit is so effective, why is it so consistently fought by the think-
tank drones? Why did it fail at the polls in Austin last year?
"Where these people are coming from are taxpayers' groups that don't
want to pay tax money for anything except maybe their own projects,"
says Snoble. "I think the problem in Austin was one of taxes-you
sometimes have the same problem building highways because you're
asking the whole region to support a corridor improvement that may not
serve everybody. Then there are the people who feel their automobiles
are threatened. But they have a free choice. I always say that if you love
your car you'll take good care of it and leave it in your garage, not in a
parking lot."
Snoble is careful to suggest to visitors that the road to rail transit is not an
easy one.
"We've had people from Austin and all over the state and country come
here to look at DART," he says. "We always tell them light rail is not a
slam-bang guarantee. It's got to really be planned properly, it's got to be in
the right place. The advantage of light rail, of course, is that it has a broad
range of operating situations so it can do a broad range of jobs. We take a
lot of pride in designing the right tool for the job."
As for light rail's critics, he feels they're simply missing the point.
DART's strategy is to keep people moving, providing access to every
aspect of metropolitan life-education, jobs, shopping, health care-which is
why it touted the late 2000 opening of its new $50 million Cityplace Station
in the subway section of the initial line.
"Let's keep things moving"
"One thing that is important to point out to our critics is the economic
development that has occurred around the rail lines," Snoble says. "Light
rail is a real land-shaping tool, and we've seen it happen here big-time.
The original public investment that we put into the system has paid itself
back just in the private investment around the rail lines. It's a terribly
strong argument against the people who don't see benefits measuring up
to the costs."
Snoble freely acknowledges that the farebox pays only a fraction of
operating costs. "Our focus, quite frankly, has nothing to do with farebox
recovery. We've always said that half of that one-cent sales tax is used to
support operations and keep fares low. That's important if we're going to
get people out of their automobiles."
if DART's focus isn't on the farebox, it's very much on the economics of
mobility.
"The question is, how do you make a large urban area able to continue to
move, because that's such a critical part of every aspect of metropolitan
life, from education to jobs to shopping to health care-to everything," says
Snoble. "If a metropolitan area doesn't have good access to all the things
it offers, then it doesn't work as a good urban area any more. Our strategy
is simply, let's keep things moving."
it's a strategy that has won DART broad community approval.
"The media are big supporters; they're saying we really are making a
difference," says Snoble. "The business community is a big supporter
because if we get congested and things slow down, it costs them money.
They also don't have to supply as many parking places for their
employees. Business has, quite frankly, helped shape our policies. We're
very close partners.
"Our task is to help make Dallas continue to grow and still be a good place
to live in with a high quality of life. One strength DART has is that we are a
total transportation company. We're not just a bus company or a train
company or an HOV lane company. We're in business to move people.
We deal a lot with city traffic engineers whose business is moving cars.
We think we can balance that out a bit."
When will the Dallas system be complete?
"I don't know if we'll ever be finished, but for the next 20 years we'll be
building toward a 95-mile light rail system and 110 miles of HOV lanes,"
says Snoble. "Trinity Express will, of course, go on to Fort Worth, and
we're already working on plans for some other commuter rail lines more or
less in the northern part of the metroplex.
"There really is no let-up in the need for mass transit tools like we offer,
because the region will continue to grow and this is a way to help it grow
in a sensible, sane way."
Does DART face any big problems-funding, for example?
"We've managed our funding very well," says Snoble. "One of the
challenges is to keep everybody else's hands out of our pockets so we
can concentrate on what we're supposed to be doing-providing transit
services."
"A real challenge we have in front of us," he adds, "is that because of our
success, the cities around us that are not members of DART are saying,
'There's more to this transit thing than we ever thought, and we want to
come in as well.' But they want to come in on the cheap."
The expansion of services to cities that don't want to pay the price of
admission could be a major future problem, says Snoble. DART simply
doesn't do things on the cheap.
While some people thought Texans would never give up their pickup
trucks, DART's 20-mile starter line will soon grow to 95 miles. Pictured
above: DART's new Cityplace Station.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Photo
=PTP============================================
Dallas Morning News
07/06/2003
Trinity Fest called sparkling success
Fair organizers, DART say event improved greatly in its 2nd year
By SELWYN CRAWFORD and LaKISHA LADSON / The Dallas Morning
News
it was a blast!
That was the final word Saturday from Trinity Fest officials, a day after the
second annual event went off with more fanfare and less stress than
the inaugural affair.
"We are so thrilled with the event that we had for the city of Dallas last
night," said Carol Reed, president of the Trinity Festival Corp. "The whole
purpose was to draw attention to what I think is the city's best asset
which is the Trinity River. My hope is that one day, we will be able to bring
this event to the shore of the Trinity."
Plagued by post-event problems last year that caused downtown traffic
jams and forced some DART rail riders to wait up to two hours to catch
trains from Union Station, festival officials promised improvement.
Damon Winter / DMN
DART officials said the longest wait for most passengers was about a half
hour. After last year's Trinity Fest, some riders had to hang around the
station for two hours waiting for a train.
Massive planning, changes in Dallas Area Rapid Transit routes, additional
manpower and a smaller crowd all combined to make the 2003 event
better, officials said.
in 2002, officials estimated that nearly 300,000 people packed Reunion
Arena parking lots and the nearby area for the free celebration. This year,
with tickets ranging from $3.50 for general admission to $125 for an air-
conditioned skybox, the Reunion crowd was estimated at 75,000 to
80,000.
While the paying crowd was much smaller tens of thousands more
watched the fireworks from outside the festival grounds Ms. Reed said
she was still pleased.
"We came out of the box so quick last year with that huge crowd," she
said. "Now we can ... grow like you're supposed to grow."
Richard Michael Pruitt / DMN
Trinity Fest fireworks are reflected off the Hyatt Regency Hotel in
downtown Dallas.
DART officials pleased
DART officials also were beaming. The agency handled an estimated
45,000 to 55,000 riders Friday. The agency altered its train schedule for
the day. Its blue line skipped the Convention Center and stopped only at
Union Station, while the red line stopped at the Convention Center and
skipped Union Station. And the Trinity Railway Express, which normally
doesn't operate on holidays, ran on a limited schedule.
As a result of the changes, DART spokesman Morgan Lyons said, the
longest wait for most customers after Friday's event was about 30
minutes, with the bulk of the people cleared out by 11:15 p.m.
"It was a good day for us and a good day for our customers," Mr. Lyons
said, adding that the only thing DART may do differently next year is add
or enlarge its signs at the convention center to reduce confusion. "The
program worked for moving customers around."
Mr. Lyons said that DART had 40 buses on standby to transport stranded
rail riders if the rail stations exceeded capacity. He said about 225 people
who didn't want to wait for a train used five of those buses which all left
from the Convention Center.
Just in case things had gone wrong, police and volunteer health care
workers from Parkland Hospital and Methodist Health System were at the
ready, Ms. Reed said. Police made only one arrest during the night, for
public intoxication. Medical personnel treated 60 people, mainly for minor
heat-related incidents. Ten of those were hospitalized, but their injuries
were not serious.
There was still a problem with post-event traffic near Reunion Arena. It
took some motorists up to 30 minutes to go two blocks, but Ms. Reed,
who noted that police added more than 100 officers to help with traffic,
said the situation was still an improvement over the first Trinity Fest.
"I was sitting on top of the [Reunion Arena] garage last year, and it was
just a sea of lights out there and it looked like no one was moving
anywhere," Ms. Reed said. "This year it was not that way.
"There will always be backups," she said. "You're going to wait for DART
longer than you normally do. That's a good problem to have. That means
people are interested in what we're doing down here."
July heat
About the only problem organizers said they couldn't beat Friday was the
heat, with the high reaching 93 degrees. Ms. Reed said that Trinity Fest
officials next year would consider moving the kid's zone to a shaded
location and trying to figure out "how we soften the parking lot."
But after two years, Ms. Reed said there's no turning back now. She
declared that Trinity Fest, highlighted by the nation's second-largest
fireworks show, is ready to take its independence Day place in Dallas
alongside hot dogs and barbecue.
"Everybody's pretty much a believer that we will be having Trinity Fest in
2004, whereas last year I think everybody was kind of wondering whether
we would do it again," she said. "We're here; we're going to stay here."
E-mail scrawford@dallasnews.com
or lladson@dallasnews.com
CONTENTS
* Seattle: Sound Transit trains, buses gain riders
News Tribune - Tacoma August 30th, 2003
* Seattle: 'King County Monorail' campaign derailed, backers upset
King County Journal 2003-08-29
* Weyrich: White House off track on 'bus rapid transit'
Houston Chronicle Aug. 29, 2003
* Toronto transit comes through for 450,000 concert fans
Toronto Star Aug. 1, 2003
* LA's new Gold Line LRT appeals to USC students, workers
Daily Trojan Vol. 150, No. 01 (Monday, August 18, 2003)
* Houston: Letters pro & con on Metro's rail plans
Houston Chronicle Aug. 23, 2003
=PTP=====================================
News Tribune - Tacoma
August 30th, 2003
Commuter buses, trains gain ridership, routes
BETH SILVER; The News Tribune
More commuters are hopping on buses and trains to make the trek from
Tacoma to Seattle as Sound Transit continues to add more routes,
according to the agency's latest ridership figures.
The express buses saw an 18 percent increase in ridership in the second
quarter of this year over the same period last year. That represents about
1.8 million boardings on the Sound Transit express buses, up from 1.5
million a year ago. The Downtown Connector bus sees an average of
26,032 passengers a day.
Without the addition of the new buses, ridership would have increased by
about 8 percent over last year, Sound Transit figures show.
Ridership took a slight dip, though, on two major bus routes: the
Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle Express and the Bellevue-Seattle Express.
Mike Bergman, regional express bus program manager, said about 2
percent fewer commuters boarded the buses last quarter. He attributes
the numbers, which have been falling for a few years, to a worsening
economy. As the commuters' jobs return, though, he said he expects fuller
buses on the mainstay routes.
"The ridership decline is really starting to screech to a halt and we're
hoping in the next few months we'll see a turnaround," Bergman said.
Sound Transit saw its biggest gains on its new routes, he said, which
made up for the occasional drop-off. On average, Sound Transit's buses
are a little more than half full, Bergman said.
Meanwhile, Sounder's ridership increased by nearly the same percentage
as the express buses'. Some 179,000 people boarded the trains in the
second quarter of this year, compared with 155,000 last year at this time.
About 2,700 people ride the trains every weekday.
Sounder runs three round trips every day from Tacoma to Seattle. It plans
to add six more trips to the schedule by 2005, said Geoff Patrick, Sound
Transit spokesman.
Beth Silver: 206-467-9845
beth.silver@mail.tribnet.com
At a glance
Sound Transit express bus
- Passengers in 2nd quarter 2002: 1,564,573
- Passengers in 2nd quarter 2003: 1,850,420
- Average weekday boardings in 2nd quarter 2002: 22,290
- Average weekday boardings in 2nd quarter 2003: 26,032
Sounder Commuter Rail
- Ridership in 2nd quarter 2002: 155,569
- Ridership in 2nd quarter 2003: 179,336
- Average weekday boardings in 2nd quarter 2002: 2,331
- Average weekday boardings in 2nd quarter 2003: 2,727
=PTP==============================================
King County Journal
2003-08-29
County rules derail monorail backers
by Jeff Switzer
Journal Reporter
The dream of a suburban monorail crisscrossing King County will be
delayed, supporters said Thursday, due to difficulty meeting the county's
rules on initiatives.
Twenty-five percent of the signatures gathered to date likely will be
invalidated because of stray marks, comments in petition margins or
graffiti.
''We have thousands of signatures on petitions where somebody
inadvertently made a check mark,'' said Ed Stone, monorail volunteer
coordinator. ''That makes all of the signatures on the petition invalid.''
Citizens for King County Monorail said they plan to refile the group's
initiative to investigate a conceptual $5 billion, 59-mile monorail system
from Bothell to Federal Way, from Redmond to Seattle.
The new goal is to file an initiative in spring 2004 to qualify for the high-
profile presidential election in November 2004.
Since July 1, about 200 supporters had gathered an estimated 10,000
signatures for initiative 21. They were gearing up for Bumbershoot
weekend -- one of the last big events before the Sept. 29 deadline for
signatures -- when leaders aborted their effort.
County Council Clerk Anne Noris informed monorail backers Aug. 11 that
County Code restricts altering petitions. ''I would consider ... writing any
words, either in support or opposition, anywhere on the petition would
constitute alterations under the Code,'' she wrote.
Supporters said they are very upset and very disappointed. Some pointed
to a bureaucratic opposition of the monorail. King County has had just 21
proposed initiatives, compared to more than 80 in Seattle and more than
800 statewide.
''We will be back with a vengeance gathering signatures to go on that
ballot,'' Stone said.
The group first filed its initiative with Noris on March 24, and after several
technical revisions it was approved July 1.
Stone said the county initiative guidelines are ''much, much more
restrictive than the state's or Seattle's.'' Seattle requires just 18,000 valid
signatures and allows petitions on standard 8½-by-11-inch paper, and
allows supporters to print their own petitions at home.
King County requires petitions on 9½-by-13-inch paper. ''There is no such
thing,'' Stone said. ''it must be custom cut.''
''Doing a citizens initiative in King County is more difficult. We recognize
that, and we're going to adjust our strategy and tactics taking that into
account.''
To be heard by the County Council and possibly reach the ballot, initiative
backers need 45,000 valid signatures. Monorail supporters were shooting
for 60,000 to be safe, but now say the strict rules force them to collect as
many as 100,000 signatures.
Stone said future signatures will be gathered on a one-on-one basis.
Jeff Switzer can be reached at jeff.switzer@kingcountyjour nal.com or
425-453-4234.
=PTP=========================================
Houston Chronicle
Aug. 29, 2003
Viewpoint
White House off track on 'bus rapid transit'
By PAUL M. WEYRICH
The Bush administration is right about most things, but it is dead wrong
about one of them -- urban mass transit.
I am known for my work in cultural conservatism, for putting grass-roots
coalitions together and for efforts to liberate the former Soviet empire. If
truth be known, my real expertise is in urban mass transit. I helped to
organize a commuter group aimed at saving a threatened rail line in the
Midwest and served as Washington correspondent for a transit
publication. I did transportation appropriations work in the U.S. Senate for
six years, published a rail transit magazine for eight years, served on the
Amtrak board for six years and served as vice chairman of the Amtrak
Reform Council for five years. With my colleague Bill Lind, I have co-
authored six monographs on urban transit in cooperation with the
American Public Transit Association. So when I take issue with an
administration policy, it is because I have some background in doing so.
The Bush administration is anti-rail transit and is pushing something called
"bus rapid transit".
What is bus rapid transit? Whatever the Bush administration says it is. So
in one case, it means buses operating on a completely separate right of
way reserved just for transit vehicles; in other cases, it means buses
running in carpool lanes that can often get just as congested as regular
highway lanes; in still another case, it means buses running on city streets
with lanes reserved for buses during certain hours. There are other
versions as well. Supposedly, bus rapid transit is a substitute for light rail.
The administration says that bus rapid transit is so much cheaper to build
and achieves speeds comparable to light rail. That assertion is
questionable, but, even if true, has one major flaw. People don't want to
ride buses!
Light rail lines, on the other hand, although more expensive to construct,
have almost always attracted more passengers than projected. Many of
those users are not transit dependent but are leaving their automobiles
behind for fast, reliable trains. That will happen with sleek, modern trains.
It won't happen with buses. No matter how much the seats are made
more comfortable, a bus is still a bus.
The administration says buses are superior because they are more
flexible. Yet, that is the weakness of a bus system. Riders aren't sure if
the bus is really coming, and moreover, they aren't sure a bus rapid transit
system will be there next year. A fixed rail system is reliable and will be
there for decades to come.
Bus rapid transit may be cheaper to build, but it is not cheaper to operate.
Light-rail trains in San Diego, Sacramento and other places regularly run
four car trains in rush hour. These are long, articulated cars, so we are
looking at the equivalent of a six-car train. Los Angeles just lengthened all
of its platforms on the Blue Line to Long Beach in order to accommodate
three articulated cars that they run during morning and evening rush
hours. That line, by the way, was the last route of the once great Pacific
Electric System to be abandoned. It carried 12,000 people a day in its last
full year of operation, 1960. Substitute bus service carried only about
8,000 a day. Today, the fast, air-conditioned and reliable trains carry
about 73,000 each weekday. Thousands have left their cars to ride light
rail. Since these trains rely on ticket machines with random inspections for
operations, there is only a single operator per train. Each bus would
require a driver. Even though buses would attract a small percentage of
passengers of what light rail would get, it would require dozens and
dozens and dozens of additional operators. Labor is well over 50 percent
of the cost of operating any transit system.
Light rail is a solid means of mass transit. It can operate in the street, in a
median of highways, in a subway, on an elevated structure and so on. We
had excellent systems all over America. Most were abandoned in favor of
buses, but beginning in San Diego in 1981, light rail has made a
remarkable comeback. We were down to seven cities with light-rail lines in
the 1970s. Now 26 cities have some sort of light-rail lines. There are 19
more looking at light rail seriously. The administration has told most of
these cities that they can forget rail. The administration has implied that if
cities want federal money, they should plan for bus rapid transit.
Local officials are telling the administration that they don't want buses.
Some cities are planning to go it alone with state and local funds providing
the revenue necessary to construct rail.
Bus rapid transit is a fad. It won't last. The administration has been sold a
bill of goods, no doubt by highway interests that have always opposed rail
from the very beginning of federal mass transit involvement in 1965.
it is hard to get policy-makers to ever admit they are wrong. It would
behoove Federal Transit Administration officials to reverse themselves.
There would be dividends for doing so. Ronald Reagan, who was the
prototype conservative president for modern times, was pro-rail. Some
pundits call George W. Bush, Reagan Junior. He ought to emulate
Reagan in this arena.
Weyrich is chairman and chief executive officer of the Free Congress
Foundation in Washington, D.C.
This article is:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2074090
=PTP========================================
[PTP NOTE: More proof that congestion isn't just a matter of peakhour
work trips...]
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/La
yout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1059732962728
Toronto Star
Aug. 1, 2003
TOBIN GRIMSHAW/TORONTO STAR
Concert goers load into the TTC at Downsview station late Wednesday
night just after the Stones concert.
Smooth sailing on buses, trains
'Perfect' end to massive concert, TTC says
By 3 a.m. 'polite' crowds all well on their way home
KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
And we all made it home safely.
After fears were raised that folks would have to walk for miles all through
the night because the TTC simply couldn't handle everybody at once,
leaving the Stones concert turned out to be not so bad. The last of the
stragglers out of Downsview Park headed home around 3 a.m. yesterday,
part of the flock of 450,000 rock fans.
"Perfect. Everything came together," said TTC general manager Rick
Ducharme. "Everything was in order. We were still putting the odd bus out
at 3 a.m. because we didn't want to strand anybody.
"It went as good as any one would ever want it to go."
The TTC helped its own cause in terms of speeding up the flow by not
charging fares for patrons at the peak when the show ended after 11 p.m.
Ducharme couldn't estimate how many people got on the system free.
"Safety comes first," said Ducharme. "When we get masses of some
significance, you've got to move them through safely because trying to
stop everybody for all the fares, you create another problem and it doesn't
pay off. It's a balancing act and they (fare collectors) use their discretion
and I think everybody's happy with that."
Tina Small of Nova Scotia was particularly impressed with how smoothly
everything went, even though it took her three hours to get from the site to
her sister's home in Scarborough. She went to Wilson station - where she
was in a 40-minute line-up for a train - and got to Union in time for the
2:13 a.m. GO train eastbound.
"It was very well organized," said Small. "There were lots of police there
but they were friendly, just trying to keep crowds under control. No
shoving, no pushing."
For some people the biggest hurdle was getting out of the park itself. By 7
p.m., more people were leaving Downsview than entering. Many of them
followed the long wire fence surrounding the venue looking for an out. It
led to frustration for Davin Lindfors.
"Get me back to America," the burly 43-year-old growled. "This is a joke."
More resourceful types didn't wait for a gate, but scaled the mesh fence
and dropped to the other side.
Once on the outside, the people who thought they were beating the crowd
joined a long parade toward the Downsview subway station. Depending
on which part of the fence they jumped, the trek took as long as half an
hour. Outside of the subway station, officers from the Ontario Provincial
Police stood on either side of the milling crowd. But everyone seemed
intent on just getting home.
Even at 10:30 p.m., the cars were filling up fast. Subway trains arrived
sometimes two at a time and were no more than five minutes apart.
Band members, roadies, some VIPS and some of the media, on the other
hand, had their own exclusive way home. VIA Rail ran trains from its
Mimico rail yard to Downsview Park along CN Rail's tracks every 90
minutes or so Wednesday night.
"It went very smoothly," said Pierre Santoni, VIA Rail's regional director.
Oddly enough, the idea was hatched for a train to accommodate the
Rolling Stones, who ended up being the only act not to use it. Traffic
turned out not to be so bad, and they were able to drive along with their
police escort directly to the airport to make their getaway.
GO managing director Gary McNeil said his system carried about 35,000
extra patrons, all of them well behaved.
"We didn't really have any problems. The customers were fantastic, no
damage to any equipment, people were polite."
"Uneventful" was the word transit authorities used elsewhere in Greater
Toronto, where late buses were run to meet with subways and GO trains.
York Region Transit general manager Don Gordon said "we had probably
way more capacity out there than we ended up needing."
With files from Christian Cotroneo
=PTP=============================================
Daily Trojan
Vol. 150, No. 01 (Monday, August 18, 2003), beginning on page 17 and
ending on page 23.
New Gold Line connects downtown to Pasadena
Project cost about $859 million to build and 23 years to complete
Joanne Jou | Daily Trojan
All aboard. Pasadena locals enjoy a free ride on the newly opened Gold
Line on its opening day. The line had nearly 150,000 riders that weekend.
By SEUNG HWA HONG
Staff Writer
Freeways. Traffic. Road rage.
These are Los Angeles's trademarks, a city that sees its open roads
crowded with millions of drivers.
in an effort to alleviate Los Angeles's extensive traffic problems,
Metropolitan Transportation Authority recently opened the 13.7-mile Metro
Gold line. The light rail extends from downtown Los Angeles to east
Pasadena.
The Gold Line cost an estimated $859 million and took 23 years to
complete. MTA expects about 30,000 weekday riders for the first year.
The line runs through Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, Mount Washington,
Highland Park and Pasadena. Trains take 36 minutes to make all 13
stops in the line.
Laura Voisin George, administrative services coordinator for Facilities
Management Services and a South Pasadena resident, rode the Gold
Line on the July 26 opening. She said she first heard about the project in
2001 and has been looking forward to it.
"I like the idea of supporting public transit and reducing congestion," she
said. "My husband was very excited. He bought a monthly pass right
away."
Before the Gold Line opened, Voisin George drove the USC vanpool, a
ridesharing program for commuters.
Voisin George said she prefers taking the rail because it gives her more
flexibility in her schedule.
Some, however, said train and bus transfers are not worth the hassle.
USC fifth-year architecture student Jennifer Lew, who lives in Rosemead,
which is near the San Gabriel Valley, has another method to commute to
school.
She drives for about 15 minutes to the Health Sciences Campus, parks
her car and takes the tram to University Park Campus. The trip takes a
total of 45 minutes.
"It would take me longer to get to school if I took the Gold Line," she said.
While some will use the Gold Line for their workday commute, others said
they would use the rail for recreation.
Altadena resident Gloria Herod said she was planning to use the Gold
Line often.
"I'm retired, so me and my friends will have some place to go everyday, to
the Southwest Museum, to Chinatown to eat and shop and to the Mexican
village for taquitos," she said.
=PTP===========================================
Houston Chronicle
Aug. 23, 2003
VIEWPOINTS
Metro rail: Congestion buster or waste of taxpayers' money?
Portlanders thank Houstonians
I've just returned from an extensive automobile trip through the western
United States and I want to give a few words of encouragement to
Houstonians:
· Fat City ... While we're known as fat city, everywhere we went we
encountered many very overweight people.
· Smog City ... While we may have some smog here, Denver, Colo., and
Las Vegas, Nev., are at least as bad as Houston.
· Traffic jams ... Seattle, Wash., and Denver are worse than Houston.
Several freeways (in the middle of the day) were "parking lots," and both
of these cities have only one major north/south artery.
On the down side, the people in Portland thank Houston for supporting
their transit system. We rode all over town on $1.20 [fare].
While Houston can't make up its mind about a rail system, Portlanders are
using government assistance to expand theirs.
H. Petri, Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New plan won't help traffic
The Metropolitan Transit Authority has proposed a $640 million plan that
does nothing to move people from the suburbs to the Galleria area,
Greenway Plaza, Texas Medical Center or downtown, where most of the
pollution and congestion exist.
Jack Henderson, Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse Metro's plundering
This voter was dismayed by the Metropolitan Transit Authority's board's
decision to gut its rail plan in order to build more roads.
in 1978, voters approved the creation of Metro, as a means of funding
and implementing an efficient mass-transit system.
in 1988, voters approved a "mobility plan," whose centerpiece was a
grade-separated rail "system connector," in addition to road improvements
which were included to placate the highway interests. The roads were built
and the rail connector was not.
in the 1990s, Metro's "war chest," earmarked for rail transit, was
plundered to pave streets.
Metro has consistently strayed from its mission and has betrayed the
voters' trust. It is time to reverse the plundering by diverting revenues from
the Harris County Toll Road Authority to finance a comprehensive rail
transit system to serve the Houston metropolitan area.
David Haim, Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather dictate than serve us
The Metropolitan Transit Authority may have cut the size of its bond
proposal, but once again it is an all or nothing proposition. Why does
Metro insist on combining buses, roads and rail in one single up/down
vote?
Why won't it let the taxpayers decide what kind of transportation they want
to pay for instead of trying to shove an all-or-nothing plan down our
throats?
Put three items on the ballot -- Do you support rail expansion? Do you
support improving bus service? Do you want Metro dollars to support road
maintenance and improvement? --then go by what the citizens decide
they want.
Apparently, this is a difficult concept for bureaucrats who would rather
dictate than serve.
Wayne Herbert, Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: Feds will match dollars
Writers to the Viewpoints column have argued because of the statistics
given by rail foes such as David Hutzelman (Aug. 20 Outlook article,
"Weighing against Metro's latest white elephant") and Paul Bettencourt
[see Chronicle article, Aug. 19, "Metro cuts rail plan by almost half /
Reduction OK'd to appease foes"], that rail is a bad use of taxpayers'
dollars.
if only those statistics were true.
Hutzelman argued that, according to projections, downtown will only make
up 4 percent of the region's growth and thus, we should not build
downtown rail lines that only serve 4 percent of the population. But this is
faulty reasoning.
What matters is not what portion of future jobs will be downtown, but how
many are there now.
With 150,000 workers, we are the third-largest downtown in the country,
which makes our downtown a prime spot for light rail.
As for Bettencourt's tax projections, he has been fervently against rail for
years, so we should take any statistic he gives about rail with a grain of
salt.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority consulted two independent economists,
both of whom validated Metro's projections.
if voters want statistics, here is one: For every dollar the city spends on
rail, the federal government will match us a dollar. And none of that
money -- neither ours or the government's -- would be taken away from
road funds.
That should be a good enough reason to try something that has been
wildly successful in Dallas and other cities.
Michael Mattair, Spring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents are at it again
Last week I visited a world-class city in another state. I took an electric
train from the airport and made an easy transfer to another one that
dropped me off a block from my hotel.
I rode rapid transit to sporting events, museums and restaurants. All trains
were full of riders every time I rode.
The train back to the airport carried mainly airport workers, plus a few
travelers with suitcases.
Then I arrived home to read that the rail opponents have been at it again.
it's too bad that Mayor Bob Lanier's legacy will be that he delayed
Houston's ascension to world-class status at least 20 years by kowtowing
to the road interests.
irv Smith, Missouri City
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't please everyone
Travel to any major city in the United States and you will find that you can
step off the plane and onto a fixed-rail platform that links the airport to
most popular destinations.
A car is not necessary in Atlanta, New York or San Francisco.
Yet the Metropolitan Transit Authority board has decided to appease
many critics by scaling down its original plan, which would have linked the
airports and connected our neighborhoods from east to west.
The new version is a poor attempt at "something is better than nothing."
You cannot please all of the people all of the time, but, in this case, Metro
has succeeded in alienating its supporters (such as myself).
Bill Boudreaux, Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remembers the 'Dinky'
Having grown up in the suburbs of Houston -- Fulshear, straight out
Westheimer -- we had a train. It was called the "Dinky" and it ran from
Eagle Lake to Houston and back, daily.
How great it was as a teenager to get on the train, ride to Houston, shop,
have a nice lunch, see a movie, etc., and then head back home.
With the population of the suburbs increasing daily, why not let them have
this same experience?
in the convention business, it is said: "Build it and they will come." As for
rail: "Build it and they will ride."
Patsy Sabrsula, Houston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if Dallas can do it, so can we
Regarding the planned light rail: There were many naysayers when the
tollway was in the planning stages and look at it now! Used by countless
thousands daily. No city can construct rail going north, south, east and
west at the kickoff, but if 2,000 people ride it daily, that would be 2,000
people off of the freeways. If Dallas can do this, Houston can.
Mary Joe Nixon, Livingston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expecting 2 million more here
With Metro's vote to halve their proposed rail addition, Houston has been
set back to the 19th century. Having used the rail facilities in Chicago, ill.,
and Washington, D.C., I have been longing to see Houston move forward
to solve its mobility crisis. (And a "crisis" it is, don't let anyone fool you!)
Two million more people are expected in Houston in the not-too-distant
future. They will have to drive horses and buggies to get around in our city
because of its antiquated mobility system.
One thing is very clear: The "reluctant" vote was a sissy vote. One should
stand up for what one believes in and let the devil take the hindmost.
June R. Blasiol, Houston
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2061341
CONTENTS
* Weyrich: Seattle wise to add LRT (op-ed)
Seattle Times Wednesday, August 06, 2003
* O'Toole: 'Cruising to disaster' on LRT (op-ed)
Seattle Times Monday, August 25, 2003
* Letters respond to O'Toole diatribe
Seattle Times Sunday, August 31, 2003
* Kuala Lumpur monorail finally opens
New Straits Times Aug 30 (2003)
* Salt Lake: Suburb gets promise of earlier LRT
Salt Lake Tribune WEDNESDAY July 30, 2003
* Vancouver BC: Coquitlam SkyTrain could take decade to install
Vancouver Sun Saturday » August 2 » 2003
* Bush admin seeks to kill California air quality rule
Associated Press Saturday, August 30, 2003
=PTP========================================
Seattle Times
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Seattle is wise to add light rail to its transit mix
By Paul M. Weyrich
Special to The Times
The Greater Seattle area is at long last poised to join other major cities in
America in doing something very smart: building a light-rail transit system.
This is one of the best things elected leaders from the area could do to
improve mobility, stimulate the area's economy and improve quality of life
for citizens.
As someone who is a conservative and who watches trends in
transportation policy from the national level, I can assure you that Seattle
is on the right track.
Transit serves some important conservative goals, including economic
development, helping move people off welfare and into productive
employment, and strengthening the bonds of community.
Time after time around the country, our most dynamic cities have turned
to rail transit as an antidote to congested freeways, expensive housing
and stagnating economies.
As a final federal decision nears, critics have predictably intensified their
attempts to stop the project. The latest argument seems to be that light
rail won't relieve highway congestion. That's a red herring, and here's why.
Common sense tells us, contrary to the laments of the anti-transit critics,
that transit can and often does relieve congestion. There are examples
around the country of communities such as Portland, Dallas, Denver and
St. Louis where light-rail transit is taking cars off the street.
St. Louis's Metrolink provides a good example: it is removing about
12,500 cars from St. Louis's rush-hour traffic every day and 79 percent of
its riders were new to public transit.
Some 3.2 million people live in the strip of land between the Cascade
Mountains and Puget Sound. The number is going to increase by another
1.4 million in the next 20 years, according to the last census. Simply put,
there is no room for these folks on the existing highways.
Light rail is being designed to absorb a big chunk of this growth by giving
people an alternative they are likely to choose. In the process, light rail will
help keep the highways moving.
The initial light-rail segment in Seattle is projected to carry 42,500 riders
per day, including 16,000 new public-transit riders. The light-rail project is
being designed to accommodate future expansions that would carry more
than twice that number of people.
While I have some concern about the cost of the stations, the incremental
costs of future expansions will be lower because of the expandability of
the first segment.
There is no question that roads play a dominant role in the transportation
system. After all, this is America, and we do love our cars. But the fact is,
our reliance on roads costs us money. Billions of dollars are lost each
year as a result of people and goods being jammed into the same
overcrowded freeways. And while Seattle has a good bus system, buses
alone will not solve this problem, because they end up stuck in the same
traffic jams with everyone else.
it's a fact that the most-effective alternative to congestion is rail transit. It
has been repeatedly demonstrated around the country that the one choice
people are regularly willing to make, other than their cars, is rail.
I've seen this pattern repeat itself in Portland, Salt Lake City, Denver, St.
Louis and a host of other cities. Seattle would be wise to follow suit.
Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress & Research
and Education Foundation. Weyrich, with his colleague William S. Lind, is
the author of "Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal."
=PTP===========================================
Seattle Times
Monday, August 25, 2003
Cruising to disaster on light rail
By Randal O'Toole
Special to The Times
Seattle's plans for an expensive and largely useless light-rail line have
become the laughing stock of the transportation world. If built, the line will
enrich engineering and construction firms and gratify transit-agency egos.
But nothing more will result other than to take dollars from taxpayers'
pockets.
After studying light-rail operations in my hometown of Portland and other
cities, I am surprised that people such as Paul Weyrich, with the Free
Congress & Research and Education Foundation, still think light rail can
reduce congestion ("Seattle is wise to add light rail to its transit mix" guest
commentary, Aug. 6). Let's look carefully at the record for other cities.
Weyrich claims light rail removes 12,500 cars from St. Louis rush-hour
traffic each day. Yet the 2000 census revealed that the number of St.
Louis-area commuters who ride transit to work declined 19 percent since
light rail opened. How does that reduce congestion?
Even if rail did remove 12,500 cars each day, what good is that in a region
where people take 5 million or more auto trips a day?
in regions the size of St. Louis and Seattle, daily auto trips grow by 12,500
each month. That means you can spend a billion dollars and five years
building a light-rail line, and a month later any congestion relief is gone.
Weyrich also claims success in Portland, Dallas and Denver. Federal data
show that Portland light rail carries just three-quarters of a percent of
regional passenger travel. That's not much of a return for something that
cost nearly half the region's transport budget.
At that, Portland's light rail carries a larger share of regional travel than
any other light-rail system in the country. Denver's light rail carries less
than a quarter of a percent of regional travel, Dallas just a tenth of a
percent.
These lines actually increase congestion since they often occupy lanes
that could otherwise be open to cars.
Rail boosters argue that one rail line has the capacity of an eight-lane
freeway. But it's use, not capacity, that counts. Light rail is so slow and
inconvenient that no light-rail system in the country carries more people
per mile than two-thirds of a freeway lane. Since a typical light-rail mile
costs as much to build as a five- to 10-lane freeway, rail is simply not cost-
effective.
if Seattle builds light rail, it will probably follow in the tracks of San Jose,
Calif., whose light-rail cars carry fewer people than San Francisco cable
cars. Partly because its light-rail lines cost more to operate than the buses
they replaced, San Jose's transit agency is suffering a fiscal crisis, forcing
it to shut down many bus routes. Yet it is stubbornly building more light-rail
lines that it has no money to operate.
After looking at federal census and transportation data, only someone
who is deluding himself, or trying to delude you, would say, as Weyrich
does, that "light rail will help keep the highways moving."
So what is the solution to Seattle congestion?
Transportation expert William Eager calculates that Seattle could relieve
today's congestion and absorb 30 years of traffic growth by adding just 6
percent new lane miles to the region's highways. These could be high-
occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes — free to high-occupancy vehicles, open to
other vehicles that pay tolls that help pay for construction. Since
commuters make up less than half of rush-hour traffic, varying tolls by
time of day would reduce congestion without hurting workers.
Whatever the answer to congestion, it must recognize that more than 90
percent of Seattle-area travel will always go by car. Light rail doesn't
relieve congestion; all it does is spend your money.
Randal O'Toole is director of the American Dream Coalition,
www.americandreamcoalition.org, and author of "The Vanishing
Automobile and Other Urban Myths." He also is an economist with The
Thoreau institute in Bandon, Ore. E-mail him at rot@ti.org.
=PTP========================================
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001679024_sunlets31.ht
ml
Seattle Times
Sunday, August 31, 2003
Letters to the editor
Getting around
Events may force many cars off roads faster than we expect
Editor, The Times:
it's fairly easy to shoot down Randal O'Toole's "straw man" statistics
about transit ("Cruising to disaster on light rail," Times, guest commentary,
Aug. 25). For example, anyone who has ever been to San Francisco
knows that no transit mode in the world will ever equal the cable cars for
density of ridership. Setting the cable cars as the benchmark is like
comparing your wife to Marilyn Monroe, something no sane man would
ever do.
The important stats, however, are the rising cost of extracting oil and the
falling interest of the Bush administration in preparing for the end of the
age of oil. Throw in a generous dose of aging boomers who want to get off
the road before an insane SUV driver pushes them off, and you have a
potential market that may, due to events beyond our control, grow
substantially before another decade has passed.
in the '50s, Boeing made a bundle betting that jet airplanes would replace
trains.
in the '90s, another bundle was made by those who bet that computers
would replace paper. When The Times resolutely insists that new
highways are needed to deliver tons of newsprint to lethargic readers,
they're missing the big picture.
Times change and O'Toole's assertion that cars will always be 90 percent
of the transport solution is palpably absurd — and no help at all in facing
the onrushing future.
- Terry Scott, Belfair
Light rail's not magic, but it's a start to solving traffic congestion
I find it interesting that in all the cities that have put in light rail, the
systems have expanded. The expansion is due to passenger demand, not
politicians' egos. Seattle desperately needs a system and it needs it now.
We need to start breaking out of our auto and bus dependency and put
alternatives in place that should have been there all along, such as
commuter trains and light rail.
Light rail isn't going to magically reduce congestion, but it's a start. It's a
fact that rail cars running on rights of way that include stretches of private
rights of way attract far more riders than a conventional bus system.
Building more lanes on the freeways is an exercise in futility unless
someone can persuade the automakers to stop building automobiles for
the next 10 years so the road expansion can catch up to the cars that are
already out there!
Seattle is the last city of any consequence on the West Coast that doesn't
have such a system. What do all the other cities in the country know that
we don't seem to know? There is a light-rail renaissance going on all over
the world as cities rediscover how to make light rail work for their
transportation needs. Randal O'Toole, show me a light-rail system that
has been a failure. I don't know of any.
- John Cox, Seattle
Forced changeover
Randal O'Toole of the American Dream Coalition argues that "Light rail
doesn't relieve congestion; all it does is spend your money."
O'Toole doesn't realize that light rail is a replacement for the private
automobile and is designed to work with the public bus system in moving
large numbers of people at a much lower cost in fuel than highways full of
cars. World oil production (from many sources) is expected to peak during
this decade, if the peak has not already occurred. The changeover away
from cars is being forced upon us.
Richard Heinberg's recent "The Party's Over" and Walter Younquist's
"Geodestinies" are quite good on the subject of oil depletion, as is an
internet search.
- Marvin Gregory, Renton
Cruising to success
Randal O'Toole's anti-transit diatribe extols our automobile-dependent
transportation system. A glance at Seattle's rush-hour traffic speaks
volumes about the credibility of his premise. Transit doesn't aim to unclog
freeways, but to provide viable alternatives to cars. American transit
ridership has been hitting its highest levels in nearly 40 years. So, O'Toole
tries to bash Portland's light rail for failing to carry much "regional
passenger traffic" in a region that includes Vancouver, Wash., not even
served by light rail.
Portland's a hard target. Ridership growth has outpaced growth in both
population and vehicle-miles traveled, and it has actually increased
transit-mode share of work trips. So O'Toole pounces on poor San Jose's
light rail and its transit budget crisis. But all of California has a budget
crisis — or maybe O'Toole hasn't heard? Besides schools and highways,
every transit agency is hurting, including Oakland's huge AC Transit all-
bus system.
Between 1990-2000, U.S. transit registered an impressive 16-percent
growth in passenger-miles. Of total growth, rail accounted for fully 84
percent, with light rail growing by more than 137 percent. Seems like rail
transit is cruising, not to "disaster," but to success.
- Lyndon Henry, transportation planner, Austin, Texas
Enticement factor
Randal O'Toole understands little but is good with the sound bites.
"Removal" of cars from rush-hour traffic? Analytic fiction. In the real world,
high-quality transit gets used for more than just the daily commute. If
O'Toole compared those 2000 census figures with rail ridership in
Portland, St. Louis, Dallas, Denver and elsewhere, he'd be forced to admit
that rail attracts more "nonwork" trips than previous bus services. This is
significant because nonwork trips are the majority of all trips in urban
areas.
Add 6 percent to our region's total highway lane-miles — "highway," not
just "freeway" — to relieve today's congestion and absorb 30 years of
traffic growth? Yeah, right. That would require tens of years and tens of
billions. No metropolitan region has ever made traffic congestion go away.
The practical "solution": high-quality alternatives to private autos.
"Disaster" has indeed befallen Portland's freeway supporters. There's not
much prospect for expansion, and one section through downtown
Portland has even been removed. High-quality transit cannot "force"
people out of their cars, but it has a demonstrated ability to "entice" them
out. Sounds like what O'Toole and other pro-sprawl types fear most.
- Leroy Demery Jr., Bainbridge island
=PTP===============================================
http://www.emedia.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/2003083
1085122/Article/
New Straits Times
Aug 30 (2003)
PM to launch KL Monorail today
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 30: The KL Monorail transit system officially
opens tomorrow.
The Transport Ministry had ensured all the safety mechanisms were in
place before issuing the operating licence to the operator, said Patrick
Wong, executive director of MTrans Holdings, the parent company of KL
Monorail System.
"Security is not an issue anymore because all precautionary measures,
including redesigning of certain parts of the system, have been done to
minimise all technical risks," Wong said today.
The RM1.18 billion inner-city transit system was to have been launched
last September, but was postponed after a 13.4kg safety wheel came off
and fell on a Bernama reporter who was walking under the overhead
tracks during a trial run on Aug 16 last year.
"The Railways Department often checked on our progress. Until a
fortnight ago, they had been making daily checks," said Wong.
The official launch by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at
2.30pm tomorrow will be held at |
