PTP Digest 2003/10/30-A = CONTENTS

* Seattle: Huge Road Warrior victory as court zaps transit tax
   KOMO-TV News - Seattle October 30, 2003

* Honolulu ed: Gov's transit projects are 'good start'
   Honolulu Star-Bulletin Wednesday, October 29, 2003

* Honolulu: GOP creates 'gridlock' on transit tax plan
   Honolulu Star-Bulletin  2003/10/29

* Houston: Anti-rail group sued for refusing to name contributors
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 29, 2003

* Houston letters:  Admire, despise anti-rail pols
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 30, 2003

* Sacramento: LRT, BRT, traffic lanes & a neighborhood
   Sacramento Bee  Tuesday, October 28, 2003

* Orange County businesses in path of CenterLine LRT
   Costa Mesa Daily Pilot Wednesday, October 29, 2003



=PTP==============================================

http://www.komotv.com/news/printstory.asp?id=28040

KOMO-TV News - Seattle
October 30, 2003

Eyman Wins: $30 License Tab Measure Upheld

By KOMO Staff & News Services


OLYMPIA - The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Tim Eyman's
initiative 776, last year's measure that abolished local taxes and fees on vehicle
registration, stripping Sound Transit of one of its largest sources of money.

in a 6-3 decision, the court overturned a King County Superior Court judge who
had ruled that I-776 violated the constitution by addressing more than one
subject and impairing Sound Transit's ability to pay off its bondholders.

The decision is a rare victory in the courts for Eyman, the anti-tax activist who
has seen two of his most popular initiatives struck down by the high court.

"Two things happened that made the difference," Eyman said. "We hired better
lawyers and the majority of the court moved closer to the voters."

The court's majority rejected the notion that the initiative's requirement that
voters approve changes to transportation plans and programs was a second
subject. In her opinion, Justice Susan Owens noted that the single-subject rule
was intended to prevent the practice of "logrolling," or passing two unpopular
laws by creating an impromptu coalition of their supporters.

"The constitutional prohibition against legislative vote swapping plainly applies to
the passage of two or more 'unrelated laws' - not to the passage of one law that
contains policy expressions indisputably devoid of any legal effect," Owens
wrote.

i-776 passed last November with 51 percent of the vote. In a bid to guarantee
everyone in the state $30 car tabs, it eliminated a $15 road improvement fee in
four counties - King, Pierce, Snohomish and Douglas - and killed Sound Transit's
motor vehicle tax, which is collected in parts of King, Snohomish and Pierce
counties.

After the court's ruling, tabs fell to nearly $30 everywhere in the state except
Seattle, where new taxes for the proposed monorail system, approved by voters
at the same election as I-776, drive the price up.

Sound Transit, which Eyman attacked for changing the light-rail projects voters
approved when they created the agency, stands to take a $699 million hit, the
agency estimated last year. The tax levied $60 on a car worth $20,000.

Losing the $15 fee will cost King County and its cities an estimated $218 million
over 10 years. Pierce and Snohomish County would each lose about $80 million,
and Douglas County would lose $4.4 million, according to estimates by the state
Office of Financial Management.

Sound Transit had no immediate comment on the ruling, but scheduled an
afternoon news conference to discuss it.

Joining Owens in the majority were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices
Barbara Madsen, Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, and Mary Fairhurst.
Justices Faith ireland, Bobbe Bridge and Tom Chambers dissented, agreeing
with Sound Transit and the other local government agencies that battled the
initiative.

"First, it limits the amount state and local governments may charge for motor
vehicle licensing," Chambers wrote. "Second, it calls for ... counties to halt
development of a voter-approved light rail transit system until the funding
mechanisms are revisited and reapproved. These subjects are not rationally
related, and therefore the initiative violates our constitution."

Of the four Eyman-sponsored anti-tax ballot measures voters approved in the
last four years, two - 1999's initiative 695 and initiative 722 in 2000 - were struck
down by the courts, although the I-695's abolition of the statewide car-tab tax
was quickly adopted by the Legislature.

But for 2001's initiative 747, which limited the growth of property taxes, he
sought the help of Jim Johnson, a prominent appellate attorney, and the initiative
drew no challenge. Johnson also worked on I-776.

The case is Pierce County et al v State of Washington et all, No. 73607-3.



=PTP============================================

http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/29/editorial/index.html

Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com
Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Editorials


Gov's transit projects are a good start on a long road


THE ISSUE

The governor is proposing to build a light-rail system and an elevated highway to
ease Oahu's traffic congestion.


IT APPEARS that Governor Lingle has cleared a major hurdle in solving Oahu's
snarling traffic problems by getting key federal, state and city officials to sign on
to her plans to build a light-rail transit system and an elevated highway. She will
need all her political skills to keep them on track and for the more difficult task of
winning the public's approval for the tax increases she says will be necessary to
pay for the projects.

Although the federal government typically foots as much as 80 percent of the bill
for such transportation ventures -- and there are no assurances it will do so for
this project -- the balance will have to come from residents' pockets. With the
total cost for both proposals estimated at $2.8 billion, Hawaii's portion still
represents a sizable chunk of money.

Whatever the case, the rail and road plans have a long way to travel. The
governor can anticipate resistance from legislators, who may be reluctant to
raise taxes, and from neighbor island residents, who may not see tangible
benefits of a transit system on Oahu.

Lingle and her task force unveiled their plan for an elevated light-rail system that
eventually would span 22 miles from Kapolei to Iwilei along Oahu's southern
coastline, following Farrington, Kamehameha and Nimitz highways. An elevated,
two-lane highway above Nimitz would be used initially to funnel traffic east
toward downtown in the mornings and west in the afternoons. The structure,
running from the Keehi interchange to Pacific Street, would be incorporated later
as part of the rail line. Officials hope construction of the Nimitz project will be
complete in six years and the rail system in 15 years.

Lingle properly recognizes that her rail proposal doesn't negate the need for the
city's bus system and Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit project, which is poised
for start-up next year. Rail transit will not reach valleys and ridges or
communities beyond Iwilei and Kapolei, where drivers face traffic jams as vexing
as those in West and Central Oahu.

What may be the most challenging obstacle the governor will face is convincing
taxpayers in other counties that what may appear to be costly projects to help
Oahu residents will benefit them as well.

To raise money, Lingle's task force is considering increases in a variety of taxes,
some administered by the counties and others by the state. It may be difficult to
persuade Kauai or Maui residents that paying a higher state excise tax will
benefit them somehow. The governor will need to find a way to show how better
traffic movement in Honolulu will bolster the economic well-being of the whole
state and why neighbor island taxpayers have just as much of a stake in Oahu's
transit future as city residents.



=PTP==========================================

http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/29/news/indez.html

Honolulu Star-Bulletin
2003/10/29

Lingle's tax hike idea hits gridlock

Senate Republicans do not want to raise taxes to pay for
a mass transit system


By Richard Borreca and Crystal Kua
rborreca@starbulletin.com ckua@starbulletin.com


Gov. Linda Lingle's call for a tax increase to pay for an ambitious new mass
transit system has failed to generate support.

On Monday, Lingle and city and state officials announced proposed solutions to
Oahu's traffic congestion that include a $2.6 billion rail transit system and a $200
million elevated road above Nimitz Highway. The preliminary plan won
immediate bipartisan praise, but legislative and other leaders were not
embracing Lingle's call for higher taxes.

Senate Republicans voted yesterday to take a caucus position against the
increase.

"I support the concept and I applaud the governor for bringing people together,
but I can not support a tax increase," said Sen. Fred Hemmings, GOP Senate
leader.

Hemmings said he had told Lingle on Monday that he could not support a tax
increase.

Hawaii Kai Republican Sen. Sam Slom went further, saying he didn't like either
the plan or the tax increase.

"I am absolutely opposed to tax increases and opposed to the fixed rail concept.
... I am disappointed that the governor is going to abridge her most vaunted no-
tax pledge," Slom said.

The Republican House leader, Rep. Galen Fox, said he also had taken a pledge
not to vote for a tax increase, so he was considering various aspects of this tax
proposal.

if the tax was imposed only for the construction of the rail line, Fox said, it could
be considered a user fee, which wasn't part of the no-new-taxes pledge. "But it is
quite possible that the tax proposal would be too high for me to support," he
added.

Democrats also hailed the plan, which is scheduled to be completed by 2018,
but backed away from support of a tax increase.

House Speaker Calvin Say, a Democrat, said the transit line is needed and 10
years ago the Legislature approved a plan to permit the Honolulu City Council to
raise the excise tax in Honolulu by half a percent to fund a transit line. While that
plan passed the Legislature, it failed by one vote in the Council.

Say added that while he "would be open" to a tax increase, it would depend upon
Lingle asking for the increase and then the position of his fellow Democrats.

"If she doesn't come up with a proposal, we would have nothing to support," Say
said.

Two key critics of the original plan, Hawaii Tax Foundation Director Lowell
Kalapa and Cliff Slater, a leader of the Alliance for Traffic improvement, said the
new transit plan would not work.

"She needs a reality check," Kalapa said of Lingle. "The people who voted her
into office were the most disgruntled about paying so much for government."

The transit plan would be fine, Kalapa added, if the state and county would pay
for it by limiting spending and reallocating other resources.

Slater, who favors building a reversible two-lane highway from Waikele to
downtown, said the logic of building any transit system is flawed.

"People use roads. You have to convince people to use mass transit," Slater
said.

A new mayor will be at the helm of the city's transit decisions after next year.

Mayoral candidate Duke Bainum, the former City Council transportation
chairman, said the light rail system tied into the city bus system is similar to what
he has been supporting.

But Bainum said that talk about raising taxes is premature. He said it is better to
wait for the overall cost of the project and learn how much federal funding can be
obtained before deciding on taxes.

"I'd be concerned about any tax increase. With that said, I am aware that federal
dollars will be difficult to obtain," Bainum said. "If a tax increase were required, i
would certainly closely scrutinize any tax increase proposal and make absolutely
sure the increase would result in a meaningful improvement in Oahu's traffic
problems."

Opponent Mufi Hannemann said whether the state raises taxes or floats bonds
to pay for a rail system, the taxpayer is going to get hit in the pocketbook.

"Our options are very limited given the dire financial straits the next mayor is
going to inherit. Therefore this may be our only option but I've always said that
tax increases should be looked upon as a last option," Hannemann said.

City Councilman Charles Djou, a Republican, said he doesn't like raising taxes
either but sees a difference with the rail system being proposed.

"The taxpayers will see a tangible product at the very end. It's a little bit different.
It doesn't mean though, however, that I'm enthusiastic about raising taxes."

Djou said that voters should be asked for their opinion. "Perhaps what needs to
happen is send this to the voters and have the voters actually decide it on a
ballot as to whether or not they like the idea of raising taxes," he said.

Councilman Donovan Dela Cruz, who is expected to become the new Council
chairman tomorrow, said even though he represents parts of Central Oahu, the
North Shore and Windward Oahu -- areas not served by the rail line -- the project
will be good for his constituents as well.

"The less people we have on the road coming from Kapolei and Ewa, that means
less congestion for people coming from the North Shore and Central Oahu."

But Dela Cruz said more information is needed before deciding on a tax hike.



=PTP=============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 29, 2003

Anti-rail group sued for refusing to name contributors

By ALAN BERNSTEIN


Joined by former Houston Mayor Fred Hofheinz, a group of political activists who
favor Metro's light rail expansion plan sued an anti-rail group Wednesday for
refusing to reveal its campaign contributors.

The group, Pro-Rail Houston, is seeking damages of twice the amount of the
money collected and spent by Texans for True Mobility.

TTM, which is criticizing Metro's plan in ads funded by its nonprofit corporation
designed to guarantee anonymity for its donors, called the lawsuit a groundless
and misguided political stunt.

Metro's transit plan is on the ballot in Tuesday's election.

TTM's refusal to disclose its contributors is also the subject of a complaint by the
public advocacy group Common Cause Texas to the Texas Ethics Commission
and a criminal investigation by Harris County prosecutors in response to a
Houston Chronicle complaint.

But Wednesday's lawsuit and the other actions apparently can't force TTM to
reveal anything before the election.

Admitting as much, Pro-Rail Houston said it went to court Wednesday instead to
promote the rail plan and put TTM and its contributors on notice that eventually
they may have to pay damages for breaking state election law. Pro-Rail Houston
alleged at a news conference that TTM has formed a "secret society" that
undermines the political process by hiding the identity of its backers.

"That loophole is really having an effect on this election," Hofheinz said at the
downtown Civil Courthouse, as one block away Metro showed off the rail cars
scheduled to run on Main Street starting Jan. 1.

As he has argued for weeks, TTM lawyer Andy Taylor said a few hours later that
the corporation is exempt from state election laws that require candidates and
political committees to disclose the names of their contributors and the amount
of money they have donated.

TTM is protecting the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, by not
voluntarily disclosing donors, Taylor said. Even disclosing the number of donors
and the total amount given, without making public the names, would erode
TTM's constitutional stand, he added.

Pro-Rail Houston is "trying to undermine the true (anti-Metro) message of our
fine organization," Taylor said.

He pointed out that the NAACP and other groups have used carefully structured
campaign organizations to run political ads without revealing their donors.

Pro-Rail Houston includes Harris County Democratic Party Chairman Gerald
Birnberg, former Democratic judicial candidate Terry O'Rourke and former
Republican judicial candidate Rod Gorman.

The Common Cause Texas complaint alleges that TTM at least had to disclose
its campaign expenses under state election law. The state ethics commission
usually takes months or years to investigate complaints and can fine violators.

Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said the results of his staff's
investigation won't be revealed until after the election because he doesn't want to
affect the election. Criminal violation of state election law carries a maximum fine
of $500.

Pro-Rail Houston said that under the law that controls this kind of case it cannot
ask a judge to immediately order TTM to publicly name its donors.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2190958



=PTP================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 30, 2003

Viewpoints

A fine public servant

Two Democratic congressmen from the Houston area have seized on this
dispute over cost estimates to impugn Rep. Culberson's effectiveness and
integrity. Houstonians should see this exactly for what it is: an ill-informed,
partisan attack on a respected member of Congress.

As a member of the Transportation, Treasury and independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Culberson
has worked diligently to ensure that Metro reports its financial status accurately
and completely, that its estimates for future grants are thorough and that the
Houston area gets its money's worth from Metro. Culberson has asked the
questions that others would not and conducted the research that others left
undone.

His hard work on my subcommittee and, in particular, his meticulous oversight of
Houston's federal transit dollars, has been admirable. He should be commended
as a fine public servant who is looking out for the best interests of his
constituents.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R- Okla., chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury and independent Agencies Appropriations




Plan lacking public input

[U.S. Rep. John] Culberson, R-Houston, and [Harris County Judge Robert]
Eckels claim that the Houston Galveston Area Council's "100 percent Solution"
(that they worked on) is better than the "Metro Solutions" plan and called it
"hastily approved" (see Culberson's Oct. 22 Outlook article, "Choose the '100%
Solution' over Metro's").

However, the Metropolitan Transit Authority has been working on this program
and aiming toward this vote for six or seven years.

During that time (at the behest of [U.S. Rep. Tom] DeLay, R-Sugar Land) Metro
hired the best traffic consultants to study the alternatives for the Houston region,
held countless public meetings seeking input from the public, formed a plan and
revised it to reflect the suggestions offered in additional meetings with the public
and finally asked the public to vote.

That does not sound like it was "hastily approved" to me.

Where were these two during the last several years while these public meetings
were being held?

Where was the HGAC during this time?

Why weren't these ideas brought up for discussion and consideration by the
public then?

Now they would have us believe that they have the best plan -- which they trot
out within days of the election so that Metro has no time to respond.

Their plan has not been through the rigorous public hearing process for
comments.

Their plan for a commuter rail along existing rail corridors was studied during the
[Mayor Bob] Lanier administration and rejected as "too expensive."

Their plan was created by politicians, not professional traffic-engineering
consultants.

Now tell me: Which of these plans was "hastily" thrown together?

D.J. Marsh, Houston


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2190605



=PTP================================================

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7683182p-8623073c.html

Sacramento Bee
Tuesday, October 28, 2003

RT rejects proposal to raze homes

Residents air complaints about the Truxel Road blueprint that would need space
for light rail.

By Tony Bizjak -- Bee Staff Writer


With pleas and angry complaints from South Natomas residents ringing in their
ears, Sacramento Regional Transit board members agreed Monday that they will
no longer consider a plan for light rail that would have required knocking down 81
residences on Truxel Road.

But several other less obtrusive alignments along Truxel Road remain in play --
and remain the agency's most likely route for a light rail or "bus rapid transit"
service in the coming decade from downtown to Sacramento international
Airport.

The board dropped the option that would have widened Truxel Road to give light
rail two exclusive tracks, separated from vehicle traffic. That plan would have
forced the purchase and razing of all structures on the street's east flank from
Garden Highway to San Juan Road.

RT officials continue to consider Truxel Road routes in which one or two light-rail
tracks would run in vehicle traffic lanes, as is the case on 12th Street in
downtown. RT's project manager David Melko said that leaves open the
possibility that RT could take some land at some spots, potentially up to 12 feet,
next to Truxel Road.

The decision did not soothe at least one resident whose house could be torn
down.

"They aren't going to change their minds?" asked a skeptical Dea Karnegas.

She was among a group arguing that the line should run along interstate 5, away
from their neighborhood.

RT officials have been studying an I-5 alignment, but those officials released
data Monday they say show they probably can't get necessary federal funding for
the project unless light rail goes on Truxel Road, where costs would be lower and
ridership higher.

The data also show that "bus rapid transit," essentially a modern version of an
express bus, would be cheaper than light rail on either alignment.

RT's Melko is scheduled to provide an analysis at the Nov. 10 board meeting
about the merits of light rail versus bus rapid transit.

RT officials then will have an afternoon workshop and an evening public
workshop Nov. 20 in the downtown convention center about project alternatives.

The RT board has scheduled a final public hearing about the options at a Dec. 8
meeting, and then is expected to vote Dec. 15 on which direction to go.

Truxel Road area residents have asked in recent weeks for RT to postpone that
decision, saying they didn't hear about the project until recently. But board
members declined to grant a postponement after staff recited a list of the public
meetings about the project going back two years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Writer
---------------------------

The Bee's Tony Bizjak can be reached at (916) 321-1059 or
tbizjak@sacbee.com



=PTP==========================================

Costa Mesa businesses in path of CenterLine LRT


[BATN]

Costa Mesa Daily Pilot
Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Businesses unhappy with proposed route

Owners of stores in the path of potential CenterLine rail say they
are shocked to find themselves under the gun.

By Deirdre Newman
Daily Pilot


COSTA MESA -- Avo Kilicarslan invested his lifetime savings in his
restaurant, Avo's Bistro.


Like a classic Mediterranean restaurant, the bistro's ambience is
enhanced by the soft gurgling of water nearby -- in this case, a
lake with a fountain in the back of the center at 580 Anton Blvd.


So Kilicarslan said he was shocked to find out that his idyllic
environment could disappear if the county chooses Costa Mesa's
preferred route for the CenterLine light rail system.


it would be in the way.


The county is considering four different routes for the light rail
to get from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center to John
Wayne Airport. It will decide on one in early December.


The city prefers a route with a small underground portion, running
along Avenue of the Arts. If this route is approved, the only
property in the right-of-way is the Lakes Pavilion, where Avo's
Bistro sits. Three other businesses would also be affected.


Kilicarslan's shock soon turned to skepticism as he contemplated his
life's work being forced out.


"I don't believe it will happen," Kilicarslan said, motioning toward
the lake and the palm trees surrounding it. "I don't understand what
they're doing. I don't think they would destroy this beauty."


The owner of the property could not be reached for comment.


in July, the county approved a shortened CenterLine project at a
cost of less than $1 billion. In early October, city officials
finally persuaded the county to consider putting a portion of the
light-rail system underground where it runs near South Coast Plaza.
The major Costa Mesa players in the project -- C.J. Segerstrom &
Sons, the Orange County Performing Arts Center and the major
landowners in the north Costa Mesa area -- pressed for an
underground route so the light-rail system won't interfere with
existing developments.


The compromise worked out among the business owners, city leaders
and the county involves about 1,100 feet of the line to go under
Avenue of the Arts at a cost of about $50 million with no
underground stations.


The property at 580 Anton is in the only one in the right-of-way in
Costa Mesa because the county chose the option that had the least
effect on private property, said Orange County Transportation
Authority spokesman Michael Litschi.


in addition to Avo's Bistro, the L-shaped center houses Ocean Park
Cleaners, Digital Hearing Technology, the Corner Office and two
vacant storefronts.


On Oct. 14, the authority started the process of hiring a right-of-
way consulting firm that would eventually acquire property once the
final route has been chosen. The authority chose to act at that time
because it wanted to keep the entire project on schedule, Litschi
said.


The authority's board of directors can't vote on the final route
until December because the environmental report is still going
through a public comment period. There will be a public hearing on
Nov. 24 for property owners, business owners and others to comment
on the project.


After the board chooses a preferred route in December, the
environmental report will be studied again, with public comment, and
has to be approved by the federal government.


Acquiring property couldn't start until the federal government signs
off on the project and the earliest acquisition would begin is
August, 2004, Litschi said. It will be decided down the line whether
the county or individual cities will be responsible for acquiring
right-of-way property. If property owners don't voluntarily sell
their property, the county could take the land at a price it deems
worthy through eminent domain.


Owners and regulars of the Corner Office -- a sports bar especially
popular with the NFL crowd -- also expressed shock at the prospect
of being sacrificed for CenterLine.


Scott Hodge, one of three owners of the bar, said he first was
excited when he heard the light rail would come down Anton Boulevard
because it would have been great exposure for the bar.


Upon learning of the new underground route and its repercussions,
Hodge questioned the need for the light-rail system.


"Do we even really need it?" Hodge asked. "Does anyone take the
train? it would be nice if [they did]. It would relieve congestion.
But I don't see thousands of people getting on the train."


Patrons of the bar gearing up for Monday Night Football expressed
indignation at the prospect of their favorite watering hole drying
up.


"I think it would be very disappointing," said Jim Flanagan, a local
business owner who has been meeting friends at the bar for the past
eight years. "I think these guys provide a great place for business
people like me to meet. It's very high-class."


The authority is holding off on conducting a major outreach campaign
with potentially affected property owners until the final route is
chosen, Litschi said.



Deirdre Newman covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949) 574-
4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.








PTP Digest 2003/10/29-A = CONTENTS

* Charlotte: US Senate OKs LRT funding
   Charlotte Business Journal October 27, 2003

* Honolulu: Rail back in play 'because it makes sense'
   Honolulu Star-Bulletin October 26, 2003

* China's maglev may be world's 1st, but perhaps its last
   Baltimore Sun Monday, October 27, 2003

* Houston op-ed: Metro rail needed because freeways fall short
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 29, 2003

* Amtrak op-ed: US needs 'healthy' rail system
   Los Angeles Times Sunday, October 26, 2003

* Amtrak: Modest funding bill passes Senate, faces House struggle
   New York Times October 27, 2003


=PTP==============================================

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2003/10/27/daily6.html

Charlotte Business Journal
October 27, 2003


U.S. Senate OKs light-rail funding

The U.S. Senate has approved $950 million for transportation projects in North
Carolina, including $18 million for construction of Charlotte's south corridor light-
rail project.

Expected to become operational in 2006, the 10-mile rail line will connect uptown
and interstate 485 north of Pineville.

The city will also receive $5 million for a Charlotte Area Transit System bus-
maintenance and operations center.

Of the $950 million in federal funds, $850 million is earmarked for N.C. highway
projects.

The appropriations, announced by the office of U.S. Sen. John Edwards, are part
of a $45 billion funding bill that will now go to conference commitee.



=PTP===========================================

http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/26/editorial/indexeditorials.html

Honolulu Star-Bulletin
October 26, 2003

Fixed-rail transit revives because it makes sense

Editorial

THE ISSUE

The City Council's Transportation Committee has approved a resolution calling
for fixed-rail mass transit between downtown and Kapolei.


FIXED-RAIL mass transit, rejected in 1982 and again a decade later, appears to
be back on track, with the city and state administrations and the City Council
unified in support of the idea. The Council's Transportation Committee has
unanimously supported a resolution backing a "work plan" for a rail line reaching
from Kapolei to downtown. All levels of government should get fully on board and
go forward with the plan.

The City Council rejected then-Mayor Frank Fasi's proposal for a rapid-transit
plan 21 years ago and a scaled-down light-rail version stretching from Leeward
Community College to downtown in 1992. That plan was halted by a 5-4 vote on
a tax increase to finance its construction. While Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit
plan, using high-capacity buses, is likely to be an improvement over the current
traffic crawl, Honolulu is particularly suited for such a rail system because of its
linear coastal configuration.

State Transportation Director Rodney Haraga told the Council he will present the
governor's task force on transportation a mass transit plan that includes rail, a
bus system and road improvements. Haraga said city and state cooperation is
needed to ensure federal funding, which could account for half or more of the
cost.

Cheryl Soon, the city transportation services director, warily endorsed the
Council resolution with the admonition, "If you really don't intend to go all the way
through with it, don't appropriate a penny; just stop right now."

Council Chairman Gary Okino, who introduced the resolution, said it would
authorize a "work plan" consisting of "a quick, brief, preliminary assessment that
will pull together all our previous studies, update all the information, give us
different financing options as to how we're going to do this." As Okino
appreciates, no more studies are needed.

Okino says the key to his proposal is putting the rail line at a different level from
vehicle traffic to avoid snarls. Lingle has proposed an elevated highway between
downtown and Kapolei, and Haraga says that will be included in a plan he was to
present to the task force. Those two visions don't mesh.

Other refinements will be needed to develop a plan that satisfies both the Harris
and Lingle administrations, along with the City Council. Because of all the
previous studies conducted during the past three decades, that process will not
take as long as one might expect.

Taking Soon's warning to heart, Council members should make sure their
commitment is strong and then approve the resolution. Cooperation is needed at
all levels to make a rapid-transit system a reality in Honolulu.



=PTP===========================================

[BATN]

Baltimore Sun
Monday, October 27, 2003


China's commercial maglev train to be world's 1st, perhaps its last

$1.2 billion project offers lessons for Md. proposal


By Gady A. Epstein
Sun Foreign Staff


SHANGHAi, China -- Every weekend, an unusual train glides out from a
nondescript station, carrying its passengers at remarkable speeds
along tracks high above the farms and factories east of downtown
Shanghai. With a cruising speed of nearly 270 miles per hour, it is
the fastest passenger train in the world, but what makes the train
truly extraordinary is what it lacks underneath its alloy chassis:
wheels.


At a cost exceeding $1.2 billion, the Shanghai Transrapid line might
be the most expensive 19-mile train route on the planet. By early
next year it is due to become the world's first high-speed magnetic
levitation or "maglev" train in full commercial operation.


The big question now is if it will also be the last -- for the
foreseeable future, at least. A maglev train linking Baltimore and
Washington, a concept pushed by Baltimore for more than 11 years, is
one of three leading candidates for the first maglev line in the
United States. But the project's future depends on $950 million in
federal funds, on the support of the state, which would also have to
provide money, and on whether private financiers believe the train
can operate profitably.


The only working example anyone can consider when making decisions is
the Shanghai Transrapid, which carried then-Chinese Premier Zhu
Rongji and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on its maiden voyage
Dec. 31, less than two years after construction began. So far, the
train is a popular tourist attraction, but the signals about its
future are mixed.


The maglev's German designers had hoped to win a contract to build a
line from Beijing to Shanghai, turning a 14-hour trip into a commute
of three to four hours. But the China Railway Ministry appears
inclined to consider proposals only from manufacturers of slower,
wheeled trains, as critics question the economic and practical wisdom
of entrusting a critical rail corridor to what they view as an
unproven, expensive technology.


"The Australians considered the maglev between Sydney and Kampala.
[BATN: That would be quite a line, linking Australia with Uganda.
In  contrast, Canberra lies only 280 km from Sydney.] They gave it
up," said Shen Zhijie, who retired in April as director of the
High-Speed Track Office of the China Railway Ministry. "The Koreans
also considered the maglev between Seoul and Pusan, and they also
gave it up.


"The Beijing-Shanghai railway has to be for serious transportation.
It's not for exhibition or tourism, and you cannot just argue
theoretically."


China has a passion for railways and an appetite for grandiose public
projects. The government is paying for the world's highest-altitude
railroad (to Tibet), the world's largest dam and the world's third
manned space program. With the Shanghai Transrapid, the country has
the fastest passenger train. During daylight hours on weekends, the
Shanghai Transrapid shuttles passengers between Shanghai's suburban
airport and the city's urban outskirts, where Shanghai mass transit
carries passengers the rest of the way into town.


An experiment


But for now the 19-mile, eight-minute trip remains mostly an
experiment -- for the technology, the engineers who built it and the
enthusiasts watching from far away, including Baltimore and
Washington.


Above all, it is an experiment for Beijing's decision-makers, who
appear to be leaning toward more conventional high-speed trains, like
ones already in use in Japan and Europe, for the new Beijing-Shanghai
line. That has to be troubling for the maglev's passionate adherents:
if the maglev train can't succeed here, where the government can
spend whatever it wants, and where more than a billion passengers a
year take trains, then where can it succeed?


The Shanghai Transrapid begins each trip smoothly, gliding on an
elevated track. On this particular weekday test run, a group of
electrical workers is being rewarded with a ride.


As the train accelerates, the speed and time are displayed on digital
screens at the front of each passenger car. The train reaches 100 mph
in little more than a minute, and about 175 mph after two minutes.


An air suspension system, backed up by a secondary system of springs,
keeps the train floating along without the bumps typical in wheeled
trains.


But in the third minute, as the train approaches 250 mph, the
passenger cars begin to wobble.


At the 3:21 mark, the train reaches the top cruising speed of almost
268 mph -- maglevs can go faster but not on this short route. The
train moves through the air at such high speed that it creates a low
whistling that could become unnerving on a longer trip. The engineers
behind the maglev may have figured out how to get rid of friction
with the tracks below, but there's no way to eliminate friction with
the air.


The safety issue


The train's rates of acceleration and deceleration are carefully
controlled, which means that people can stand and walk in the aisle
at any point during the trip. Still, at these speeds, some passengers
may become conscious of the lack of safety belts in a way they never
would on typical trains.


The lack of safety belts was intentional -- the idea was that the
train should look and feel as safe as any other.


"It doesn't need safety belts. There won't be a car crash, there
won't be sudden braking and it will not turn upside down," said a
high-ranking official with Shanghai Maglev Transportation Development
Co. Ltd, who spoke on condition his name not be used. "it's not like
the airplane or the car."


That theory may be tested on the maglev, which travels at speeds
faster than some airplanes. At the trip's midpoint, a second maglev
train rushed by on a parallel track at the same speed, producing a
roar of air friction. On this day, the engineers were making sure
that two maglevs could pass by each other safely at top speed.


Passengers have to adjust to the fact that the vehicle has no wheels
and is not touching anything but air. They must remain confident the
train won't suddenly spin out of control as it tilts and turns at 225
mph.


The train's German builders -- a consortium of Siemens AG and
ThyssenKrupp AG called Transrapid international -- have been working
to solve a series of safety and comfort issues. China's state news
media have given few details about the technical problems, but they
include concerns about rubber insulation overheating along the
electrically charged track.


The Shanghai maglev official said the glitches were of no
concern: "The damage caused by heat is no threat to safety. It's just
like the clothing is old, but you can still wear it," he said. "There
are also a lot of other problems, but none of them is a problem for
the safety of operation.


"it's just like you buy a new television for your family and the
channels are not tuned in perfectly. You make some adjustments, and
it will be fine."


How it works


The maglev works thanks to a combination of magnets and electrical
charges. Holding the train aloft is interaction between magnetic
coils in the track and electromagnets on the underside of the train.


Electrical current flows through the track's coils, creating a
magnetic field that pulls the train along as it floats less than a
half-inch above the track. When the train is at rest, it may kneel
down on the "guideway" to unload passengers.


in theory, the train can reach high speeds without requiring costly
track maintenance. The friction created by wheels rolling on tracks
has been eliminated.


Drawbacks


Unfortunately, the train's drawbacks are equally obvious: cost of
construction and uncertainty about new technology. China expects to
spend close to $16 billion to build a conventional high-speed Beijing-
Shanghai line. The price for maglev construction might be
substantially higher. Also, the maglev can operate only on its own
tracks, unable to switch to the tens of thousands of miles of
conventional tracks.


Another fundamental issue is the maglev's cost for passengers, though
that may be a problem for other high-speed options as well. Per-
capita income in China is less than $700 a year, but a round-trip
ticket on the 19-mile Shanghai maglev costs $28. That is more than
migrant workers and students pay for a one-way ticket for the 1,270-
mile train trip between Beijing and Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan
province.


"The maglev train is certainly not for migrant workers," said the
Shanghai maglev official. "it's for businessmen and tourists."


That would be an issue in Maryland, despite Americans' vastly higher
incomes. Maglev detractors in Maryland question a consultant's
estimates that more than 30,000 people a day would pay a significant
premium for the Baltimore-to-Washington trip. A one-way ticket could
cost as much as $26, far more than the $7 charged by the much slower
MARC train.


'Better investment'


Supporters argue that the maglev is a better bet than other high-
speed options because it would have substantially lower operating
costs.


"They might spend less money building [conventional] high-speed rail,
but they will have a long-term higher cost because they will have a
higher operations and maintenance cost," said Phyllis Wilkins,
executive director of Maglev Maryland, which is funded through the
city's economic development arm, the Baltimore Development
Corp. "Maglev is a much better investment in the long run, and it's
not just me saying that. It's people who have done studies who are
saying that."


The potential appeal for China's well-to-do urban travelers may yet
be enough to persuade Beijing to build another short track, in time
for the 2008 Olympic Games, connecting Beijing's international
airport with the city center at a cost of $700 million.


But it should be worrisome to America's maglev advocates that for
longer routes, China remains hesitant to pursue the world's fastest
passenger train.



=PTP==================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 29, 2003

Viewpoints

Why Metro plan? Because freeways won't do

By J. SAM LOTT

FACT: The weekday traffic activity in Houston will essentially double over the
next 30 years, according to the Houston Galveston Area Council.

Most of the debate over the Metro Solutions plan has focused on the
comparisons of costs and forecasts of Metropolitan Transit Authority sales tax
receipts, federal grants and other revenues over the next 20 years. However, the
discussion of cost must go beyond the details of the Metro financial plan and
consider what price the entire metropolitan region will pay over the long term if
we delay again the start of a regional rail system. The real future of
transportation in Houston is best understood when we consider the limitations of
our freeways.

Houston has an excellent freeway and tollway system design of spokes radiating
out from the central business district with several loop expressways connecting
the spokes in concentric rings. However, the freeway system is ultimately limited
by the capacity constraints where freeways intersect other freeways. It is at these
critical points of the freeway interchanges that the system breaks down, and
massive congestion spreads through the network.

Despite the improvement plans and current construction projects for many
freeways within the network, the points of capacity constraint at each freeway
interchange cannot be eliminated. The engineering fact is that the physical
constraints imposed by the superstructure result in the greatest limitations to the
number of lanes that can pass through the interchange.

Once our freeway system's capacity is built out over the next 10 years, there is
no more significant capacity for roadway vehicles that we can add through the
critical points of constraint at the interchanges. The combination of the freeway
system, tollway/HOV lanes (often called managed lanes) and the
highway/arterial street system alone cannot fully address the capacity needs of a
thriving metropolis such as Houston without a comprehensive rail system also
being included.

in fact, even the Houston Galveston Area Council's "100 Percent Solution" plan,
which is frequently referred to as a better alternative by outspoken rail
opponents, acknowledges this limitation, and actually calls for more transit
systems and facilities than Metro has put in its 2025 plan. High-capacity mass
transit is an essential component to a comprehensive transportation system. The
planned addition of a narrow-width transit right of way for high-capacity
throughput (i.e., the Metro system plan) along our current transportation system
of rings and spokes is essential to meeting the capacity demands of the not-so-
distant future.

Understanding that the freeway system is limited by the interchanges, what
stance should we take on the Metro Solutions plan?

We must start now. It takes 20 years of planning, design and construction before
a comprehensive mass transit system can be fully incorporated as an integral
part of the overall transportation network. We cannot afford to wait.

We must first build the core system in the center of the city. A central circulation
system at the heart of the transit network is the right foundation to build on. The
ultimate system will include radial high-capacity transit lines to the airports and
suburbs. However, we must establish the inner-circulation system first. The
proposed inner-city light-rail and bus components interconnect four major urban
business districts (i.e., downtown, the Texas Medical Center, Galleria/Post Oak
and Greenway Plaza). Metro's intent to build 22 miles of light rail as the next
phase of expansion creates an extremely effective core system by connecting
these major business centers, three of which are individually of a size and
density to rank with the top 15 downtown business districts in the country.

Twice before during the past 20 years Houston has come to the threshold of
starting this process to build a regional high-capacity mass transit system, and
both times the initiative has been knocked down by those espousing the
philosophy that we need to concentrate on the streets and freeways only, not
transit. Houston's congestion problems cannot be solved by any one element
alone. Only with a combination of transportation components such as freeways,
arterials and transit alternatives can Houston move forward to tackle congestion.

Lott is U.S. representative to the international Electrotechnical Commission and
is part of its working group that's writing the safety standards for automated
urban guideway transit. He also is senior vice president of Kimley-Horn and
Associates Inc. In Houston.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2190647



=PTP===============================================

[BATN]

Comment: Demand plan for healthy US rail system


Los Angeles Times
Sunday, October 26, 2003

Comment

Arthur Frommer: On a Budget

Railing against the system

it was 2 a.m. when my train pulled out of Fargo, N.D., to begin the
36-hour trip to New York City. I was angry and dejected because a
minor medical emergency had prevented me from making the trip home
in three hours by air. But the journey taught me an important lesson
about U.S. rail travel.


I had arrived in Fargo the previous morning to give a speech. As the
plane landed, I felt sharp pains in my right ear, then pressure and
a reduced ability to hear. Scared, I rushed to the local emergency
room and was told that an infection had caused a buildup of fluid
behind the middle ear that would take several days of medication to
dispel. Meanwhile, I could not take the next day's 2 p.m. flight
home, because the air pressure of takeoff and landing might burst
the weakened eardrum and cause permanent hearing loss.


My alternatives? Returning to the East Coast by bus would take three
days of stop-and-go travel, something I would not do. Nor did I wish
to endure days of solitary driving in a rental car, with overnights
in motels. So no big deal, I thought; I'd return by Amtrak. The saga
began.


I quickly found that across the entire northern swath of the United
States -- from Seattle to Fargo to Minneapolis to Chicago -- there
is only one daily train, the Empire Builder, in each direction. One
slow choo-choo that departs the Pacific Northwest to cross the
prairie states and arrive in Fargo at 2 a.m before proceeding for
14 more hours to Minneapolis and Chicago.


After my morning speech, I had to wait 14 hours before starting out
on a 36-hour marathon.


I crossed half the United States at speeds averaging 60 mph,
compared with the 150 mph that a great many long-distance trains in
Europe, Japan and China routinely travel. I had no choice in
scheduling the trip. I waited for a middle-of-the-night departure,
then spent two nights on the train. I'm still seething.


Our congressional representatives routinely appropriate billions
each year for federal highway construction and maintenance, but dig
in their heels against funding Amtrak realistically. Some members of
Congress favor terminating our national rail system in all areas of
the country other than along the Washington, D.C.-New York-Boston
corridor. Funded in a grudging, last-minute, stopgap manner, Amtrak
stumbles along, unable to properly keep up its facilities and
services, let alone bring them to the state-of-the-art levels of
speed and efficiency achieved in other prosperous industrial
countries.


it is time to make this a major political issue. If you agree, write
to your congressional representative and demand an adequate, long-
range plan for a healthy U.S. rail system.



=PTP================================================

New York Times
October 27, 2003

Senate Passes Amtrak Subsidy, but a More Frugal House Awaits

By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The Senate has approved a $1.34 billion subsidy for
Amtrak for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, setting up a conflict with the
House, which approved a $900 million bill and has been eager for structural
changes at the railroad.

Amtrak had been seeking $1.8 billion, which it said it needed to return to a state
of good repair. The railroad president, David L. Gunn, said in a letter to senators
on Wednesday that the $1.34 billion "leaves us at great risk in terms of reliability"
but that Amtrak could continue operating with an appropriation of that size "and
hopefully not worsen the amount of deferred maintenance."

The Senate acted late Thursday. The two versions will go to a conference
committee, probably one that will consider several last-minute appropriations
bills, Congressional staff members said. That left some Amtrak supporters in
Congress in doubt over what level of influence they would have in the
conference.

The White House favors the $900 million subsidy, but Mr. Gunn insists that
number would force a shutdown next year.

The negotiators will also have to resolve some nonfinancial details in the bill. The
House favors a provision that would let another federal agency, the Surface
Transportation Board, step in to keep the Northeast Corridor open for commuter
operations and freight traffic if Amtrak were to shut down. Amtrak owns the
Northeast Corridor, the tracks from Washington through Penn Station in New
York to Boston.

The House negotiators may also push for a clause that would allow a single
Amtrak long-distance route to be contracted out to a private operator as an
experiment, a House aide said.

The White House favored giving states the power to decide which Amtrak routes
would continue, and after a transition period, giving them the financial liability as
well. But neither house favored that approach.







PTP Digest 2003/10/28-A = CONTENTS

* Houston op-ed: Dallas's rail success
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 27, 2003

 * Houston Metro debunks rail foe's 'cheaper' alternative
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 27, 2003

* Houston: Confusion, battle rage over rail finance facts
   Houston Chronicle  Oct. 28, 2003

* Houston: Questions grow over anti-rail 'foundation'
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 27, 2003

* Boston discovers highway widening attracts more cars
   Boston Globe Sunday, October 26, 2003

* Norfolk: After years & millions, maglev project can't get off ground
   The Virginian-Pilot Friday, October 24, 2003

* Detroit zaps trolleys, subs buses in $20 million road project
   Detroit News Friday, October 24, 2003

* Amtrak has more riders, but money problems remain
   MSNBC  July 18


=PTP===================================================

HoustonChronicle
Oct. 27, 2003

Viewpoints

Real truth about Dallas rail and its success

By MARVIN D. MONAGHAN

PUBLIC transportation observers in Dallas are bemused at the array of
criticisms, threats and dire predictions leveled at the light-rail construction project
in Houston. It's déjà vu all over again to those who vocally supported the Dallas
Area Rapid Transit, or DART, rail program and who beamed with satisfaction
when the rail line was completed and judged a success in all quarters while the
dissident factions faded into the woodwork never to be heard from again. The
same phenomenon will occur in Houston upon completion of the starter line.

Not only has light rail been a success in Dallas but in many cities in the United
States and around the world. It is the ideal solution for a city that has grown too
large for buses but cannot support heavy rail with fully dedicated subways and
elevated guideways. Reports that it is a failure in Dallas and that a cash-flow
crisis exists is simply not true. The one-cent sales tax has declined because of
the recession that has gripped the country, however, reductions in service and
temporary overall belt tightening are addressing the shortfall. The sales tax
mainly pays for around-the-clock service, which the public demands outside of
peak hours, when the fare box pays the costs of operation. Rail service has been
reduced from 15-minute intervals to 20 minutes in off-peak hours. Peak-hour
service remains at five- to 10-minute intervals. Little to no inconvenience has
resulted.

instead of referendums being defeated en mass as alleged, municipalities that
were not included in the original DART rail plan are clamoring to be admitted,
and arrangements are being made to accommodate them without detracting
from the tax investment of the cities that voted into the system in the beginning.
Denton County has already established a transportation authority of its own and
will partner with DART for service into Dallas via Carrollton as is done with Fort
Worth Transit. The only dissenting votes came from communities too small to
matter or located too far from the proposed rail alignment. This will give
convenient access to the two large universities in Denton for the thousands of
Dallas County students who now have to fight frustrating congestion on
interstate 35.

Several communities between Plano and McKinney are anxious to acquire rail
service and are investigating whether to establish a Collin County Authority or to
join DART.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments is actively promoting the
activation of the DART-owned Cotton Belt line to provide commuter rail from Fort
Worth into the north entrance to D/FW Airport. East Texans are looking to the
east end of the Cotton Belt for future commuter rail service to extend as far as
Greenville and perhaps beyond. Fort Worth has plans for commuter rail
southwesterly to Granbury and north to Denton.

Nowhere is there negativism remaining in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex of the
character that clouds the issue in Houston, and this opposition will disappear
once the sleek, new Metro light-rail trains are rolled out and the public can
experience the smooth, comfortable, quiet ride that is in marked contrast to the
bumpy, rattling, noisy buses with their cramped interiors and narrow single
doorways. Each rail car has four double doors on each side eliminating a long
queue of riders at stops and has access to ample electrical power from the
overhead wire, which assures efficient air conditioning.

False impressions have been voiced implying that rail systems disadvantage
minorities and transit dependent riders. In Dallas, these people, most of whom
live in the southern sector where there are few jobs, are delighted that the slow,
plodding bus ride to the north side of the city where the jobs are has been
replaced by the fast 65 mph trains. For example, the peak hour travel time from
downtown Dallas to downtown Garland has been cut almost in half, and the
trains stop at a station near the industrial job sites on the way in. Four other
convenient stops are made.

One detractor accuses light-rail trains of being products of foreign design and
manufacture. Has he looked out the window to see where many of our
automobiles and trucks and virtually all buses come from? Foreign light-rail train
builders have assembly plants in the United States, the same as automobile
manufacturers. Our country was a leader in this field in years past and is
gradually regaining this position. DART's cars were built as shells in Japan and
fitted out in Dallas and Elmira, N.Y. An alleged disadvantage of being "tethered
to a sparking wire," mentioned by one critic, ignores the pollution-free operation
this makes possible. That is better than being tethered to an Arab oil well!

Transit train safety is unparalleled. In seven years of operation at DART, there
have been fewer than a half-dozen fatalities, and these have been due to
careless pedestrians or motorists who walked if front of trains or drove through
lowered gates. Buses have far more accidents. A recent one involved two rogues
who commandeered a bus and caused the driver to crash into a tree and a
garage injuring several passengers. The trains are under master control of a
dispatcher in a central office at all times, with radio communication and remote
lineside signaling to prevent accidents. Not all of DART's road crossings are
grade separated but are protected by gates and lights or traffic signals. A 3.5-
mile tunnel speeds the trains through near North Dallas.

Another false alarm is the rumor that the trains cannot operate in more than
three inches of water. Competent design by the right of way engineers will
ascertain that standing water will be eliminated by adequate drainage. Never has
there been an instance of a DART train being stopped by high water.

Metro has drawn criticism for owning its own headquarters building. So did DART
when they bought and renovated the former Foley's Department Store Building --
until they showed a 27 percent saving over renting. A transit agency cannot
afford to hire engineers and other staff full time just for periods when
construction is under way. DART maintains most of an entire floor of offices,
which is occupied by visiting engineers, eliminating much confusion and
unnecessary travel while achieving better coordination of planning.

Electrically propelled transportation is better positioned to cope with any
petroleum shortage that might occur. In the Texas grid, there are five possible
sources of electricity that may be called on for the purpose of powering the
trains.

it is irrelevant to discuss congestion and pollution in connection with public
transit. To make a dent in either, thousands of cars and trucks would have to be
removed from the roadways. What it will do is give commuters who live in the
corridors served by rail a pollution- and congestion-free ride to work every day
devoid of frustrating delays and accidents on the freeways. It is misleading to
state that only 1, 2 or 3 percent of a population uses transit. The usage must be
compared to the population in a specific corridor, which can run as high as 35
percent. With 70,000 riders a day using DART's light-rail and commuter trains, a
corresponding number of automobiles are obviously off the road.

Last but not least is the subject of image and the impression that a city leaves on
its visitors. Not many are impressed by hordes or swarming buses, and they can
seldom identify with where the buses go. When a bus is gone, it leaves no
tracks. A world-class city can do better. Rail is both a permanent and identifiable
fixture and an in-perpetuity investment for the community it serves. The
ambience it creates on a city street is not to be ignored. The highest real estate
values of their kind in the world are on a rail transit mall in Zurich, Switzerland!


Monaghan, of Garland, is a retired optometrist and served on the board of
directors of Dallas Area Rapid Transit from 1990-93 and 2002-02. He also
served on the North Central Task Force, which assisted in the design of the road
and rail alignments through North Dallas.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2183463



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 27, 2003

Eckels touts alternate commuter rail plan

Says system faster, cheaper than Metro's

By LUCAS WALL


Harris County can build a commuter rail system faster and cheaper than Metro's
light rail plan, Judge Robert Eckels said Monday, releasing a draft of a study for
the U.S. 290 and Texas 249 corridors.

Eckels and numerous other Republican leaders are urging voters to reject next
week's Metropolitan Transit Authority $7.5 billion expansion plan. It calls for
building $5.8 billion of rail during the next 22 years: 65 miles of light rail as well
as an eight-mile commuter line to Missouri City. Metro has no rail proposed to
Hempstead or Tomball by 2025.

"There is a lot of potential for commuter rail in this community," Eckels said at a
news conference at Houston TranStar. "We believe it's a viable alternative to
light rail."

Commissioner Steve Radack, who initiated the commuter rail review, is also
against Metro's plan. But he questioned the release of the study before its
completion.

"Waiting until something is done accurately is very prudent," said Radack, whose
precinct includes most of the U.S. 290 corridor. "I'm optimistic. I think it has a
tremendous amount of potential. But the study isn't complete yet, and I'm not
one of those people who likes to deal with fantasy or dreams."

Radack said it's unwise to present an unfinished study as an alternative to
Metro's transit-expansion referendum, which includes new bus routes, HOV
lanes and local roadwork.

Commuter rail utilizes heavy trains, such as those run by Amtrak, and runs at
high speeds on freight railroads with an exclusive right of way. Light rail utilizes
smaller trains and runs at slower speeds, often on tracks embedded in the street.

The final commuter rail report, which Commissioners Court requested July 29, is
due at the court's next meeting Nov. 4 -- the same day voters decide Metro's
transit-expansion plan.

Eckels said he expects the court will authorize a more detailed study looking at
other potential commuter rail corridors and moving ahead with plans on who
would pay for and operate the first two proposed lines.

"There are 165 miles or more of commuter line candidates in Harris County,"
Eckels said while standing behind a model of an East Coast commuter train.
One coach was modified with a sticker reading, "Harris County Express."

A countywide commuter rail network at $5 million per mile could cost less than
$1 billion, Eckels said, far cheaper than the $80-million-per-mile light rail system
Metro proposes. (Metro's cost-per-mile figure has been adjusted upward for
inflation; the Main Street line under construction costs $43 million per mile).

Metro supporters, however, questioned Eckels' numbers and dismissed the
notion that commuter rail alone is a solution to the region's traffic problems. They
point out a more detailed study of a commuter train to Fort Bend County puts the
cost at $14 million to $19 million per mile.

Paul Mabry, spokesman for Citizens for Public Transportation, called Eckels' pre-
election maneuver "an 11th-hour Hail Mary." CPT is the political action
committee campaigning for passage of the "Metro Solutions" plan.

"We want a complete system that does something about the traffic mess we're
into," Mabry said. "You start by addressing where the traffic is the greatest: down
in the urban area. It is not up in Prairie View."

Metro officials, while supporting the commuter rail concept, pointed out some
flaws in the county's study, including basing construction costs on having only
three stations per line, each with 150 parking spaces.

John Sedlak, a Metro vice president, said the transit authority's Park & Ride lots
along U.S. 290 accommodate about 5,000 commuter-bus riders daily. Sedlak
noted the county study lacks ridership and fare revenue forecasts.

"We would certainly see commuter rail as being complementary to the Metro
Solutions plan but not as an alternative to it," Sedlak said. "The light rail is very
specifically addressing the needs in congested corridors where there are high
densities of transit ridership."

Eckels has urged voters to turn down Metro Solutions and let the county come
back next year with a better rail proposal. He said commuter rail could be
operating by 2006, much more quickly than Metro's light rail expansion, the first
piece of which wouldn't start running until 2008.

Most important, Eckels said, is that the larger trains are a better solution to traffic
woes.

"Commuter rail is safer and faster, typically, than light rail because it runs in the
existing rail corridors separated from traffic so you're not mixing with the cars on
the road," Eckels said. "It runs where congestion is worse and can provide
alternates for relief on congested freeways."


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2183577




=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 28, 2003


Argument heats up on proposed Metro rail funding

By LUCAS WALL


Local members of Congress continued bickering Tuesday over whether Metro
has the money to pay for its $7.5 billion transit expansion plan that voters will
consider next week.

Both sides called news conferences to restate points previously made in the
battle over Metropolitan Transit Authority's federal grant projections. Rep. John
Culberson reiterated his concern that Metro will run out of money and be unable
to finish the projects it promises, while transit supporters said the plan is fiscally
sound and accused Culberson of playing with numbers to mislead voters.

Four weeks ago, Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, a light rail opponent,
released numbers provided by Culberson, R-Houston, purporting to show that
Metro overestimated how much federal grant money it can expect in the next six
years by more than $100 million.

After the Federal Transit Administration released a letter last week denying that it
had generated the supposed shortfall figure, Culberson asked the agency for a
clarification.

Tuesday, he got a response from Jennifer Dorn, federal transit administrator,
that states it's "essentially correct" to assume Metro has overestimated its future
grant money based on a Bush administration proposal.

That bill, pending in Congress, would slow the annual growth rate in transit funds
to 2 percent. The transit authority has assumed an 8 percent future annual
growth rate, arguing that Congress always increases the president's request.

Culberson, however, said the growth rate will go up only with a federal gas-tax
increase, which he and the president oppose.

"A week before the election, we still don't know how short Metro is on federal
revenue," Culberson said. "The letters I'm releasing today confirm that Metro has
overstated its federal revenue by at least $53 million and perhaps as much as
$124 million."

Culberson also handed out copies of a letter to the editor of the Houston
Chronicle sent by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., who chairs the House
transportation appropriations subcommittee. Istook points out that his staff
provided Culberson with the Metro projections, but his letter did not cite the $53
million or $124 million figures Culberson mentioned Tuesday.

Those figures also weren't in Dorn's letter, which also states: "Until Congress
completes its work on multiyear surface transportation authorization legislation, it
is impossible to predict with certainty the future levels of formula or discretionary
funding."

Democrats and Metro executives pounced on that sentence at their afternoon
gathering outside City Hall, reiterating that it's premature for Culberson to
criticize Metro's projections when the transportation authorization is still before
Congress. Metro wants approval to build 73 miles of rail and other transit
projects.

in other Metro campaign news Tuesday:

· Common Cause of Texas filed a complaint with the state Ethics Commission
alleging Texans for True Mobility, the prominent anti-rail group, has violated
campaign finance laws by failing to disclose contributors.

The Harris County district attorney's office is reviewing a Chronicle complaint
alleging the same infraction. Texans for True Mobility says the allegations are
groundless, contending ads sponsored by its foundation are not political
advocacy and therefore not subject to disclosure.

· Environmental groups held a news conference in Hermann Park to argue that
light rail, powered by electricity, will help reduce auto emissions.



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2188424





=PTP================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 27, 2003

Foundation clouds comparison of rail donors

By LUCAS WALL

The political action committee supporting Metro's Nov. 4 transit-expansion
referendum raised almost twice as much money in the past month as the
committee opposing the plan, campaign finance reports filed Monday show.

Anti-rail campaigners appear to have raised more money overall, however. But
it's difficult to truly compare the dollars being spent for and against the
Metropolitan Transit Authority proposition because Texans for True Mobility also
maintains a nonprofit education foundation that is not disclosing its donors and
expenditures.

TTM contends its advertising merely informs voters that Metro's plan is a bad
idea but does not advocate for voters to cast a "no" ballot. Numerous groups
have complained about the secrecy, and the Harris County district attorney's
office is reviewing a Houston Chronicle complaint alleging TTM is violating state
ethics laws.

Citizens for Public Transportation, the pro-rail committee, reported raising
$321,012 for the monthlong period ending Monday. Its total collections since
forming in December are $1.1 million.

TTM's political action committee reported raising $175,000 in the last month, its
first in existence. In an e-mail last week to prospective donors, TTM stated its
foundation arm had raised $1.4 million. That would put both TTM entities almost
a half-million dollars ahead of the pro-rail side.

CPT's contributions, ranging from $100 to $25,000, came from 70 businesses
and individuals. TTM's committee contributions, on the other hand, came from
only two of the group's members. Chairman Michael Stevens donated $155,000,
and treasurer Edd Hendee gave $20,000.

The pro-rail committee reported spending $722,838 in the past month. Almost
half of those expenditures, $311,794, went to Houston's three major television
stations for advertising. The anti-rail committee reported spending $170,283. The
bulk of its expenditures, $77,165, went for purchasing radio ads.

TTM's report reveals its political action committee borrowed $151,000 from the
foundation arm -- dollars donated anonymously -- to start purchasing advertising
earlier this month. Stevens then stepped in with the $155,000 donation Monday
to repay the loans. The committee's balance is listed as $4,717.

Chris Begala, TTM spokesman, declined again Monday to reveal who has
donated money to the foundation. He also refused to provide the number of
donors or confirm the total amount raised and spent.

CPT reported $248,469 in the bank. Its leader, Ed Wulfe, had harsh words for
TTM's continued secrecy.

"I am amazed, absolutely shocked," Wulfe said at finding out one person
donated almost 90 percent of the committee's money. "They don't want anybody
to know what's going on. This is an affront to the people of the city."

Begala said rail supporters are trying to distract voters from the real issue:
Metro's plan is "horrendous" and the authority is in "abysmal" financial shape,
including spending millions of taxpayer dollars to promote rail.

"Their comments are likewise as ridiculous as their plan is," Begala said. "it's
shocking that that's what they want to talk about when their own contributors are
special interests who would benefit from the plan."


in other Metro campaign activity Monday:

· U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, endorsed Metro's referendum at the
Magnolia Transit Center. He touted the plan for improving air quality and
reducing the noise level from buses.

· The Business Committee Against Rail held a news conference to raise
questions about Metro's light rail cost estimates, pointing out that planners are
considering that an east/west line through downtown might be built in a subway -
- at least doubling the cost for that segment.

Metro Vice President John Sedlak responded that the east/west line has been
designed at street level but could be buried if future engineering deems it
affordable and desirable.

Chronicle reporter Salatheia Bryant contributed to this story.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2183722




=PTP===========================================

[BATN]

Boston Globe
Sunday, October 26, 2003

Highway projects get new scrutiny

By Anthony Flint


WESTWOOD, MASSACHUSETTS -- The long-awaited widening of Route 128
finally began this fall, with bulldozers and backhoes rumbling around
the median at the Route 1 bridge.


The project, creating a fourth lane in each direction between
Wellesley and Randolph, at a cost of $150 million to $200 million, has
a role model of sorts: the $375 million widening of the once-scenic
Route 3 from Burlington to the New Hampshire line, set to open to
drivers next month.


But while these highway-widening projects are cheered by commuters and
most town and business leaders, they may be the last of their kind.


State transportation planners are questioning whether expanding lanes
solves congestion in the long term. They are also fretting about costs
and worry that better highways will encourage more spread-out
development.


The backtrack on highway-widening comes just as the proposed $180
million widening of Route 3 from Weymouth to Duxbury, in a stretch
notoriously clogged with South Shore commuters and Cape-bound drivers,
moves toward the next stages of the planning process. State
Transportation Secretary Daniel Grabauskas said in an interview that
the project -- which would make that stretch of road three lanes in
each direction -- is getting intense scrutiny.


"Adding a lane on Route 3 south is clearly a project that's early
enough in the process that we can apply some new principles and make
an informed judgment," he said. "We're going to look at a host of
things, from environmental impacts, economic development impacts,
smart growth, increases in housing, a whole host of issues."


Governor Mitt Romney has ordered that existing transportation
infrastructure be repaired before new projects are undertaken, an
initiative called "Fix it First." He also wants to see a new set of
standards developed for judging all future transportation projects.


The Route 3 north project has prompted deep skepticism about highway
widening. Drivers and residents say they hate the fact that so many
trees were bulldozed to make way for new lanes in the median, which
made the highway three lanes in each direction. Protesters are
clamoring for new barriers against noise, opposition is swelling over
development proposals linked to the 21-mile expansion, and word
surfaced last week that the arduous project had fallen behind
schedule.


Even some daily users of the highway system in Eastern Massachusetts
say that expanding roads won't solve congestion and indeed may only
induce more people to use their cars -- a prevailing theory among
transportation planners in recent years.


"History shows, widening a road doesn't really solve the problem,
long-term. It just adds more traffic -- or funnels it along to the
next chokepoint," said Adam Gaffin, an editor at Network World, a
trade publication based in Southborough, who uses Route 128 to get
home to Roslindale.


Any future highway-widening projects will be judged in the context of
what other means of travel are available, said Jonathan Carlisle,
spokesman for the Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction. That will be the case with Route 3 south, he said.


"There has been a lot of development on the South Shore, a lot of
people live there who need to get into Boston. But in light of the
water transportation there, the two legs of the Old Colony [commuter
rail] line, and, by 2006, the Greenbush line, we really have to look
at this in the context of existing transit opportunities that are or
will be available," Carlisle said.


State Senator Robert L. Hedlund, a Republican from Weymouth, said that
"there is going to be a lot of angry legislators" if the Romney
administration takes away funding for roadway projects that have been
stuck in long queues behind the Big Dig.


"We've had tremendous growth and the road is over-capacity," he
said. "Adding a lane will help."


Duxbury Selectman Andre M. Martecchini, however, said that if Route 3
is widened, "people will fill it. If it's seen as easier, people will
hop into their cars and go -- until it starts to fill up again."


Another unanswered question, he said, is whether the widening could be
done in an aesthetically sensitive manner.


"The current Route 3 is a beautiful road," he said. "Making it an
extension of the expressway -- what's that going to do for the
character of the surrounding communities?"


The experience with the Route 3 expansion from Burlington to
Tyngsborough has led some residents to become activists, in a suburban
version of the anti-highway protesters of the 1970s who stopped the
inner Belt and Southwest Expressway in Boston.


"There's a limit to the problems we can solve with that approach,"
said Dennis Frenchman, director of the City Design and Development
group at MIT, who lives in Lexington where the widened Route 3 is
being built close to homes. "In the past, access was the only way we
could grow economically. In the future, quality of life, landscape,
and place will be more important. We have to find a way to be
efficient and maintain a sense of place, or we'll end up like New
Jersey or Florida."


Protesters have clamored for more extensive noise barriers and decried
plans for a service plaza in Chelmsford. The contractor on the
project, Modern Continental, is rewarded for promoting what is called
"ancillary development" along the widened roadway.


More bad news for Route 3 north came last week, when the state warned
Modern Continental it was falling behind schedule. The schedule and
the price of the project is supposed to be fixed under the fast-track
construction process known as "design-build," which some lawmakers
would like to see used in the Route 128 expansion. Backers of the
Route 128 widening remain upbeat, although they acknowledge that the
expansion won't solve congestion problems for very long.


"it's a disturbing highway that doesn't function properly, with huge
safety issues because of the use of the breakdown lane at rush hour,"
said Sherri Walker, director of regional economic development at the
Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce, part of the Route 128 Add-a-Lane
Business Coalition.


Adding the lane, which could cost up to $200 million and take six
years, according to state estimates, "won't make Route 128 a totally
functioning highway, though it will be much better," Walker
said. Commuter rail will still need to be encouraged, she said, and a
proposal to extend the Orange Line to Route 128 should be revisited.


"The big-picture solution." she said, "is getting cars off the road."



Anthony Flint can be reached at flint@globe.com



=PTP==============================================

[CAHSR]

The Virginian-Pilot
Friday, October 24, 2003

Years later, ODU project just can't get off ground

By Dave Addis


"Birthing new technology," said Bob Fenning, "is not for the faint of
heart."


Fenning is the Old Dominion University vice president who is stuck
with the thankless task of explaining to the world -- a world full of
nagging, cost-conscious pragmatists -- why ODU's maglev train
experiment  should be allowed to press
forward.


in a lengthy conversation Wednesday, Fenning sounded at times like a
rational and forward-thinking visionary, a man excited about playing
a role in bringing a dynamic, affordable new mass-transit system to a
nation that really needs one.


At other times, he sounded like a human being who is trying to give
birth to a train, without the benefit of anesthetics. If I were in
his stirrups, I'd be screaming for Darvon. Here's why, in capsule
form:


After three years, $14 million and nearly as many blown promises, the
train won't move, the stations aren't finished and the system is
nowhere near ready to ferry students across the campus.


The project has become a joke among students and a sore subject of
debate among administrators. And, in recent days, lawsuits totaling
$700,000 have been filed by local contractors who claim they've been
stiffed by the company that's building the system.


Another $2 million has been pumped into the kitty by the federal
government, but project officials say $5 million more will have to be
found -- somewhere -- to get the train up and running.


That would bring the total to $21 million -- most of it from the
pockets of taxpayers, and 50 percent over budget -- to magnetically
levitate a tram car and move it a little better than half a mile at
40 mph.


Roughly speaking, that's about double the cost-per-mile that was
promised by American Maglev Technology, the Georgia company that sold
the project to ODU, in partnership with Lockheed Martin Corp. and
Dominion Virginia Power.


AMT's president, Tony Morris, has been flogging his version of a
magnetic-levitation train for years. He was not available to comment
this week, reportedly because he is traveling in the Far East on
business. Fenning acknowledged that nobody at ODU had spoken with
Morris since the lawsuits were filed by the unpaid local contractors.


Here's another reason for ODU and its partners to be nervous: if you
call AMT's phone number in Georgia, as I did, you are connected
instead to an automated telephone-answering system for a company
called Neotonus.


Neotonus  is another of Tony Morris'
companies. Its focus is a magnetic device that is said to help
control female urinary incontinence.


Judging from the effort put into the companies' phones and internet
sites , one could infer that Morris
is betting that magnets will be more successful in controlling a
runaway bladder than a runaway train.


That might seem a harsh judgment, but it's tempered by a study of
Morris' promises over the years, in community after community across
the South, that their economic viability could be greatly enhanced if
only they'd invest in his magnetic-levitation transportation system.


Thus far, little has been levitated other than some taxpayers'
wallets. And money, not science, is at the heart of this tale.


There's no doubt that maglev trains can work; the only advantage the
American Maglev system offers is a promise -- as yet unrealized --
that it can be widely installed at a far lower cost than other
systems that are farther ahead in development around the globe.


So, where does this leave ODU? Fenning said the fresh $2 million from
the feds will be used to execute a discrete set of work orders aimed
at accomplishing two feats: move the train, first, between two guide
beams that are about 180 feet apart, and then move it between two
stations that are about 1,700 feet apart.


After that, the federal money will have been fully levitated and ODU
officials will have to decide if the maglev system has the technical
and economic promise to seek more funds to plow forward, or whether
they should pull the plug.


That decision likely will come in March, Fenning said. He remains
confident, and graciously promised to invite me to a trial run.


in return, I graciously promised to stop by in March and lie down
across the tracks.


Mark your calendars.



Contact Dave at 757-446-2726, or dave.addis@cox.net




=PTP==============================================

http://www.detnews.com/2003/business/0310/24/b01-306226.htm


Detroit News
Friday, October 24, 2003

Historic trolleys are history

By R.J. King / The Detroit News


[PHOTO]
Eight century-old rail cars that have run on tracks along Washington since 1975,
like this one seen in 1976, will be replaced with motorized trolleys as part of a
$20 million road project that will include Woodward and Broadway.


DETROIT -- The historic downtown trolley cars that cost passengers 50 cents to
ride but the city about $100 per rider will be mothballed next month as
Washington Boulevard and two other streets are rebuilt.

The $20 million road project that will include Woodward and Broadway is to be
completed in time for the 2006 Super Bowl at Ford Field.

The eight, century-old rail cars that have run on tracks along Washington since
1975 will be replaced with so-called "rubber trolleys", or modern buses that
mimic the look and feel of a historic street car. The city will expand the routes of
its 14 rubber trolleys, bought in 2000. Downtown business owners support the
change.

About 3,000 passengers ride the rail trolleys each year, but track and rail car
problems have plagued the system. The rubber trolleys offer more dependable
service because they aren't affected by snow and ice and greater flexibility for
special events.

But preservationists say the city's decision is shortsighted because the historic
cars are irreplaceable, though they admit the quarter-mile track that stretches
along Washington from Grand Circus Park to Hart Plaza is in disrepair.

"I'm not happy the rail cars are going, but I would hope the city would look to
move the system to the east riverfront," said Alexander Pollock, a preservationist
and senior associate architect for Detroit. "Cities such as Seattle, San Diego,
Tampa and New Orleans have vintage rail cars operating on their waterfronts."

Last year, the city began a $500-million, four-year plan to improve the east
riverfront from Hart Plaza to Belle isle that will include a riverfront walk, parks
and marina.

George W. Jackson Jr., president and chief executive of Detroit Economic
Growth Corp., a quasi-public development agency in Detroit, said it is too costly
to relocate the rail service as part of the Washington Boulevard makeover.

Pollock said the rail trolley system has an annual budget of around $300,000.

"We do not want to lose the historic trolleys, so we will look at every possibility to
continue their service somewhere else," Jackson said.

You can reach R.J. King at (313) 222-2504 or rjking @detnews.com.


=PTP================================================

http://www.msnbc.com/news/939773.asp#BODY

MSNBC
July 18

Riders up, Amtrak still falls short

Tight budgets keep railroad from exploiting airline industry's hard times
A northbound Amtrak high speed Acela train rolls past commuters at the Amtrak
station in Wilmington, Delaware last year.


By Lynne Shallcross

ABOARD AMTRAK'S METROLINER, July 18 —  Barbara Tedesco is relaxing,
listening to a CD player while her 11-year-old son, Tommy, contentedly flips
through some books and looks out the window. It's not the image conjured up by
a long trip to a relative's house — in her case, from Connecticut to Virginia. But
for Tedesco and millions of others who ride Amtrak's intercity trains, this is the
pleasant reality.


        TEDESCO SAYS making the six-hour trip by train to her sister's house in
Virginia is less of a hassle than flying and more convenient than driving — no
traffic and no weather slow-downs to worry about. And, she adds, it's a lot more
child-friendly than a car or plane. "It allows (Tommy) a lot of movement," she
says. "He doesn't say ‘Are we there yet?' as often."
       "I get to walk around and there's food here," Tommy adds in agreement,
before running off to the dining car. "It keeps me busy."

RECORD NUMBERS
       Amtrak's been busy, too. With many people still shying away from airplane
travel since the 9/11 attacks, this should be a golden opportunity for Amtrak to
win customers away from the industry that has been its nemesis: the airlines.
       indeed, April, May and June of this year brought the highest ridership
numbers for those months in Amtrak's 32-year history. A particular bright spot is
the "Acela Express," a high-speed service running in the Boston-New York-
Washington, D.C. corridor.
       But Amtrak officials caution that the railroad is a long way from making a
profit. While Amtrak is projecting that it will break even this year, officials say, but
the goal set by Congress for the railroad to stop relying on federal funding is
described by Amtrak's spokesman Dan Stessel as "fantasy."

         Stessel and other Amtrak officials cite the huge subsidies the airline
industry receive in the form of the federal air traffic system and now the creation
of the Transportation Security Administration, which handles airport security.
Highways, similarly, they argue, receive billions of dollars a year for construction
and maintenance.
       And yet, Stessel says, "we have to kind of justify our existence every year."
       At a time when transportation analyst suggest that Amtrak should be thriving
and investing in the many high-speed rail corridors being proposed around the
country, the railroad's budget — appropriated each year by Congress — barely
keeps the trains running on time. That leaves dreams of high-speed rail to the
states, which are facing their own budget crises at the moment.


[SIDEBAR]
   fact file
All aboard the money train

The numbers (in $millions) behind several popular Amtrak routes.
Name Route Revenue Cost Profit / (Loss)
California Zephyr Chicago - San Francisco $50.0 $96.5 ($46.5)
Lake Shore Limitied Chicago - Boston.NY $31.2 $69.6 ($38.4)
Texas Eagle Chicago - San Antonio $20.6 $47.8 ($27.2)
Sunset Limited Orlando - Los Angeles $18.9 $51.6 ($32.7)
Acela Express/ Metroliner Boston - Washington, D.C. $370.1 $292.5 $77.6
Southwest Chief Chicago-Kansas City $69.8 $126.1 ($56.3)
Empire Builder Chicago-Seattle/ Portland $51.9 $94.2 ($42.3)
Heartland Flyer Oklahoma City - Fort Worth $5.9 $4.8 $1.1
 Source: Amtrak

A POLITICAL FOOTBALL

      The annual debate on Amtrak's budget, once a major ideological target for
cuts by fiscal conservatives, has calmed somewhat in recent years. Yet as
Congress gets ready to reauthorize the railroad's funding, there are wide
disagreements on Capitol Hill about how much it should get.
       Amtrak requested $1.8 billion for 2004, a figure that covers current
operations and a five year maintenance program meant to put the railroad's fleet
in good order.
       in a reflection of the disagreements that swirl around Amtrak, House and
Senate panels that oversee transportation issues approved multi-year funding
packages that would see Amtrak get $2 billion annually for at least three years.
       But Amtrak enjoys far less support on the powerful appropriations
committees, which ultimately determine the amount of money available for
individual programs. Last Friday, the House appropriations panel put forth its
own figure for Amtrak: $580 million for 2004.
       Stessel says that although he knows the discussion is far from over, $580
million is not a sufficient amount of money. "If there is to be an Amtrak in fiscal
year 2004, there would have to be more than $580 million," he says.
       But Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-Okla.), a key figure on the House Appropriations
subcommittee, says there is not a lot of money to go and what does exist should
go primarily to the highway system.
       "We put the priority where people are paying the taxes," Istook says.
"Highway users pay their own way and they pay a tax on it. That's where the
greatest need is, and that's where people are paying their way."

  High-speed rail remains a dream

AN IMAGE PROBLEM
       Istook also said the committee had some reservations about Amtrak's
credibility. He said that for years, Amtrak has been promising self-sufficiency but
they return every year asking for more money. "That's been about as reliable as
Enron's bookkeeping," Istook says.


[SIDEBAR]
  Dream trains

 High-speed rail proposals in the United States
--  The Chicago hub
--  California's plan
--  Florida's vision
--  Northwest corridor


       Warren Flatau, spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, agrees
that increased funding isn't the only answer to Amtrak's problems. He says that
while its accountability has been improving as of late, Amtrak needs to do some
major restructuring. "Amtrak in its current form may not be the best answer,"
Flatau says.
       in spite of all the complaints about Amtrak's structural and monetary
problems, frequent train travelers say it's an essential public service that
government needs to maintain.
       Maryam and Joseph Donnelly, riding the train to Washington, D.C., say that
although they are grateful for the train as a travel option, it's important that
Amtrak concentrate on the routes that are in demand.
       "A lot of what's causing Amtrak to be non-financially productive are the
longer routes that no one's taking that they're still running," Maryam Donnelly
said. "They tend to be everything to everybody."
       Amtrak figures bear her out, showing that trains in the densely populated
northeast corridor are successful, while most long distance trains are money
guzzlers. Railroad officials estimate that the loss on Amtrak's long distance
routes ranges from $131 to $551 per passenger.









PTP Digest 2003/10/27-B = CONTENTS

* Portland: Westside LRT ridership grows with more service
   TriMet News Room  October 27, 2003

 * Houston: Rail foes covet rail funds for highways
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 26, 2003

* Houston: Dem hits deception of 'anti-rail zealots'
   Houston Chronicle  Oct. 25, 2003

* Houston: Rail foes' hanky-panky, political intrigues
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 26, 2003

* Seattle LRT: 'Feds make full funding of transit grant official'
   Seattle Times Saturday, October 25, 2003

* Seattle LRT: 'Victory day for fans of light rail'
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Saturday, October 25, 2003

* Seattle LRT: More on Fed grant breakthrough
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER  Thursday, October 23, 2003

* Seattle op-ed: 'Monorail seems to be off track'
   Seattle Times Sunday, October 26, 2003

* Seattle ed: 'A shrunken Monorail is a dead Monorail'
   Seattle Times Sunday, October 26, 2003



=PTP====================================================

TriMet News Room
October 27, 2003

Westside ridership grows as more service added

Airport MAX extension to Beaverton adds trains & capacity

September's Airport MAX Red Line extension from downtown Portland to
Beaverton boosted Westside MAX ridership and eased crowding. Daily ridership
along the Westside MAX corridor jumped to 28,100, boosted by about 3,000 new
Red Line riders there.

"Extending Airport MAX to Beaverton provides more frequent service and greater
capacity where Westside MAX ridership is heaviest," said TriMet General
Manager Fred Hansen. "It also adds direct airport service for many more riders."

The Red Line extension to Beaverton Transit Center added four trains per hour,
meaning MAX runs every 7 minutes during rush hours. More trains during busy
commute times also means fewer people face standing room only. The number
of people standing dropped 38 percent in September.

The Airport MAX line, which was extended from downtown to Beaverton August
31, added direct airport service to six more stations, including: PGE Park, Kings
Hill/SW Salmon, Goose Hollow/SW Jefferson, Washington Park, Sunset Transit
Center and Beaverton Transit Center.



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 26, 2003


Opponents eye Metro rail funds for highway work

By LUCAS WALL


Opponents of light rail expansion covet the $5.8 billion that Metro is seeking for
new tracks and trains, eager to redirect that money toward increasing the
number of highway lanes 53 percent by 2025.

Rail foes are urging voters to reject the transit-expansion plan on Nov. 4 so they
can shift Metro's proposed light rail spending into new roads. They are touting
something called the 100 Percent Plan being drafted by the Houston-Galveston
Area Council, the region's transportation planning agency. The goal is to cut
current traffic congestion levels in half by 2025 while keeping up with the region's
exploding population.

"If we took that money that's being spent on the rail plan by Metro today and
used it for building out the freeways, the tollways, the major thoroughfares in the
regional plan, we would relieve congestion," Harris County Judge Robert Eckels
said. "As you add more people, you have to add more roadways. We need to
make that money work smarter."

The 100 Percent Plan has mapped out how many highways will be required in
the eight-county region if bigger and more roads are the chief answer to reducing
gridlock. A preliminary estimate from the HGAC indicates that 10,703 lane miles
are needed to achieve significant congestion reduction.

"it's important the public understand there are very good alternatives," said U.S.
Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston. "We will never have a chance to solve our
traffic problems if Metro's rail plan is approved."

Finding the money for the extra asphalt and concrete is a tough task, however.
The HGAC estimates the construction cost at $21.1 billion, but the region will
have only $11.5 billion available for highway building in the next 22 years, if
current funding sources remain constant.

With a $9.6 billion gap to close, highway advocates see the Metropolitan Transit
Authority as one of their best potential cash cows.

Since 1988, Metro has spent 25 percent of its penny sales-tax collections on
"general mobility" distributions to Houston, Harris County and 14 small-city
members. It proposes extending the mobility contracts, used for road
construction and maintenance, from 2009 to 2014 as part of next month's
referendum. That would add $774 million in road work, in addition to the $5.8
billion for 73 miles of rail and $979 million in new bus service.

Light rail critics say merely extending the mobility fund is not enough.

They would like to see Metro's treasury raided for more highway projects, much
as former Houston Mayor Bob Lanier snatched millions of dollars in transit funds
last decade to pay for hiring new police officers.

The foes contend that light rail, running at slow speeds and mostly in streets
within Loop 610, is a waste of tax dollars.

"Redirect those monies to things that do reduce congestion," said Michael
Stevens, a developer leading the anti-rail Texans for True Mobility campaign.

He contends that more than $5.8 billion could be diverted from Metro because
there would be no need to pay for operating and maintaining the proposed trains
if voters kill the transit plan. The transit authority counters that, that money would
have to be spent running buses instead.

"They will generate $8 billion in cash to the bottom line," Stevens said of Metro if
voters refuse to accept more light rail. "That $8 billion is available in reality to
commit to whatever makes sense." That comes close to the $9.6 billion highway
shortfall, he pointed out, and other revenue could be created.

Stevens and others say that a nickel-per-gallon gas tax in the eight-county
metropolitan area, for example, would generate about $125 million per year.
That's almost $3 billion over the next 22 years.

Metro's opponents are counting on Orlando Sanchez, who opposes the
authority's plan, being elected mayor. He could then appoint a majority of the
Metro board and direct them to funnel money into roads.

Sylvester Turner and Bill White, the other two major mayoral candidates, support
rail expansion.

This spring's Houston Area Survey found only 28 percent of those polled favored
bigger highways as "the best long-term solution to traffic problems." More transit
led with 47 percent, while 25 percent favored building urban communities closer
to downtown.

Rail supporters scoff at HGAC's idea of spending almost $1 billion per year
widening highways, about double the current expenditure in the region. It's
fantasy to think Metro would give up its transit tax revenue to pay for more roads,
train boosters say.

Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter is among those questioning the wisdom of
trying to solve the traffic problem with new roads, calling the 100 Percent Plan
nothing more than a "catchy phrase." Massive roads will only create more
sprawl, air pollution and additional congestion as people try to drive farther and
farther, he said.

The $21.1 billion highway figure calculated by the HGAC does not include costs
for buying additional right of way.

Those expenses have skyrocketed in recent years because widening a road now
often requires purchasing hundreds of homes, stores, office buildings,
restaurants and so on.

Costs on the Katy Freeway widening that began earlier this year have ballooned
almost $250 million over initial estimates, partly because of right of way
acquisition.

Alan Clark, the HGAC's chief transportation planner, has acknowledged that at
least one-fifth of the proposed new lane miles would be almost impossible to
build because of limited right of way. But, he said, other capacity improvements
can be made.

Converting major thoroughfares into "super streets" -- expressways similar to
Allen Parkway and Memorial Drive near downtown -- would help ease traffic tie-
ups on major roads, such as Texas 6 and FM 1960, Clark said.

He said it is critical to note that the 100 Percent Plan, which will be finished in the
spring, includes mass transit. Metro's proposed light rail lines are actually part of
the working analysis. Rail critics are campaigning for voters to reject those lines
Nov. 4, which would remove them from the HGAC plan.

But even if that occurs, Clark said, other transit options, such as new bus routes
and commuter rail lines, will be studied.

"There's no question about the fact that transit has to be part of the answer," he
said.

The Texas Transportation institute at Texas A&M University released its annual
Urban Mobility Report last month. It concludes that a diverse set of transportation
options are needed to address congestion. More road construction is needed
but, by itself, won't solve the problem, and public transit provides many benefits.

"Both sides are a little bit right," said Tim Lomax, a research engineer who co-
authored the report. "The thing that is pretty clear is that there is not a single set
of solutions."

Eckels, who chairs the HGAC Transportation Policy Council, and his allies all say
they support mass transit, but only initiatives that are cheaper than Metro's light
rail plan. The county will soon release a commuter rail feasibility study for the
U.S. 290 and Texas 249 corridors showing such a system could be built for $2.5
million per mile -- trains included -- and be up and running within three years.
Those trains could run up to 80 mph on upgraded freight railroad tracks,
according to a study draft.

Metro's light rail plan, Eckels points out, would cost almost $80 million per mile,
take 21 years to build, and likely run no faster than 40 mph. The transit authority
notes that its Nov. 4 referendum includes a commuter line to Missouri City.

Schechter said he would welcome Harris County funding extra lines. But, he
said, light rail must be built so commuters arriving in the city will have a way to
reach their destination.

A commuter train arriving downtown does a Tomball resident no good if he works
in the East End or Greenway Plaza, light rail proponents point out.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2179997




=PTP===================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 25, 2003

Viewpoints


Congressman owes the voters of Houston

By U.S. REP. CHRIS BELL

U.S. Rep. John Culberson has crossed the line and owes the voters of Houston
an apology.

Two weeks ago, Culberson deliberately misled the people when he launched a
sneak attack on Metro's fiscal health. He manipulated the Federal Transit
Administration by feeding them false figures and asking whether they matched
Metro's projected federal grants. Then he tried to confuse voters by flaunting the
FTA's bewildered response as proof of financial mismanagement at Metro. Well,
in the end, the FTA wouldn't play along with Culberson's false accusations,
noting that they didn't come up with the numbers Culberson attributed to the
agency.

Clearly, this was an attempt by Culberson, R-Houston, to play Washington-style
"bait and switch" power politics at the expense of the truth and the voters of
Houston.

The fact is that Metro is in excellent fiscal health. The truth is that the agency's
projections are on target and that Metro is more than capable of delivering on the
transit plan it is proposing. All that is left now are questions about Culberson's
actions.

As a fellow member of Congress, I feel compelled to remind my colleague that
we were elected to go to Washington to advocate for the interests of the Houston
community. Instead, Culberson is on a crusade to keep critical federal funds --
funds raised in Houston by gas taxes -- from coming back to Houston to help us
address our transportation woes. Why does Culberson oppose returning hard-
earned tax dollars to our own community? isn't that what we should be fighting
for in Washington?

Apparently, he only wants to deny Houstonians those options. He has sent tens
of millions of dollars in federal transit funds to other cities around the nation: He
is willing to fund rail transit in Salt Lake City, Dallas and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
But he cannot abide a dollar for rail transit in Houston, where his own
constituents steam in traffic for want of a transit system.

Well, over the past couple of years, Culberson has proven himself to be an anti-
rail zealot, and he is fighting tooth and nail to defeat Metro's referendum on the
Nov. 4 ballot, without regard for the truth, or for the long-term costs to Houston. It
is not that he doesn't want this rail plan. He doesn't really want any rail plan for
Houston.

As an alternative to the Metro plan, Culberson claims to support the "100
Percent Solution" plan. What he doesn't tell our fellow Houstonians, is that the
"100 Percent Solution" plan is a wish list of highways and commuter rail that
would cost tens of billions and require both state and federal gasoline tax hikes,
something his voting record suggests he would be very unlikely to support were it
on the ballot instead.

The other important detail my colleague neglects to tell voters about his
alternative, is that the Metro Solutions transit plan is included in the so-called
"100 Percent Solution" plan. In fact, it is the only element of that plan that
actually includes a source of funding without raising taxes. If Culberson were
serious about the "100 Percent Plan," then he would be naturally supportive of
the current Metro proposal.

Contrary to the false claims of Culberson and his fellow anti-rail zealots, the
Metro plan provides a vast increase in bus service for those in the inner city who
need it most, and a comparable expansion of Park and Ride service for those
commuting to Houston from the suburbs. This is a plan that helps everyone from
Sugar Land to Kingwood, and throughout the city of Houston.

Houston has had more than enough of Culberson's Washington-style politics
and gross distortions of the truth. The people deserve better than demagoguery.
As a member of Congress, I am deeply distressed when one of my colleagues
uses his office to mislead the very voters who chose us to fight for them in
Washington. He owes the Houston community an apology.


Bell, a Democrat, represents Texas' 25th U.S. Congressional District.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2178095



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 26, 2003

Cash disclosure not part of plan

By JOHN WILLIAMS


A QUICK CRUISE around the political finance seas with only eight days left
before the Nov. 4 elections:

· if ideas are the motors that drive politics, money is the fuel.

Local conventional wisdom holds that supporters of an issue must spend three
times as much on advertising as opponents do.

Essentially, it is cheaper in politics to build doubt and suspicion than support.

So important was it to the Metropolitan Transit Authority that it not face a high-
dollar campaign against its transit referendum, including expanded light rail, that
Metro officials reduced their rail proposal with hopes of appeasing opponents.

The gambit failed.


Close to the vest

Suburban apartment developer Michael Stevens, who took part in negotiations
that resulted in a smaller rail plan, has joined hands with other rail opponents to
create Texans for True Mobility. The 501(c)(6) corporation is raising money to
help defeat the referendum.

it's hard to discern how much money Stevens has raised because he has taken
the position that money given to Texans for True Mobility is not a form of
campaign contribution. Based on that assertion, the group is not filing campaign
finance reports disclosing contributions and expenses.

The 501(c)(6), named for the section of the internal Revenue Code that defines
it, was originally created to help business leagues such as chambers of
commerce.

But in recent years, groups advocating political positions have former 501(c)(6)
organizations to mount campaigns to influence policy and legislation.


Pending investigation

in Austin, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is investigating the $3
million in contributions that another 501(c)(6) -- the Texas Association of
Business -- spent on legislative races. TAB contends it did not have to disclose
its donors because it did not advocate votes for specific candidacies, although it
has acknowledged that its efforts helped elect Republicans.

Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal has promised to look into the
question as it relates to Texans for True Mobility. He won't disclose his findings,
though, until after the Nov. 4 election, saying he doesn't want to influence the
election results.

According to an e-mail sent to prospective donors last week, the Stevens-backed
group anticipates a budget of $1.9 million.

Citizens for Public Transportation, the pro-rail political action committee headed
by businessman Ed Wulfe, has a budget of $1.4 million.

· Because of the unique corporate status of Texans for True Mobility,
contributors could deduct their donations as business expenses for federal
income tax purposes.

Bernie Phillips, tax manager of the National Association of Accountants, said
money that businesses give to 501(c)(6) corporations is deductible.

if Texans for True Mobility raises $1.9 million, that would mean $665,000 in
deductions, based on a 35 percent tax rate.

But Stevens said he has advised contributors not to count their contributions to
Texans for True Mobility as a business expense.

· Homebuilder Bob Perry and his wife, Doylene, have been the biggest
contributors to the Harris County GOP during the period in which the party has
been running its "Liberal Bill White" promotion aimed at discrediting the mayoral
campaign of businessman Bill White.

According to state campaign finance records, the local party collected $212,100
between June 30 and Sept. 30. Of that, Bob Perry gave $75,000 and Doylene
Perry gave $25,000.

The party spent $147,400, with a large chunk of that going to radio and
advertising aimed at helping mayoral candidate Orlando Sanchez, a conservative
Republican, by branding White a liberal. White served as chairman of the state
Democratic Party, generally linked to the party's moderate factions.

· House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, a longtime rail critic, has
been silent about the Metro rail, bus and road referendum.

in the last couple of years, DeLay has taken a lower public profile on rail, even
though there is no indication he has any less disdain for it than in the past.

in his place, DeLay confidants Stevens and U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-
Houston, have become the public faces of rail opposition, with DeLay staying out
of the limelight.

"We're not divulging strategy, but people know and share his concerns about this
expensive gamble," said DeLay spokesman Jonathan Grella. "Pro-rail forces
want this to be a referendum on personalities rather than policy."

But that doesn't mean DeLay's presence isn't being felt around Houston.

Two longtime political contributors to various causes and candidates say DeLay
has expressed his preference that they not contribute money to the pro-rail side
if they can't support the anti-rail group.

Neither wanted to make a public statement because their companies do
business in Washington, where DeLay is among the nation's GOP power elite.

Grella responded that "pro-rail elites" continually demonstrate "a willingness to
say or do anything to further their agenda, including aggressively trying to
discredit and destroy those who disagree with them.

"We're not going to help them invent irrelevant stories right before Election Day
by responding to accusations from anonymous sources."

· Sanchez has solicited the help of social conservative activist Dr. Steven Hotze
for his mayoral campaign. On Sept. 25, Sanchez's campaign gave Hotze's
Conservative Republicans of Harris County $20,000 for a direct mail
advertisement.

Hotze, a local physician, advocates that government should abide by biblical law.

John Williams' e-mail address is john.williams@chron.com.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2181564



=PTP=================================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001774448_sound25m.html

Seattle Times
Saturday, October 25, 2003

Feds make full funding of transit grant official

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter


More than 30 years after Seattle first considered a modern rail-transit system,
the region has a federal grant to build it.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) yesterday signed a "full funding grant
agreement" to provide $500 million over the next few years for the $2.44 billion
project. The 14-mile line from Tukwila to Westlake Center is scheduled to open
by mid-2009.

The document allows construction to begin in two weeks on the first mile,
extending from the downtown transit tunnel south through Sodo. Kiewit Pacific
will sign a pair of contracts worth $95 million this morning to lay those tracks and
build a maintenance base near the old Rainier Brewery.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced the FTA signing in a packed room of
Sound Transit employees and boosters at its Union Station headquarters, calling
light rail "The Little Engine That Could."

"We have reached the end of the tunnel. Light rail means less congestion and
more jobs for Puget Sound," she said. "For a region that has faced some tough
times over the last year or two, this is good news."

The project will create 4,200 construction and design jobs, but "Central Link" is
anticipated to provide only a 1 percent reduction in commuter traffic into
downtown.

Murray and Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, congratulated local transit officials
for their perseverance under pressure. Three years ago, cost overruns forced the
agency to reorganize itself, shorten the line and undergo federal reviews.

Murray said she never doubted Sound Transit would prevail because of its unity.

Seattle voters turned down rapid-transit measures in 1968 and 1970, forfeiting
the city's opportunity for federal rail-transit aid until the current plan passed in
1996.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com.



=PTP============================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/145475_transit25.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Saturday, October 25, 2003

Victory day for fans of light rail

Signing of deal for $500 million grant sets off celebration

By JANE HADLEY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

it's official. The deal is done.

"Touchdown! We win!" said King County Executive Ron Sims, chairman of
Sound Transit's board.

Construction on the 14-mile light rail line from Westlake Center to South 154th
Street near Sea-Tac Airport starts in two weeks at the Metro Busway and South
Royal Brougham Way.

All of the emotion pent up in the two and a half years spent seeking a $500
million federal grant agreement poured out at a news conference at Sound
Transit headquarters yesterday, called to announce that the agreement had
been signed in Washington, D.C. The agreement had been held up by an
influential Oklahoma congressman, who dropped his objections to the project
this week.

Hundreds of Sound Transit staff members who jammed the room in their Friday
casual clothes whooped and cheered and gave a standing ovation as Sen. Patty
Murray, D--Wash., Sims and Chief Executive Officer Joni Earl entered the room.

"The moment we have been waiting for has arrived," said Murray, adding the
project would improve transportation and give jobs to 4,000 people designing,
engineering and building the $2.4 billion project.

Perhaps the loudest cheer and longest standing ovation of all went to Earl. She
thanked the Sound Transit board, Murray and Democratic Reps. Norm Dicks and
Adam Smith, but when she talked about her staff, she could not hold back the
tears.

"You guys are terrific," she said.

The staff took "a lot of hits," Earl said, but prevailed with talent and dedication.
"We're going to build a quality project, a safe project."



Earl invited the public to watch the signing of the first construction contracts this
morning at the site of the new light rail maintenance and operations base at
Airport Way South and South Hanford Street.

it was a day to hand out credit -- even to the opposite party.

Sims praised Murray as an "incredible champion" of the project. Murray in turn
praised Dicks as well as the Bush administration, U.S. Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta and Federal Transit Administrator Jennifer Dorn.

Murray said that without Earl and her staff, "we wouldn't be standing here today."

She also thanked Sims, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, and other local leaders for
their "tireless advocacy" of the agency, which had been brought low by a light rail
project more than a billion dollars over budget.

in early 2001, federal officials cancelled the $500 million grant agreement and
the agency was swallowed in a sea of controversy from which it only recently
emerged.

The rail line was slashed from 21 miles to its current 14 miles and the completion
date pushed from 2006 to 2009.

Sims said Murray told him: "If you are willing to be an excellent organization, I will
fight for you."

Dicks, speaking over a speakerphone from Washington, D.C., where he was
boarding a plane to attend a Huskies game today, said, "I congratulate everyone
at Sound Transit for the fantastic job you've done turning this operation around."

He thanked Earl, Sims, Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel and Pierce
County Executive John Ladenburg.

King County Councilman Dwight Pelz and Seattle City Councilman Richard
Mciver called the staff "unsung heroes."

"The people who work at Sound Transit are just fabulous," said Pelz. "This is
your day."

P-I reporter Jane Hadley can be reached at 206-448-8362 or
janehadley@seattlepi.com



=PTP===========================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/145108_transit23.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, October 23, 2003

Sound Transit clears hurdle

Congressman blocking $500 million grant relents -- with conditions

By JANE HADLEY AND CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

The Seattle area's long-awaited light rail line broke most of the way through the
one remaining roadblock to the start of construction yesterday, as the Oklahoma
congressman who has blocked a key federal grant for the project stepped aside -
- conditionally.

The breakthrough came just two days before favorable bids for the project are
set to expire.

Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee that
hands out federal transportation dollars, released a letter late in the day saying
he will withdraw his objections to the $500 million full-funding grant agreement
on three conditions.

"We're very encouraged, but we're still digesting" Istook's letter, said Ric
ilgenfritz, Sound Transit's chief of communications. "Nobody's popping any corks
yet."

Istook's conditions are:

That the entire 18-member Sound Transit board must pass a resolution
incorporating the statements and commitments made in an Oct. 2 letter,
including promises not to siphon away money from the Eastside or other areas
for the light rail project. The letter was signed by King County Executive Ron
Sims, chairman of the Sound Transit board, and three other board members.
The commitments must be included in language of the federal grant.

The board must agree that it will not ask for more than $500 million. The grant
agreement had been written, Istook said, to suggest that Sound Transit would
get at least $500 million and might ask for more. The grant language must make
$500 million a ceiling rather than a floor.

Land on the "critical path" right-of-way along the Tukwila freeway section of the
14-mile line must be acquired by October of next year.

The decision by Istook came one day after he and two Washington state
Republican members of Congress, Jennifer Dunn and George Nethercutt, failed
in their effort to persuade the White House to kill the project. President Bush has
promised $75 million for Sound Transit next year, and his aides turned aside a
request to withdraw that funding.


The $500 million federal grant, which would still have to be appropriated by
Congress in annual dollops, makes up 20 percent of the $2.4 billion project to
build a light rail line from Westlake Center in downtown Seattle to South 154th
Street near Sea-Tac Airport.

Congressional Democrats who support the light rail project said the first two
conditions would be easily met. The third, involving property acquisition in
Tukwila, is a question mark, ilgenfritz said, and needs to be further investigated.

Sound Transit's 18-member board holds a regular board meeting today and is
expected to discuss and act on Istook's letter.

in addition, the Federal Transit Administration, which notified Istook in July that it
intended to sign the grant agreement, must decide whether to alter the grant
agreement to satisfy Istook's conditions and then sign the agreement. FTA
officials could not be reached yesterday.

Sound Transit will not get a "green light" for construction until it has the signed
agreement in hand, ilgenfritz said.

But two of the project's most stalwart supporters, Rep. Norm Dicks and Sen.
Patty Murray, treated Istook's letter as close to a green light.

The two Washington Democrats said they expect FTA Administrator Jennifer
Dorn to move quickly to issue the full-funding grant agreement.

"I would think it would be done immediately," Dicks said.

The inclusion of the third condition involving Tukwila property came as a surprise
to ilgenfritz and to a prominent light rail opponent, King County Councilman Rob
McKenna, who said he didn't know what to make of it.

The U.S. Transportation Department's inspector general mentioned it in one
paragraph of his 42-page report in July as one of several issues that could affect
the schedule or cost of the project.

ilgenfritz said the issue had not arisen in discussions with federal officials, and
he knew of no particular problems looming with regard to property acquisition in
the Tukwila section of the line.

"We're confident in our schedule, and we think we've got the budget and
resources to stick to it," he said.

Steve Lancaster, director of Tukwila's Department of Community Development,
said he was not aware of any problems or controversies involving land
acquisition in that segment of the line.

One potential concern of such a condition might be that it could give maximum
leverage to property owners in their negotiations with Sound Transit, potentially
threatening the schedule.

Construction bids of close to $100 million, which came in 15 percent below
engineer's estimates, expired two weeks ago and were extended until tomorrow.
It's possible the grant agreement would not be signed by then, but Dan Howell,
project manager for Kiewit Pacific, the contractor who submitted the successful
bid, said he needs to check with higher-ups in his company. It is likely that Kiewit
would extend its bid for a few more days until the federal agreement could be
assigned.

Sound Transit has been waiting anxiously for a state Supreme Court decision on
the validity of initiative 776, which sought to eliminate the motor vehicle tax
revenues that Sound Transit collects. Istook has expressed concern about the
effect of the initiative on Sound Transit's finances if it is upheld.

But in the end, apparently with an eye on the expiring bids, Istook stepped aside
without waiting for the court to issue its decision.

Despite the i's still to be dotted and t's to be crossed, Sound Transit's allies
cheered Istook's announcement.

"This has been one of the toughest fights that I can remember in my 27 years on
the Appropriations Committee," Dicks said. "But the merits prevailed, and I'm
pleased."

Added Murray: "Sound transit has had everything thrown at it in the last two
years, and there have been many days when people wondered whether we'd get
to where we are now.

"Despite all those tough days, at the end of the day we can say that Sound
Transit has a project that has passed every hurdle. So that inherently means it
will be a better project."

Istook's decision to retreat marked a significant setback for Dunn, who has been
among the most vocal opponents of the project, arguing that it would divert
scarce resources from transportation projects in her Eastside congressional
district and across the state. She also insisted that Sound Transit's light rail
system would not cure the region's notorious congestion.

State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald has written Congress that the
project would provide significant congestion relief.

Under Sound Transit board policy, the transit district is divided into five subareas:
East King, North King, South King, Pierce County and Snohomish County.

The 14-mile light rail project is being paid for mostly by the North King subarea,
which is made up mostly of Seattle, and partly by the South King subarea.

The other three subareas are contributing no money to the project, but County
Councilman McKenna and Dunn have expressed fear that if there were cost
overruns, the board would be forced to change its policy and dip into funds from
other areas, particularly East King, which has a huge surplus of unspent money.

McKenna claimed victory yesterday, maintaining that Istook's conditions would
mean that the federal grant would now have to explicitly bar Sound Transit from
raiding funds from other areas in the event of cost overruns.

"This is huge," McKenna said.

Dunn was not available for comment, but in a statement, she said Istook's
approach would protect people in her district as well as money for transportation
projects across the state.

"I applaud his decision and am encouraged by this new decision that will keep
local funds within the regions where they are collected in order to pay for projects
that indeed reduce congestion," she said.

Nethercutt, who represents the 5th District in Eastern Washington, came to a
similar conclusion.

"All along my concerns with Sound Transit have been about protecting
commuters' interests," he said in a statement. "The conditions outlined by
Chairman Istook keep Sound Transit from pitting commuter against commuter in
the Puget Sound region."

But the larger question beyond Sound Transit's future is how much damage the
fight did to Washington's congressional delegation.

"I've been in Congress a long time, and I've never seen the delegation, frankly,
go at each other as it did on this particular project," said Dicks, who represents
Tacoma and the Olympic Peninsula.

"The project was ranked at the top in almost every single area" by federal
transportation officials. "What they were doing was holding up some Holy Grail
project, some perfect project, and when you compare it to other projects that
were getting funded, we were ranked higher and had better capability than all of
them," he said.

Dicks and Murray, ardent Democrats both, showered praise on the Republican
White House for standing fast against the request by Istook and Dunn to deny
funding.

"I was pleased the administration stayed with the president's budget," Dicks said,
noting that Bush had included $75 million for Sound Transit in his fiscal 2004
budget.

As for a meeting that Istook, Dunn and Nethercutt had with Bush's senior political
adviser, Karl Rove, Dicks said, "I think it was an effort to try and get the
administration to change its position."

Dicks also stressed that once he had heard about the meeting, he made sure to
contact the White House as well.

Still, given Sound Transit's difficult history, Murray said she would not fully
celebrate until the funding agreement was delivered.

"I'm not doing my dance yet. I'm waiting until I see that signature on that little
piece of paper," she said.

P-I reporter Jane Hadley can be reached at 206-448-8362 or
janehadley@seattlepi.com



=PTP==================================================

Seattle Times
Sunday, October 26, 2003

Monorail seems to be off track

Nicole Brodeur / Times staff columnist

We taxpayers sure do appreciate being updated on the progress of the monorail.

it's just that it always seems to be bad news.

in August, we learned that the monorail's tax revenues had come in at one-third
below projections. In other words, the monorail board thought it had more money
than it did.

Not a single inch of rail has been laid down for this thing, and already, the guys
in charge are losing money. Worse, they're shirking their responsibility for the
mess.

Monorail leaders blamed the shortfall on the lack of reliable data from other
agencies.

But really, it was they who didn't take the time to investigate how much money
could be raised from a car tax in Seattle.

And it was they who cut corners by basing their numbers on those collected by
Sound Transit. That's like taking child-care advice from Courtney Love. You're
just asking for trouble.

Former monorail board member Dick Falkenbury admitted as much the other
day:

"We had such an extremely short timeline," he said, "And there was real
pressure not to question things. ... 'On time and on budget.' That was the
mantra."

That's great to hear, when you're talking about a $1.7 billion project. Details be
damned, let's get this on the ballot and figure out the numbers later. If they had
known more, maybe Seattle voters wouldn't have passed the thing last year.

But they did, approving a 14-mile Green Line from Crown Hill to West Seattle, to
be paid for by an annual tax on vehicle tabs in the city. The tax rate starts at $85
for every $10,000 of vehicle value and goes up to $140 per $10,000 next year.


They voted out of frustration with longtime traffic problems; with hope that a
home-grown project would be easier to fund and manage; and with no small
measure of nostalgia, seeking to preserve a bit of the ever-changing city's past.

But there were some who didn't play fair, and registered their cars outside of
Seattle to avoid the monorail tax.

it all forced the monorail board to — say it with me, people — spend more
money. Another $52,000 for an independent investigation of their own practices.

Not an inch of rail, and the monorail board had to pay to have itself investigated.
Lordy.

Other things make you wonder: Stations proposed and scrapped, ridership
numbers that change so often, the board must have given up on pens.

And there is that sick feeling I get when someone mentions the monorail, and
everyone else snickers or sighs.

The monorail has turned into public transportation's answer to MTV's newlywed,
Jessica Simpson: Pricey, exasperating and not the brightest thing. We can't stop
watching.

But we can draw some hope from Sound Transit, another Ghost Train that may
come back to life, now that it got the $500 million in federal funds it needs to
break ground.

There's a chance things could work for the monorail, but right now, there's just
suspicion, sighs and snickers.

Not an inch of rail, and already, we feel like we're being taken for a ride.

Reach Nicole Brodeur at 206-464-2334 or nbrodeur@seattletimes.com.

More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists



=PTP================================================

Seattle Times
Sunday, October 26, 2003

Editorial

A shrunken Monorail is a dead Monorail



The Seattle Monorail Project promised to be different.

"We are operating in the shadow of Sound Transit," said Monorail Chairman
Tom Weeks on Oct. 3, 2002. "By going second, we have the opportunity to learn
from their successes and their mistakes."

That was right. Monorail is not going to get the same slack. A drastically
shrunken or changed monorail route, either because of faulty financial planning
or a failure to meet engineering expectations, is a dead monorail. Too many
promises were made too solemnly for them to be forgotten.

in a presentation to The Seattle Times, Weeks said, "We commit to the full 14
miles of the route, and if we can't do that, we go back to the voters."

Monorail also committed to borrow no more than $1.5 billion. It is still committing
to those things.

But the system is beginning to shrink in other ways:

• A station at Safeco Field has been unfortunately dropped. That conflicts with
one of the presumed advantages of monorail — stepping off the Monorail directly
to a game.

• The debate over whether the Monorail goes through, or around, Seattle Center
is far from over. That disagreement between Monorail authorities and influential
members of City Council undoubtedly precedes other disagreements to be
discovered as the route plows through downtown and city neighborhoods.

• There is additional talk of saving money by leaving out escalators at stations,
and there is talk of having sections of single track. This shrinkage is because
revenues are one-third short.

There is a long story about how this happened, but essentially, Monorail
directors and management weren't focused on revenues. Sound Transit had no
problem with revenues; it had a problem with costs.

Monorail put out a 25-page report in July 2002 to think of all the things that might
raise costs — everything from not getting city permits to acts of terrorism. It
wasn't thinking enough about revenues.

The other problem was that Monorail executives were focused on the November
2002 election. This was the election that would put them into business. They
chose a tax rate lower than their financial officer recommended because they
wanted to win the election — which they did, by 877 votes in a city of more than
half a million residents.

The good news is that Seattle voters do not have to take the agency's word.
Monorail's commitment to design and build should make the difference.

Two bidding teams are being asked to accept a contract to design, build and
operate Seattle Monorail at a fixed price. These teams are still both in the game,
saying that it is still doable. When their bids come in, we will know whether we
can afford this system or not.






[PTP NOTE TO RECIPIENTS:  We've had a major Email software failure (i.e.,
crash), and now seem to be recovering.  Consequently, some important items
have backlogged.  So there may be a couple of extra PTP mailings imminently to
catch up.]

PTP Digest 2003/10/27-A = CONTENTS

* Honolulu: BRT out, rail transit in?
   Honolulu Star-Bulletin Thursday, October 23, 2003

* Houston Metro: Rail foes should reveal backers
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 24, 2003

* Houston: Anticipating LRT, 'Main Event' previews urbane CBD
   Houston Chronicle  Oct. 23, 2003

* Houston op-ed: Hypocrisy abounds in Metro Solutions campaign
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 24, 2003

* Portland: Art+history features in interstate line LRT stations
   The Tribune - Portland Fri, Oct 17, 2003

* Denver: LRT Lakewood-Golden line planning moves ahead
   Rocky Mountain News October 23, 2003

* Charlotte: LRT station ads eyed as big revenue source
   Charlotte Observer Thursday, Oct 23, 2003



=PTP===========================================

http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/23/news/index.html

Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Thursday, October 23, 2003

State, city prepare new plans for transit

Harris' proposal for bus rapid transit draws bipartisan criticism

By Crystal Kua
ckua@starbulletin.com


The state will unveil on Monday a combination of light rail, a bus system and
road changes, including an elevated highway, to combat Oahu traffic congestion.

"There is no silver bullet," state Transportation Director Rodney Haraga said.
"One transportation mode is not going to solve our problem."

Haraga said details will be released after the plan is presented to Gov. Linda
Lingle and members of a city and state task force looking for solutions to the
island's traffic woes.

Haraga's comments came on the same day a bipartisan group of state and city
lawmakers and community members called on Mayor Jeremy Harris to dump his
bus rapid transit system, or BRT.

The debate over the system also comes as the City Council's transportation
committee takes up a resolution today calling for the development of a fixed-rail
transit plan, more than 10 years after a Council vote killed the last rail plan.

"I think now is the apt time that we put the brakes on the bus rapid transit
program and get the city and state government to work together on a common
solution to our mass transit programs," said Councilman Charles Djou.

But the mayor said he will not stop the first phase of his plan that will take hybrid
gas-and-electric express buses from downtown through Kakaako and end in
Waikiki.

"It seems that every time we get ready to do something constructive, a number of
politicians in this town get afraid, and they want to stop things to study them
longer," Harris said. "I'm here to tell you 35 years of study is enough. It's time we
took some action, and that's exactly what we intend to do."

Controversial aspects of the bus plan -- taking away lanes on Kapiolani and
Dillingham boulevards for exclusive use -- are not part of a $50 million first phase
that is scheduled to begin construction later this year. Harris said the first phase
will include sidewalk improvements, landscaping, underground utilities, bus stop
upgrades and the addition of extra lanes on Ala Moana and Kalia Road for
semiexclusive use by buses.

Haraga, meanwhile, said an in-town bus system is part of the plan he will present
to the task force.

"We have to go into a multimodal system, which would include mass transit of
some form, which would be the light rail. It will include some type of highway
improvements or modifications, and it will include a bus system," Haraga said.

"We know that whether you call it BRT, whether you call it transit, whether you
call it whatever, we still know that you need that because even if ... everybody
agrees that light rail is one of the viable solutions or modes, you still need to
distribute folks downtown or in town, and the most viable alternative then would
be buses."

A rail proponent, Harris also said his BRT plan does not preclude a rail system,
but it would take six to 10 years to come to fruition, while the BRT can be
implemented now. He said the City Council has already given the green light for
the first phase, and final federal approval is pending.
	
Lingle said she has not yet been briefed by Haraga.

"I'm interested to see how he puts the pieces together," Lingle said. "One thing
the (task force) is unanimous about ... we don't need any more studies, we just
need some decisions to be made, take those decisions to the public to determine
their level of interest or opposition and move forward."

The state is trying to estimate what a system would cost, Haraga said.

"We're trying to get a better handle on what it is, that if we were to go with light
rail, if we were to go with a Nimitz (Highway) flyover or whatever it is, we need to
get a handle on the cost because my question is, How are we going to pay for
it?" Haraga said.

Djou was among several state and city legislators, both Republicans and
Democrats, who represent the areas affected by the BRT and who signed a
petition opposing it.

"Should we keep putting money into BRT if it's not going to solve our problems?
And we're saying, 'Stop, let's take a look, let's find the correct solution.'" said
Council Chairwoman Ann Kobayashi, who along with Djou and Councilman Rod
Tam have introduced a resolution calling for the city administration to delay the
project.




=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 24, 2003

Metro demands anti-rail identities

Texans for True Mobility spokesman says backers 'scared' of retaliation

By TONY FREEMANTLE


Supporters of Metro's $7.5 billion, 22-year transit plan demanded Friday that its
opponents reveal who is backing their anti-rail "educational foundation" and stop
running advertisements based on incorrect financial data.

The plan's opponents countered that the law does not require them to reveal
their backers and that the radio and television ads don't mention the disputed
numbers.

The dueling press conferences held Friday were prompted by a letter released
the day before from the Federal Transit Administration stating it did not vet
funding figures used by rail opponents to claim Metro was overestimating by
$116 million the federal funds it would have for rail expansion.

Last month, rail opponents, including U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, and
Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, released a chart prepared by the House
Appropriations Committee which they said compared Metro's budget numbers
with projections by the FTA of how much money the transit agency would in fact
receive from the federal government.

in a letter to U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, FTA Administrator Jennifer
Dorn said her agency "did not produce the chart or the figures included therein."

Metro's supporters pounced on the letter Friday to denounce the opposition for
"misleading" voters and said Texans for True Mobility, the group leading the
opposition, should pull ads based on those numbers.

"We need honest and fair facts," said Ed Wulfe, the Houston developer who
heads Citizens for Public Transportation, the pro-rail political action committee.
"The arrogance that they (opponents) continue to show is divisive to our
community."

Chris Begala, spokesman for Texans for True Mobility, would not concede that
Culberson erred by saying emphatically, as he did on local television, that the
FTA had provided the data showing a $116 million shortfall.

"Ernest Istook (the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for
transportation) says those numbers are correct and they were put together
based on numbers provided by the FTA," Begala said. "The committee is a
higher authority than the FTA's numbers. Istook's office oversees the FTA's
numbers."

Metro admits to a difference of $43 million between its projections and the Bush
administration's six-year transit funding proposal. The authority contends the rest
of the supposed $116 million discrepancy is caused by the failure of the
appropriations committee to include $66 million in federal grants already
received by Metro and a $7 million clean-air grant from the state.

Regardless of how much the budget shortfall is, Begala said Texans for True
Mobility believes Metro lacks money to complete a plan that includes 73 new
miles of rail, 44 new bus routes, a doubling of HOV lanes and $774 million in
roadwork.

"Let's give them their argument," Begala said. "They're right. We're $50 million
off and we're 11 days out from the election. If they don't have those dollars, they
are not sufficiently solvent to go out and undertake a project of that magnitude."

Wulfe said Texans for True Mobility's refusal to reveal its backers demonstrated
the organization's "contempt for voters." Wulfe further said the organization is
running ads based on the "misleading information conjured up by Mr. Culberson"
and should pull them off the air.

Begala said the campaign had no plans to do so and called Wulfe's demands
"absolutely ludicrous."

The backers of Texans for True Mobility did not wish to reveal themselves to the
public, Begala said, because "they are scared of (retaliation from) very powerful
entities affecting their ability to live and work in this community."

The Harris County district attorney's office is looking into whether the group's
refusal to disclose its backers is unlawful.

in another development Friday, the Houston Association of Realtors' board of
directors voted to endorse the Metro plan.

"it's the price of admission to be a world-class city," said HAR Director Rob Cook
of Robert D. Cook Properties. "I've lived in Houston since 1975, and millions of
dollars have been spent on transportation studies. Metro's plan might not be
perfect, but it's a start. It's time to quit talking and get moving."


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2178530



=PTP============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2003

Rush-hour break a Main attraction

Four blocks closed to traffic for weekend sidewalk cafes

By DAVID KAPLAN and MIKE SNYDER


Downtown is joining outdoor cafe society.

Starting Oct. 31, Main Street between Capitol and Congress will be closed to
auto traffic Friday and Saturday nights.

Main Street restaurateurs will put out tables and chairs almost as far as the curb,
and the street will become a sidewalk.

The four-block strip will feature a mix of entertainment -- called "The Main Event"
-- including live music, dancers and laser light shows.

Business and civic leaders are targeting downtown workers who they believe will
prefer spending late Friday afternoons drinking wine alfresco over fighting
freeway traffic.

"And once Houstonians use it, word gets out, and it becomes a tourist attraction,"
said Jordy Tollett, president of the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors
Bureau.

The Main Event will run Fridays from 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. and Saturdays from 7 p.m.
to 2 a.m. Cross streets within the sidewalk cafe district will remain open to cars.

if it's a hit on Fridays and Saturdays, it will be rolled out on Sundays in six
months or so, and could eventually run seven days a week -- "but only if it makes
sense," said Susan Elmore, chairwoman of the nonprofit group Houston
Downtown Alliance.

There is also talk of making the area a Sunday brunch destination with live
gospel and jazz.

The Main Event will not be a street festival, noted Bob Eury, executive director of
the Downtown District. Its purpose is to create an "attractive, vibrant
environment" to complement downtown businesses.

The atmosphere of the Main Event will change as the night progresses, said
Libby Weathers, director of the Downtown Entertainment District Alliance, a
group comprised mostly of downtown business owners. During happy hour, she
said, there will be a cultural mix of high-energy bands, from cover to Texas to
salsa.

At the dining hour, the music will be softer and more romantic and may feature a
classical quintet.

Roving performers will include dancers, contortionists and magicians.

Organizers hope the Main Event will lure a new demographic to the downtown
restaurant, nightclub and bar scene.

"We want to take advantage of people who work here," said Barry Mandel,
president of the Houston Downtown Alliance. Mandel noted that downtown is
already packed with young revelers on Saturdays around midnight.

With the soon-to-arrive strip of festive sidewalk cafes, Mandel said, downtown
businesses can go after the "low-hanging fruit" -- the almost 200,000 downtown
workers.

Light rail will be an integral component of the Main Event.

"After work on Friday you won't have to get in your car and find a parking spot
downtown," said Tollett. "If you work downtown or in the Medical Center, you can
hop on light rail and ride to lower Main, and after drinking, dining and listening to
music, you can get back on the rail and go back to your car."

Tollett had a strong role in conceptualizing the Main Event, as did members of
DEDA's steering committee, including Joe Martin, the owner of M Bar.

For downtown restaurant and bar owners, who have endured a very rough two
years, these are heady times.

After all the construction work, which severely cut into their businesses,
downtown is turning around: A variety of aesthetic improvements are almost
complete and light rail arrives in a little more than two months.

John Zotos, owner of St. Pete's Dancing Marlin bar and restaurant, said all he
has been hearing the past two years is, "How long can you hold out?"

David Edwards, owner of the Mercury Room, Zula and Boaka Bar, said many
downtown businesses did go under, and among the survivors is a feeling that
finally the good times are returning.

Edwards and Zotos are board members of DEDA. The group helped plan the
Main Event.

City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, whose district includes downtown, was
instrumental in developing the street closing plan.

Last week, the council changed a city ordinance to reduce the cost and time
required to establish sidewalk cafes. The change eliminates the need to hire
engineers or surveyors to draw up site plans, instead allowing businesses to
draft simpler plans themselves.

Tollett said Mayor Lee Brown had instructed city department heads to cooperate
in an effort to anticipate and deal with such regulatory issues.

Also on Oct. 31, downtown will see the debut of bicycle rickshaws, also known as
bike cabs.

The 20 bike cabs will be operated by Lone Star BikeCAB. A person can flag a
bike or phone the company's owner who will radio one of his riders.

Tollett hopes a number of boutiques will eventually spring up along Main Street
to heighten what he describes as the "walking entertainment mall" atmosphere
that is developing.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2176281



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 24, 2003


Light rail game: rank hypocrisy

By RICK CASEY


IF DANTE'S hell has varying levels for degrees of hypocrisy, where will the
following players spend eternity?

· Texans for True Mobility: This group is bellowing in TV and radio ads and direct
mail pieces that the Metro light rail plan "costs too much, does too little."

The group appears to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose
Metro's light rail plan.

On its Web site, TTM offers a list of "news clippings," the first of which is from a
publication called the Houston Review. The article, "The Metro Money Train,"
luridly lists some of the major contributors to Citizens for Public Transportation,
the political action committee advertising in favor of light rail.

The article notes that contributors tend to be companies that expect to profit from
light rail.

Siemens Transportation Systems, for example, gave "a staggering" $50,000.
Siemens is selling the cars to Metro.

Other contributors are architects, engineers and landholders and developers who
stand to benefit from the project.

Crescent Real Estate Equities, for example, owner of Greenway Plaza and
downtown real estate, both of which will be served by rail, gave $25,000. So did
Fulbright & Jaworski, the mega-law firm that does bond work.

This information is known because Citizens for Public Transportation filed the
required disclosure forms -- something Texans for True Mobility refuses to do.

So TTM is happy to tell you who is funding the other side of the debate. They
just won't say who's funding their side.

TTM officials take this hypocrisy to a higher level by saying they don't have to
disclose their finances because they are a nonprofit engaged in education, not
telling people how to vote.

This is so patently untrue that even their announcers have a hard time
swallowing it. One of their radio ads concludes with this line: "Paid for by Texans
for True Mobility." But another concludes: "Political ad paid for by Texans for
True Mobility."

· The Metropolitan Transit Authority: For more than a month, Metro has been
running slick newspaper and television ads touting the virtues of its light rail plan.

idealized artists' renderings of sleek trains pulling into tree-shaded stations turn
hard steel into warm fuzzies.

Metro officials say it's acceptable to use taxpayer and bus rider money to pay for
this advertising blitz because they are simply informing voters of the program, not
seeking their vote.

They say this with the same straight face that TTM officials use in saying their
efforts are simply educational.

Metro officials estimate that from the time they called the election through
Election Day, the cost of the, um, educational campaign will be $3 million. This
includes creative and production costs as well as air time and print space. (The
agency, it should be noted, ran ads before calling the election.)

if you're a taxpayer who disagrees with the plan, you've got a good gripe about
your taxes going to promote the other side.

· Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt: His Web site
(www.tax.co.harris.tx.us/) features in its most prominent position five "featured
items."

Three of them attack Metro's funding plans for its light rail proposal.

One, for example, is titled: "What METROs (sic) Not Telling Us About Their
Revenue Forecast: Bettencourt To inform The Public."

Bettencourt is, of course, (all together now) simply educating the public. He
certainly isn't using his official taxpayer-funded Web site to oppose the Metro
proposal.

He also links to copies of several negative articles about Dallas' light rail system,
but not to any readily available positive articles. (Bettencourt's guilt is mitigated
by technical incompetence. The copies are illegible.)

You can write to Rick Casey at P.O. Box 4260, Houston, TX 77210, or e-mail
him at rick.casey@chron.com.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2176026





=PTP========================================

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?email&id=20936


The Tribune - Portland
Fri, Oct 17, 2003

Art to the MAX

Portland's new interstate light-rail line is a trip in itself

 By DON HAMILTON


[PHOTO]
At the interstate/Rose Quarter station, "The Silicon Forest," by Brian Borrello, is
a metaphor for displacement and change. The glass trees generate electricity
through solar panels.



   if art tells stories, you'll find tales of change, hardship and optimism all along
TriMet's new interstate MAX line.
   it's all right there in the 10 stations and their 10 art projects. Each is designed
to reflect the history and the culture of the people who have lived nearby.
   The $350 million extension of light rail -- to be called the Yellow Line -- won't
open until May 1. But the 10 art projects are being installed this fall; by
November, the project will be 90 percent complete.
   "Artists are storytellers," said Mary Priester, TriMet's public art manager. "They
tell their stories with visual elements, but they approach the stations in similar
ways, telling their own version of that neighborhood's story."
   Public art along the 5.8-mile line cost $1.4 million, a figure based on the
agency policy of spending 1.5 percent on art. The figure, reached through a
formula that excluded land acquisition and the cost of cars, is less than the $2
million spent on art installed along the 20-station west-side line.
   in 2000, TriMet created its interstate MAX Art Committee, which then set out in
search of neighborhood voices to help set an artistic theme for each station. The
interviews conducted not only set themes but also formed the basis of a book
called "intersections," an oral history with voices from Vanport, Albina, the Expo
Center and other stops along the line.
   The new line works its way north from the Rose Quarter to the Expo Center,
right through the heart of what have been, at various times, Portland's poorest
and most turbulent neighborhoods.
   Consider drugs, gangs, riots and poverty. Consider shipyards, stockyards,
Japanese relocation camps and the neighborhoods lost to make way for a
hospital, an interstate and Memorial Coliseum. And consider the Vanport flood
and the lively night life that once drew Sammy Davis Jr., Count Basie and Duke
Ellington.
   Columns, benches, railings, sculpture, platforms and elements at stations all
along the line reflect these stories.
   "No true progress," TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen wrote in the
introduction to the oral history, "can be made without sharing and honoring our
collective history."



=PTP================================================

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_23698
00,00.html

Rocky Mountain News
October 23, 2003

RTD presents report on proposed rail line

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News

LAKEWOOD - Whether the proposed light-rail line through Lakewood to Golden
can be built is expected to be decided by the federal government by the end of
this year.

But voters won't decide on the light-rail line for at least another year.


Regional Transportation District officials presented the final version of the
required environmental-impact statement on the line to the public Wednesday
night at the Sheraton Hotel here.

The session drew about 45 people. It was the last viewing of the report before it
goes to the Federal Transit Administration for review. A decision could come
before the new year.

But funding for the estimated $492 million project is highly dependent on voter
approval of a proposed hike of 0.4 percent in RTD's sales tax, to a full penny per
dollar. The plan, called FasTracks, would build six new rail corridors, extend
three existing ones and expand bus service. The earliest RTD plans to ask for
voter approval is November 2004.

With the tax hike, the Lakewood-Golden line could be completed in 2010.
Relying on current funding, though, it wouldn't be built until after 2025.

The 13-mile line requires RTD to purchase a dozen single-family homes and
remove 179 multifamily residences from along the right of way. In addition, 34
businesses would be displaced.

Since the draft of the report was released in March, RTD received 1,180
comments on it from residents, businesses, agencies and local governments. As
a result, some changes were made. The most noticeable was RTD's decision to
beef up measures aimed at reducing noise from the trains.

Light rail is generally considered so quiet it has to run with horns and bells to be
heard when approaching from behind.

But concerns about track noise led RTD to pledge a noise barrier, 3 feet high, on
both sides of the track from Harlan to Oak streets. The report results showed
RTD would be required to build those walls for only a small portion of that
distance.

in addition, RTD Project Manager Dave Hollis said, RTD agreed to blare the
trains' horns when they cross streets at grade level.



=PTP=============================================

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/7080702.htm

Charlotte Observer
Thursday, Oct 23, 2003

Big ads considered for light rail stations

Officials say displays could earn as much as $32,000 per site yearly

DIANNE WHITACRE
Staff Writer

Charlotte's 15 light-rail stations may have six large display ads when they open
three years from now -- a move that transit officials are considering to raise
money.

The Metropolitan Transit Commission on Wednesday asked its staff to start
drafting an ordinance that would allow the advertisements. The ads could raise
$25,000 to $32,000 annually at each station, marketing manager Olaf Kinard
said. He based that estimate on ad prices at rapid-transit stations in other cities,
including Atlanta, Denver and Dallas.

Currently, ads are not allowed in the public right of way, where the stations will
be located near South Boulevard and the Norfolk Southern rail line. So the city's
zoning ordinance would have to be changed. That may happen next year, after a
public hearing.

The proposal comes three years after the Charlotte Area Transit System
eliminated ads from the exterior of its bus fleet in an attempt to improve their
appearance.

Mayor Pat McCrory noted the city's long fight against billboards and said the
transit station ads should not face the street. They should be inside the stations,
where transit passengers would see them.

Ads would not be allowed at bus stops or bus shelters, Kinard said.

The proposal affects only Charlotte because the planned light-rail line runs only
within the city. Later, the same policy would be considered for the four other
transit lines, which will run through the city as well as Cornelius, Huntersville,
Davidson and Matthews. Those towns will discuss allowing the shelter ads in
their jurisdictions later.

in other action, the transit commission set a $1 fare for the historic Charlotte
Trolley, which starts daily service in February between uptown and the South
End. That's the current fare, but the CATS staff proposed setting it at $1.10, the
same as local bus fare.

The trolley fare will increase to $1.20 in 2006, the same fare planned for the
light-rail line, said Keith Parker, deputy director.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Whitacre: (704) 358-5099; dwhitacre@charlotteobserver.com










PTP Digest 2003/10/24-A = CONTENTS

* Austin: GOP pol vets regional rail plan sans vote
   Austin American-Statesman  Friday, October 24, 2003

* LA: Transit strike sparks painful congestion jump
   Los Angeles Times October 23, 2003

* Houston-area Dem says: Vote Yes on Metro rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 23, 2003

* Houston: Rail foes using bogus 'FTA' numbers?
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 23, 2003

* Houston: Rail foes hit Metro 'info' insert as 'ethics' breach
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 23, 2003

* Seattle: 'Big victory for light rail'
   News Tribune - Tacoma  October 23rd, 2003

* Seattle: $500 million coming for LRT (with strings attached)
   Seattle Times Thursday, October 23, 2003

* Seattle monorail planners hit for 'cutting corners' with 1-track plan
   KIRO 7 Eyewitness News 2003/10/23

* Seattle: How monorail promoters bollixed revenue estimates
   Seattle Times Thursday, October 23, 2003

* Seattle: Another Councilman opposes monorail through Seattle Center
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Thursday, October 23, 2003



=PTP==================================================

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/friday/metro_
state_f389fc0123bd424a00d7.html

Austin American-Statesman
Friday, October 24, 2003

Krusee pushes commuter rail plans

Suggestion that rail election might not be necessary in certain circumstances
draws chilly reaction

By Ben Wear


Rep. Mike Krusee, of late an enthusiastic flag bearer for bringing toll roads and
passenger rail to Central Texas, has raised the possibility of carrying legislation
to clear the way for a rail system without a public vote.

That suggestion, made in a private meeting of civic and transportation leaders
Monday at the Headliners Club, was radioactive in a community that has fought
about putting people on rail cars for more than a decade.

it moved Capital Metro Chairman Lee Walker to immediately assure participants
that he was not lobbying for such a thing. Walker went on to tell the
approximately 25 mayors, city managers, transportation officials, developers and
environmentalists that his guess is that an election on passenger rail is likely in
November 2004.

Although he clearly favors passenger rail, Walker had not previously gone on the
record pinpointing next November for such an election. And Krusee, not so long
ago a legislative thorn in Capital Metro's much-pierced side, had never raised the
possibility of easing off on the election requirement.

On Thursday, Krusee, R-Round Rock, backed up, saying he could see
introducing such legislation in a possible special session next year only if there
were overwhelming public consensus for a system.

What Krusee is talking about, along with Walker and a growing number of
community leaders across the political spectrum, is so-called commuter rail, a
system that would use existing freight railroads and railroad right of way.

"We're not going to obviate the need for an election on light rail, I can tell you
that," said Krusee.

in the 2001 legislative session, Krusee successfully carried a bill requiring
Capital Metro to hold elections on rail only in Novembers of even-numbered
years. The point was to prevent the transit agency from holding an election when
voter turnout would be lower and thus easier to manipulate. The previous
November, voters narrowly rejected the creation of a 52-mile system of light rail,
trolley-like cars that in some cases would have run on tracks embedded in
existing city streets.

Krusee said haggling over whether or not to hold an election is exactly the sort of
divisive issue he's trying to outflank. He convened the Monday meeting in
downtown Austin to gather consensus.

Krusee outlined a possible passenger rail system of more than 100 miles that
would use an existing Capital Metro freight rail line from Leander to downtown
Austin, a freight line that runs from beyond Georgetown to points south of San
Marcos, and a possible third line that would have to be built from scratch on an
existing rail right of way east of Round Rock and Austin.

Such a system would be cheaper to build on a per-mile basis than light rail.
Krusee has suggested the tab might be in the hundreds of millions for the 100-
plus mile system he has in mind; the 52 miles of light rail would have cost $1.9
billion. But light-rail advocates say commuter rail would serve suburbanites,
primarily, rather than the urbanites they say are most drawn to alternative forms
of transportation. And those generally opposed to spending big sums on rail
won't necessarily be mollified.

"There are a couple of questions I would want answered first," said Travis
County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty, who has fought for years to lower
Capital Metro's 1-cent sales tax. "One, would Capital Metro operate all of it? And
two, would it necessitate Capital Metro needing the entire penny sales tax? And
if those two things were true, I would fight it just as hard as I fought the light rail."

Daugherty was particularly disturbed to hear about the possibility of having no
public vote, and said he planned to "get into it" with Krusee on that subject.

Light-rail opponent Jim Skaggs, who worked closely with Daugherty on the 2000
election and was at the Monday meeting, is withholding judgment.

"I'm not about to throw rocks until I understand it," Skaggs said. "My initial
reaction is that there's some good in this, and some concerns."

Skaggs said he likely will join the elaborate field trip to the Washington, D.C.,
area that Krusee is organizing for November to look at the sort of developments
that might grow up around rail stations. Mike Polikov, a former Capital Metro
board member and a transportation consultant with Prime Strategies, said that
about 30 people have committed to make the trip. His company, along with
Capital Metro and other governments and private interests will finance the
outing's $15,000 to $20,000 cost.

And then?

"We'll take the trip, and then we'll get together again," Krusee said. "If everyone
is excited about what they see, then we'll probably expand the scope, including
some county judges and maybe more legislators."

Austin Mayor Will Wynn, who attended Krusee's soiree, is already on board,
even without the field trip.

"I will be a big supporter of a growing commuter rail system for Austin and
Central Texas," Wynn said in an e-mail. "And I'm not scared of an election. The
cost/benefit analysis will be obvious. The bumper sticker will probably read: Does
too much, costs too little."

bwear@statesman.com; 445-3698



=PTP==============================================

[PTP NOTE:  So, transit ridership is such an insignificant percentage of total
travel, it doesn't have any impact on traffic flow and congestion?]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
traffic23oct23,1,6354904,print.story?coll=la-home-todays-times


Los Angeles Times
October 23, 2003

Strike Clogs Traffic Even More

Studies find more cars on the roads and an increase in rush-hour delays on
major L.A. freeways.

By Caitlin Liu and Joel Rubin
Times Staff Writers

Traffic on Los Angeles streets and freeways has increased since the transit
strike began 10 days ago, according to transportation records, significantly
worsening congestion and delays throughout the city.

A report by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, which sampled 11
major intersections and freeway ramps for three days last week, found a 4.4%
jump in traffic volume overall, clogging roads from Westwood to Hollywood to
Woodland Hills.

Experts said even such a modest jump in traffic volume can cause major
problems on already congested streets.

"Just a 5% increase during our peak hours can send us into a tizzy," said Wayne
Tanda, general manager for the Transportation Department. "A few more cars
getting into a freeway can send it into total gridlock."

Motorists said the commute is getting worse by the day.

"it's absolutely terrible," said Brent Phillips, whose 45-minute morning drive from
Encino to downtown Los Angeles has doubled since MTA workers went on
strike. "From the moment I get onto the freeway until I get to work, it's like a
parking lot."

The 101 Freeway, which Phillips drives every day, appears to be especially hard
hit. The Hollywood Freeway portion of the 101 runs above the Red Line subway,
and the Ventura Freeway segment runs parallel to the Metro Rapid bus line.
Before the strike, the Red Line and Ventura Boulevard Metro Rapid buses
accounted for 70,000 daily trips.

Since the transit shutdown, the Hollywood Freeway's Highland Avenue exit in the
Cahuenga Pass registered a 4.5% increase in traffic volume, according to the
city report.

"Traffic is very easily disturbed. If you're near capacity ... a very small
disturbance is all you need to create a very serious traffic jam," said Asha
Weinstein, assistant professor of urban and regional planning at San Jose State
University. "If you add a small percentage of vehicles ... It can be just enough to
push you over the edge."

There are also signs that traffic is worsening as more transit users turn to
alternatives. Last Wednesday, the day after the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority's mechanics went on strike, citywide traffic grew by 3.7% compared
with the previous Wednesday. By Friday, traffic volumes were up by 5.9%,
according to the report.

A separate analysis of traffic data by the UC Berkeley institute of Transportation
found that commuters on major Los Angeles freeway corridors saw a 37.5%
increase in rush-hour delays since the start of the strike.

The analysis, performed for The Times, compared several weeks of Tuesday-to-
Thursday traffic patterns from freeways feeding into downtown, including
interstates 5, 10 and 110 as well as California 60 and U.S. 101. It measured
increases in commuter delays. A delay was defined as the extra time congestion
added to a normal drive when traffic is clear, said researcher Chao Chen, who
examined data from the institute's Freeway Performance Measurement System,
a project sponsored by the California Department of Transportation.

The study found that motorists on these routes suffered a total of 12,600 hours
of delays on an average day before the strike. But after the transit shutdown, the
cumulative delays grew to 17,300 hours a day.

The southbound 101 recorded the biggest increase in delays — 70%, according
to the Berkeley analysis.

Before the strike, transit trips accounted for at least 5% of all travel within Los
Angeles County, according to MTA's latest estimates. On an average weekday,
Angelenos took 580,000 trips by bus and 100,000 trips by rail.

By removing those riders from freeways and roads, the region's bus and train
network was saving the average resident 9.8 hours a year by reducing delays,
according to a 2003 study by the Texas Transportation institute.

Now, many riders are either driving again or paying someone to ferry them
around.

Since the strike began, ridership in franchised taxicabs has jumped 30%,
according to the Transportation Department report. Bandit taxis — or illegal car
or van service — also have been proliferating. Even when people carpool,
drivers typically travel extra miles to pick up and drop off passengers.

"The last strike [in 2000], it didn't appear this bad," said Jimmy Price, chief of
LADOT's parking enforcement and traffic control unit, after it took him 30
minutes to drive two blocks through the downtown's fashion district.

Holding up her white-gloved hands at the intersection of Figueroa and 6th streets
Wednesday afternoon, Traffic Officer April McCarthy said she senses growing
frustration among motorists. "Just two seconds ago, a guy drove by and flipped
me off!" she said. "But that's just part of the job."

"it's TMC — too many cars," added Rod Bernsen, a reporter for Fox 11 News .

Bernsen, who has surveyed the region's freeways from a helicopter in the sky
before and after the strike began, said the stop-and-go conditions and miles of
backups reminded him of traffic snarls on rainy days.

"There's a lot more congestion. It's noticeable," Bernsen said.

Motorists aren't the only ones unnerved by the increased traffic.

"it's gone pretty crazy, man," said Carlos Garcia, a bike messenger from East
Los Angeles. "When the strike started I was happy because the buses would be
gone, but then [the streets] were just packed with cars. It gets worse and worse
every day."



=PTP==================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2003

Viewpoints

Derailing Metro transit plan isn't an alternative

By U.S. REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

JUST over one century ago, in 1880, Houston, the powerhouse of Texas
business, had a population of only approximately 16,000 people, according to a
federal census. Since then, the metropolis has seen unprecedented growth to
become one of America's most populous cities. That's why we need a public
transportation system that is funded by the public and will be used by the public.

The greater Houston area is subdivided into six counties: Chambers, Fort Bend,
Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller. Harris County proudly hosts the city of
Houston, and that is where the largest part of the population is concentrated. In
2000, approximately 3.5 million people lived in Harris County alone. Over the
next 20 years, the population of the Houston region will continue to grow. In fact,
the influx of more than 2 million additional people in Harris County and another
million in the surrounding counties is expected. With respect to transportation,
Houston and Harris County already experience serious problems. The imminent
increase in population will only exacerbate the problems and will have a negative
impact on the overall quality of life in the region. All forms of infrastructure
improvements must provide the solution.

Road and freeway improvements, as well as the construction of an enhanced
public transportation system, will alleviate the problems while generating
significant tax dollars. Statistically, Houstonians travel more miles per day than
there are miles between the Earth and the sun. The distance between the Earth
and the sun is about 93 million miles. Houstonians drive about 156 million miles
per day!

The Metropolitan Transit Authority has worked over the past two years to create
a long-range plan for mass transit in the Houston area called Metro Solutions.
Texas has a Transportation Code, and it is authorized to act in this field of local
government through Metro. Given the need for the service to be provided by
Metro's plan and the state's jurisdiction to implement a plan that has been
accepted by the public, why does the federal government and a member of the
House Appropriations Committee need to interfere with its progress?

This member has worked to hinder this highly beneficial transportation project for
quite some time. In fact, his amendment to the Transportation, Treasury, and
independent Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004, also known as
H.R. 2989 and incorporated as Section 163, aimed directly at this project with
proposed restrictions that are both redundant and unnecessary. This member
introduced Section 163 under the guise of ensuring that the citizens in the transit
authority service area had an opportunity to voice their desires with respect to
the light-rail proposal. He took these measures despite his knowledge that the
Metro board has been diligently working with the community to establish
development plans that do not violate Texas law and despite the fact that
Chapter 451 of the Texas Transportation Code requires the referendum process
that will take place on Nov. 4.

Furthermore, his actions likely precipitated the issuance of an opinion by the
Federal Transit Administration's chief counsel as to the denial of funds for the
Advanced Transit Plan largely due to the redundant prohibitions of Section 163.
Although Metro has called for a referendum pursuant to Chapter 451 of the
Texas Transportation Code, in addition to having held several public hearings on
the matter, the FTA, by way of this opinion, had summarily deemed the process
insufficient for purposes of the Section 163 prohibitions. Because neither H.R.
2989 nor Section 163 is law, the FTA opinion effectively disrupted and interfered
with the local administration of a transportation project that has been fully
accepted and supported by members of the community.

in addition to the fact that the basis for this opinion was premature, i.e., the fact
that both Section 163 and H.R. 2989 are not law as yet, the Metro board held a
meeting to change the language of its referendum ballot for Nov. 4 to further
conform to these prohibitions that are not yet law. This ballot was then accepted
by the Department of Transportation for compliance with federal regulations.
Metro held 178 public and stakeholder meetings during its development of the
Metro Solutions plan between December 2001 and July 2003.

The alternative plan backed by Metro Solutions opponents and formulated by the
Houston-Galveston Area Council, the "100 Percent Solution" plan, is still in draft
form and has not yet had specific public involvement for the additional 5,000
lane-miles on top of the already planned 5,600 lane-miles. In terms of economic
benefits projected for Metro Solutions, between $130 million and $200 million per
year in regulatory costs will be saved to reduce pollution emissions.

The opponents of Metro Solutions offer the 100 Percent plan as an alternative.
However, it is not an alternative. First, unlike the Metro Solutions plan, the 100
Percent plan is an unfinished study and not a plan at all. Secondly, Metro
Solutions covers only a portion of the eight-county region, while the 100 Percent
plan contemplates the incorporation of the Regional Transportation Plan, or
RTP, which is a multimodal plan that covers the entire eight-county region. The
RTP is not an alternative to Metro Solutions -- it includes Metro Solutions. Also,
unlike Metro Solutions, the 100 Percent plan is based on a wish list of regional
road and transit projects that have no identified funding and would require
significant amounts of right of way. The claim by Metro Solutions opponents that
the 100 Percent Solution plan can reduce congestion depends upon the sudden
appearance of this wish list of projects that the federal government currently
prohibits local officials from planning and programming, as they have no existing
revenue streams to fund such projects.

in conclusion, there is no need to impede or to derail the Metro Solutions plan.
Houston is the only city in the United States that was affected by funding
restrictions of H.R. 2989. As a result, the city has been singled out and excluded
from the 25 slices of a funding pie worth $1.2 billion federal dollars. Dallas is
slated to receive $30 million under the act. The referendum vote on Nov. 4 will
translate to more needed rail, more buses and more roads with no new taxes.
Metro Solutions is a public transportation plan that will serve the public --
therefore, the will of the community should supersede any federal special
interests. I strongly urge a yes vote on the Metro referendum.

Jackson Lee, a Democrat, represents Houston's 18th Congressional District. She
is a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and ranking
member of the House Subcommittee on immigration and Border Security of the
Judiciary Committee.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2176253



=PTP=============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2003

FTA denies it produced Metro shortfall figures

Budget criticism is key to anti-rail effort

By LUCAS WALL


The federal agency that distributes grants to Metro has denied ever confirming
numbers that purport to show the transit authority overestimated its future funds
by more than $100 million.

Republican officials including U.S. Rep. John Culberson of Houston and Harris
County Judge Robert Eckels released a chart last month prepared by the House
Appropriations Committee that compared the Metropolitan Transit Authority's
grants budget through 2009 to data marked "FTA Projections." The difference
between the two came to $116 million.

But in a Wednesday letter to U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, the
administrator of the Federal Transit Administration wrote: "FTA did not produce
the chart or the figures included therein."

Although $116 million is a small fraction of the $7.5 billion Metro proposes to
spend in the next 22 years to expand the region's transit system, rail opponents
used the figure to denounce the authority's budgeting. For example, a mailer this
week from the anti-rail group Texans for True Mobility states, "U.S. Department
of Transportation Notifies Metro -- Your Numbers Are Off By Tens of Millions."

FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn, whose agency is part of the Department of
Transportation, also stated in the letter Lampson released Thursday: "The chart
and its figures were never reviewed and confirmed by the FTA."

Metro and its supporters said they were ecstatic about the letter. Culberson and
other rail foes were baffled but said it doesn't change their view that the transit
authority lacks the money to complete the "Metro Solutions" plan it wants voters
to endorse in a Nov. 4 referendum. The plan includes 73 miles of rail, 44 new
bus routes, doubling HOV lanes, and $774 million of roadwork.

"There was never any confusion at Metro about the veracity of these numbers,"
said Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter. "I would hope this letter would end the
discussion with an apology to the agency. We knew it was just a bunch of
hogwash."

Schechter accused Culberson and his allies of "deliberately misleading the
public by ignoring the facts."

Culberson, stepping off a plane from Washington, said he was outraged by
Dorn's letter. He pointed to a Sept. 25 letter from Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.,
indicating the House Appropriations Committee staff consulted with the FTA
when it prepared the chart of Metro's budget figures. Istook chairs the
appropriations subcommittee for transportation, which decides federal transit
funding.

"The chairman, I think, would be honest and accurate in telling me that the
numbers on that chart were confirmed by the FTA," said Culberson, who serves
on the subcommitee. "Chairman Istook has a reputation for impeccable honesty,
and it is a very bad idea for an agency under his jurisdiction to question his
honesty."

Istook, reached at his Oklahoma City residence Thursday evening, said he relied
on committee staff to answer Culberson's inquiry.

"If they say they consulted with FTA, you can believe they did," Istook said. "The
fact that the consultation might have happened without the FTA administrator's
personally being aware of it is not out of the order."

Istook said because he was not personally involved in drafting the chart, "I don't
know if the FTA was ever presented with the same material staff had or if they
were looking at two different sets of material. ... The fact that people might reach
different conclusions from the same set of data is nothing new under the sun."

Lampson wrote Dorn on Oct. 9, asking her to clarify the origin of the numbers in
the chart. He and other Democratic members of Congress who support Metro's
referendum have criticized Culberson, alleging the figures were way off.

"Hopefully this will put that to bed," Lampson said Thursday. "it's my hope that
we can get everybody, including Mr. Culberson, to back down from coming up
with projections that don't make any sense."

The transit authority has acknowledged there is a difference of $43 million
between its projections and the Bush administration's six-year transit funding
proposal, saying it's because of different rates used to calculate annual
increases in federal formula funds. This money is disbursed annually to transit
agencies based on factors such as population and ridership. Metro used 8
percent based on historic trends; the president's bill suggests 2 percent.

Metro said the rest of the discrepancy on the chart is due to the Appropriations
Committee failing to include $66 million in federal grants the transit authority
already has received plus a $7 million state clean-air grant.

The FTA has yet to verify whether Metro has the $66 million in unspent grants,
despite numerous requests in the past three weeks from Culberson and the
Houston Chronicle. FTA spokeswoman Kristi Clemens did not return calls
Thursday.

Culberson expressed frustration that the agency responded to Lampson, a
minority party member, before it addressed the questions he and the newspaper
have asked since Oct. 6 -- three days before Lampson sent his letter.

"We have agencies responsible for overseeing monumental public works
projects like transit who can't give me simple answers to simple questions within
three weeks," Culberson said. "The taxpayers deserve accuracy and honesty in
the fundamental revenue numbers that determine whether the transit authority
can pay back the bondholders and build all the things it promises."

Eckels said it remains clear there is some shortfall in Metro's federal revenue
projections.

Metro's referendum asks voters to authorize $640 million in bonds to accelerate
construction of the next 22 rail miles. The transit authority needs matching funds
from the federal government to afford its new rail lines.

Lampson said Thursday's development makes it clear Metro can afford its plan,
which he called reasonable and essential for the city's future.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2176223



=PTP==============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2003


Anti-rail group cries foul on flier

Metro advertisement inserted in water bill called improper

By LUCAS WALL


An anti-rail group under criminal investigation for failing to disclose its
contributors threw a punch back Thursday, claiming a Metro flier distributed with
city water bills improperly influences voters to support the Nov. 4 transit plan.

"The city of Houston has no business doing political mail-outs," said Edd
Hendee, treasurer for Texans for True Mobility. "They are in the business of
putting water bills out, not to take sides on an issue such as this."

The Metro insert announces 19 public meetings on the agency's transit plan,
informs water customers about the Nov. 4 referendum on the plan, and lists
details of the "Metro Solutions" package. The proposal offers "options,"
"accountability" and "affordability," the flier states.

Hendee suggested the one-page paper, with English on one side and Spanish
on the other, violates state ethics laws prohibiting a government agency from
campaigning for its referendum. The Metropolitan Transit Authority wants voters
to approve a $7.5 billion expansion plan for rail, buses and roads.

To even the score, Hendee said, Houston should permit TTM to hang an anti-
Metro banner atop City Hall.

"If we couldn't put that on City Hall, perhaps we could put our message on trash
trucks for the Solid Waste Division: 'Trash Metro's Plan on Nov. 4,' " he said.

Metro dismissed the criticism as ludicrous.

"This saved public money," said Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter. "We were
simply announcing meetings and inviting the public to find out the truth. ...

"Metro has an obligation to be sure the public is educated as to the plan because
it is important to the future of the community."

During a news conference Thursday, reporters pressed Hendee to reveal who
has donated money to fund TTM's attack ads, including a mail-out comparing
Metro's finances to bankrupt Enron and a TV ad stating the authority will "slash
bus service, hike fares, cut Park & Ride and cancel road projects" when it runs
out of money. TTM has designated those ads as "educational," not political, and
therefore not subject to disclosure requirements.

"People concerned with mobility in Houston" was the only description Hendee
would give of his donors.

The Harris County district attorney's office, responding to a complaint by the
Houston Chronicle, is investigating TTM's failure to file campaign finance reports.

Regarding the water bills, the transit authority asked the city if it could include
information as part of its "public education effort about its long-term mobility
plan," said Corey Ray, spokesman for Mayor Lee Brown.

"We believe this is very much a city issue, and citizens of Houston deserve to be
well informed on such issues," Ray said. "The insert does not advise anyone on
how to vote."

Metro printed the ads and paid the city $1,458 to insert them in water bill
envelopes. Hendee said it would cost his group $105,000 to mail out a similar
flier.

This isn't the first time Metro has paid the city to get out its message through
water bills -- there have been inserts promoting its commuter bus service, vans
for the disabled and summer activities for children.

The city limits bill advertisements to governmental agencies and nonprofit
institutions, Ray said. Other inserts have advertised the county's new electronic
voting system, encouraged blood donations and promoted CPR classes.

Chronicle reporter Kristen Mack contributed to this story.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2176247




=PTP===============================================

http://www.tribnet.com/news/local/story/4227543p-4239486c.html

News Tribune - Tacoma
October 23rd, 2003

Big victory for light rail

MATTHEW DALY; The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sound Transit's proposed light-rail line from Seattle to Tukwila
surged forward Wednesday as a key congressman withdrew his opposition.


Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) gave conditional approval to an agreement
authorizing $500 million in federal funding for the long-delayed rail line.


Istook, chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction
over transportation projects, had objected to the proposed rail line for months.
Among other concerns, Istook worried about its reliance on what he called
uncertain local funding.


But in a letter to the Federal Transit Administration, released late Wednesday,
Istook said he would approve the project on several conditions, including a
pledge by the Sound Transit board that it will not seek additional federal funding
beyond the $500 million authorized by the FTA this summer.


Istook's support was crucial, because transit officials have said they can't build
light rail without the promise of federal dollars. Construction on the $2.5 billion
line from downtown Seattle to a site north of Sea-Tac Airport is expected to
begin in the next few months.


in his letter, Istook also sought reassurances from Sound Transit that potential
cost overruns on the project would not hurt other transit projects run by the three-
county agency. Istook's concerns mirrored those of Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-
Bellevue), a friend and political ally who has publicly fretted that cost overruns on
the rail project could hurt other transportation projects in her eastern King County
district.


Sound Transit's board planned to take up the issues in Istook's letter at a
meeting today.


"We're encouraged," said agency spokesman Geoff Patrick.


Dunn, Istook and Rep. George Nethercutt (R-Spokane) visited the White House
on Tuesday - hours before Dunn left on a five-day trip to iraq - to talk about light
rail with Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser. Danielle Holland, Dunn's
spokeswoman, said the meeting focused on the need for projects to relieve
congestion in Puget Sound metro areas.


Sound Transit was discussed, Holland said, but Dunn did not lobby against the
funding agreement announced this summer, as some Democrats have
speculated.


Holland denied that Dunn opposes Sound Transit, saying she merely wants to
ensure that taxpayers get the most value for their money and that other
transportation projects do not suffer because of the light-rail line.


On Wednesday, Dunn's office issued a statement praising Istook's action as "a
victory for taxpayers across Puget Sound."


Dunn said she was encouraged by the decision, which she said "will keep local
funds within the regions where they are collected in order to pay for projects that
indeed reduce congestion."


Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Belfair), a Sound Transit supporter, also hailed the decision,
calling it "a victory of the merits over politics."


Dicks praised the Bush administration for sticking with the project despite
opposition from fellow Republicans, and said Istook kept his word.


"He said if we could answer his questions, he'd approve this," Dicks said. "All the
things he asked us to do, we can do."



=PTP=============================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001772829_transit23m.html

Seattle Times
Thursday, October 23, 2003

Sound Transit's $500 million to come - with strings attached

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — The Oklahoma congressman holding up a $500 million
federal grant needed to launch construction of Sound Transit's light-rail project
yesterday dropped his objection, pending three conditions.

Rep. Ernest Istook's move all but clears the way for work to begin on the state's
largest public-works project, and was greeted with cautious optimism by Sound
Transit officials.

"We're not popping any corks around here, but it's a significant development and
we're excited," said Sound Transit Communication Director Ric ilgenfritz. "it's a
breakthrough."

The Sound Transit board will meet today to consider the latest developments.
But even light rail's staunchest opponents concede the agency has crossed a
critical threshold.

Without the federal grant, Sound Transit officials said they would be unable to
build light rail.

Istook's decision capped a frenzied couple of days in Washington, D.C., where
— in an unusual display of disharmony — the state's delegation lobbied for and
against the mass-transit project.

As chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee, Istook, Republican, has
jurisdiction over transportation projects including Sound Transit, and his role has
been critical to the project.

in his letter yesterday to federal transportation officials, he outlined several
conditions: a commitment that Sound Transit will not tap into Eastside transit
funds to pay for cost overruns on the $2.44 billion project; a commitment that
Sound Transit will not ask for more than $500 million for the Seattle-to-Tukwila
route; and a requirement that Sound Transit make the necessary right-of-way
acquisitions in Tukwila before next October.

Last July, federal auditors noted the difficulty of building a bridge across the
Duwamish River. The proposed light-rail line would also cross over two railroad
lines and interstate 5 near the Boeing Access Road.

Istook said he also was concerned the proposed light-rail route costs too much
and does little to relieve congestion. And he wondered whether the project could
survive financially if the Washington state Supreme Court upholds initiative 776,
which would limit vehicle taxes and cut $703 million from Sound Transit's budget.

But it was too late to consider those issues now, Istook wrote.

Sound Transit has $94 million of pending construction bids that expire tomorrow.
It could not execute the bids without the federal grant agreement.

Agency officials estimated that taxpayers would be forced to pay tens of millions
of dollars in added costs if Sound Transit were forced to rebid the contracts.

However, Istook noted that Congress must approve all annual federal transit
spending, and Sound Transit shouldn't count on receiving its money without a
fight in the coming years.

"Nothing in this letter should be construed as guaranteeing that the pace of
annual appropriations for this project will match the pace currently desired," he
wrote.

The grant agreement lays out a schedule of annual payments to Sound Transit
that will total $500 million by 2009.

if it's signed, the president's budget will likely include $80 million for Seattle light
rail in each of the next three years, with the remainder coming in the following
years.

Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Bellevue, a critic of the project, is traveling in iraq, but her
office released a statement applauding Istook's decision to approve the
agreement — with the conditions.

Tim Eyman, who authored I-776, conceded that Istook's letter signaled a blow to
light-rail opponents. "Sound Transit has shown a complete disregard for
plummeting public support for the light-rail boondoggle and will likely proceed no
matter what."

Former Metropolitan King County Councilwoman Maggie Fimia of Citizens for
Effective Transportation Alternatives (CETA), a light-rail opposition group, called
Istook's letter "very premature," and said she was surprised he hadn't waited until
after the state Supreme Court rules on I-776.

On Capitol Hill this week, supporters and opponents of Sound Transit, including
Istook, sparred behind closed doors.

On Tuesday, Dunn and Istook met at the White House with President Bush's
political adviser, Karl Rove. Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Spokane, also attended
the meeting.

Although Dunn's office said Sound Transit was not discussed, Rep. Norm Dicks,
D-Bremerton, said he believed Dunn was trying to persuade the Bush
administration to drop its support for Sound Transit.

The federal Department of Transportation has rated Sound Transit "highly
recommended."

A light-rail booster, Dicks said he called officials at the White House and the
Department of Transportation to lobby on Sound Transit's behalf.

"I made sure they knew there was a difference of opinion in the delegation. i
talked to everybody in town," he said.

Dicks said he never anticipated Sound Transit would have such a difficult time in
Congress, or that the issue would pit members of the delegation against each
other.

"This was unprecedented in my 35 years here, this kind of fight in the delegation.
I never expected this in a million years," he said.

Another Sound Transit supporter, Sen. Patty Murray, said she was "really
pleased. I think this is good news for taxpayers and commuters in Washington
state."

She said she was not worried that Sound Transit will go through the wringer
every time its annual appropriation comes through Congress.

"At the end of the day, they will get the $500 million," she said.

Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or afryer@seattletimes.com. Reporter Eric Pryne
contributed to this report.




=PTP===============================================

http://www.kirotv.com/traffic/2574654/detail.html

KIRO 7 Eyewitness News
2003/10/23

Monorail Project Leaders Consider Significant Change

ESSEX PORTER

SEATTLE -- Looking to cut costs, the leaders of Seattle's Monorail project are
considering a dramatic change.

But critics accuse them of looking to cut corners in a way that will affect the
safety and reliability of the changes.

One monorail track or two? That is the question.

With money tight, one track is less expensive. But will the voters get what they
agreed to pay for?

Artist conceptions of the new monorail show trains running on two tracks, side by
side.

But that was before monorail tax collections began running 30 percent less than
expected.

Now monorail engineers are pursuing a single track solution.

"There's potential financial savings if we can get it to work across the West
Seattle Bridge," said Tom Weeks, Monorail Project Chair.

Using single tracks means the columns can be smaller and less expensive,
taking up less space and saving lots of money.

But critics question whether a single track system would be safe.

"The last thing you want to have is a single track monorail stuck on the West
Seattle Bridge," said Richard Borkowski of People for Modern Transit.

There would be double tracks at each station so oncoming trains could pass
each other.

Still, monorail critic Richard Borkowski sees a project getting away from its
promises to voters.

"This is kind of just I think maybe the beginning of the end for the monorail,"
Borkowski said. "The single track idea, like I said, I don't think this it's something
the voters would say that they voted for."

But at the Monorail Project, single-tracking much of the route is viewed as a
good solution to some sticky problems.

"We've said to our engineers we have a revenue problem, we have a design
problem, come back to us with creative solutions to both of these challenges and
it's really wonderful to see the great work that they are doing," said Weeks.

As the monorail moves to cut costs, another city council member has just moved
to increase them.

Richard Conlin says he'll oppose a route that cuts through the Seattle Center.

Project leaders say it will cost $16 million to go around.



=PTP===============================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001772730_monorail23m.html

Seattle Times
Thursday, October 23, 2003

Monorail errors led to shortfall

By Mike Lindblom and Justin Mayo
Seattle Times staff reporters


When tax revenues for the Seattle monorail came in one-third below projections
this summer, Seattle Monorail Project leaders blamed the problem on a lack of
reliable data from other agencies — namely, the state Department of Licensing
and Sound Transit.

But, despite the remarks by Executive Director Joel Horn and others, the
monorail officials also contributed to their own predicament by not thoroughly
investigating last year how much money could be raised by taxing cars in
Seattle.

Working on a fast track to reach the November ballot, a monorail-planning
agency called the "Elevated Transportation Co." overstated the potential revenue
for the $1.75 billion plan.

"I would say we didn't spend much time on this at all. We were relying on
experts," acknowledges Dick Falkenbury, who was on the monorail board at the
time. "We had such an extremely short timeline and there was real pressure not
to question things, and pressure to get things done 'on time and on budget.' That
became a mantra."

What went on the ballot was a plan for the 14-mile Green Line from Crown Hill to
West Seattle to be paid for by a tax on vehicles in the city. The tax rate would be
$140 for every $10,000 of vehicle value. The plan passed by 877 votes.

The classic explanation for megaprojects that get in trouble is that proponents
have overstated the benefits and understated the costs. The monorail saga adds
a new twist.

"Normally, there are tax experts who can analyze the tax," said Harvard
professor Alan Altshuler, one of several scholars who has written about the topic.
"It sounds like a unique way of getting into fiscal trouble."

Errors in estimating the revenue account for most of the monorail shortfall, while
unforeseen tax evasion — people registering their vehicles outside the city —
also plays a role.

Once the crisis came to light, the agency began dissecting state vehicle data,
recruited four of the state's top economists to review future predictions and
approved a $52,000 independent investigation.

There should have been a more serious effort before the election, said project
critic Geof Logan. The public "should demand that the hard questions be asked
in the first place," he said. "The monorail had no detailed plan on the ballot
before the voters. They still don't."




But Tom Weeks, monorail board chairman, defends the planning work. "I think
we did a good and thorough job," he said, noting that two different consultants
studied the tax last year.

At a meeting this morning, a monorail committee is expected to release the
results of the independent inquiry, by Cambridge Systematics of Oakland.
Monorail officials have been forthcoming about the details, said Christopher
Wornum of Cambridge.

Those officials include Daniel Malarkey, now monorail finance director. Last year
he estimated the value of Seattle's taxable vehicles — the so-called "tax base"
— at $4.5 billion to $4.7 billion, but revenues are coming in as if the base were
around $3.2 billion.

Here is a Seattle Times look at what contributed to the shortfall.

Limited study for big decision


On May 29, 2002, the all-volunteer monorail board voted for the annual tax rate
of 1.4 percent. The agency based the decision on a three-page paper issued in
April by Berk & Associates, a local consulting firm. It compared a flat $100 fee on
car tabs with a 1 percent tax rate.

A Berk economist, Michael Hodgins, recalled that the paper was meant to be just
one piece of planning with the understanding that more work would be needed.

Stuart Rolfe, a former monorail board member, recalls being focused on
scrutinizing the cost to build the monorail, while assuming that the staff would
produce solid tax information.

"I spent most of my time trying to be sure we were as conservative as possible in
those (cost) estimates. On the revenue side, there was not the opportunity to do
that. ... "

Would it be enough?


"There is some possibility that the 1.4 percent may not be enough to cover the
full project implementation," Horn said in a June 28, 2002, message.

Ed Stone, monorail-outreach coordinator last year, recalls a meeting where
Harold Robertson, then executive director of Elevated Transportation Co.,
wondered if the rate needed to be increased to 1.5 percent. Stone needed to
know because he was about to publish a citywide mailing stating the 1.4 percent
rate.

Horn reported that commercial vehicles weren't counted in earlier estimates but
would be lucrative enough for the 1.4 percent rate to work, recalls Stone.

"Had we understood the tax base fully, we would have gone for a higher
percentage rate to make sure the plan was fully funded," former board member
Craig Norsen said yesterday.

A team from the financial firm of Goldman Sachs believed the car-tab tax was a
strong revenue source, less subject to downturns than sales taxes. But the team
cautioned in a July memo that no other huge bond issue relied entirely on a
vehicle-excise tax.

To keep the financing more flexible, the Goldman team suggested in an e-mail to
monorail officials that there be no sunset clause on the tax. The plan reached the
ballot without a 25- or 30-year expiration date on the tax.

Would new cars be taxed?


The monorail board tried to tax new cars, but late in the 2002 legislative session
an amendment supported by auto dealers said taxes would be collected "at
relicensing." That meant no tax at the time of purchase.

Berk, the consulting firm, listed the potential tax base in April at $5.3 billion with
new cars, $4.3 billion without. Monorail staff members cited $5.3 billion in
spreadsheets produced in May and June.

Malarkey told the Licensing Department on June 27: "This issue is extremely
important as it affects the tax rate needed to support the proposed project."

The state Department of Licensing determined new cars were exempt until they
were a year old.

Rolfe said he and several board members weren't aware of the new-car
exemption in May but knew about it by the time they passed a monorail plan for
the public on Aug. 5. The plan did not say that new cars would not be taxed.

Malarkey published a tax-base estimate of $4.7 billion. He said he added 5
percent to Berk's number to include commercial vehicles, updated the numbers
to account for recent growth, then subtracted 12 percent for the new-car
exclusion. Mike Evans, a state economist with the Licensing Department, said
recently that new cars are actually a bigger factor, because they are so much
more valuable than used cars.

Malarkey and Berk both relied on historic Sound Transit revenue totals that
wrongly counted some suburban cars as in the city of Seattle. The mistake was
discovered by Sound Transit in late 2001 and fixed by the Licensing Department
in June 2002, but nobody alerted Malarkey.

Weeks, the chairman, said the internal questioning shows monorail leaders took
the tax-rate concerns seriously. He said that his belief by August was that the 1.4
percent rate would cover costs even without the new cars.

Potential bond marketers accepted the numbers — one firm assumed a $5
billion tax base as a starting point in its proposal to sell $1 billion in bonds by
January 2003 — but might have found the flaws had they proceeded to a pre-
sale investigation.

Raw vehicle data not studied


Malarkey received a database of vehicle values from the state, which was not
examined in detail.

The Seattle Times, using July 2002 data obtained through a public-records
request to the Licensing Department, found that a tally of nearly all vehicles in
Seattle ZIP codes, including new cars, derived a tax base of $3.5 billion.

Berk's Hodgins and Malarkey both said that at the time it seemed more reliable
to derive the projections from Sound Transit's published collections. "That's a
real base, rather than making up something from scratch," Hodgins said.

But Sound Transit's tax calculation turned out to be wrong — for five years it
mistakenly included some vehicles from the south-end suburbs as Seattle cars,
causing a minor problem for that agency, which relies mainly on other taxes.

A look at the raw data would have displayed the ZIP codes of the car owners —
and might have alerted the monorail agency to a problem that today looms as an
obstacle to building the Green Line.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com



=PTP==========================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/145069_cbriefs23.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, October 23, 2003

Conlin: Send monorail around Seattle Center

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF

The chairman of the City Council's transportation committee, Richard Conlin,
yesterday threw his support for running the planned monorail line around the
Seattle Center instead of through it.

Conlin also pressed the council to take the stance before monorail officials make
a preliminary recommendation next month.

Such a stance would be significant because the council must give the Seattle
Monorail Project permission to go through the center. Conlin joins council
President Peter Steinbrueck, who also opposes going through the center and
wants the council to say so.

However, several council members are sitting on the fence, and Steinbrueck
apparently does not have enough votes yet to call for a vote.

Proponents of going through the campus say the thousands of people passing
overhead would be good advertising for the center.

in addition, going around the center on Mercer Street would leave a whole in the
Experience Music Project, which was built around the current Monorail.

But Conlin sided with those who say the monorail would destroy the parklike feel
of the center, and busy Mercer Street is a more appropriate place for the line.








PTP Digest 2003/10/23-A = CONTENTS

* Houston Metro: 73 miles of rail doable by 2024 with more bonds
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 22, 2003

* Houston: Rail foes may be lawbreakers, but wait till vote's over
   Houston Chronicle  Oct. 23, 2003

* Houston: HOV ramp closure means bus detour for years
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 23, 2003

* Seattle: Istook OKs $500 million for LRT, with conditions
   KING 5 News Wednesday, October 22, 2003

* Seattle op-ed: 'is monorail ripe for recall?'
   Daily Journal of Commerce 10/20/2003

* Seattle: More on new hybrid bus fleet
   KING 5 News Tuesday, October 21, 2003

* Memphis ed: Light rail plan OK, but needs work
   Commercial Appeal (Memphis) Sunday October 19, 2003

* Sacramento: NIMBYs oppose, others back LRT airport extension
   Sacramento Bee Sunday, October 19, 2003

* SF-Bay Area: BART SFO ridership 'dismally low' - free parking eyed
   San Francisco Examiner Tuesday, October 21, 2003

* San Jose: Planned BART extension in trouble, hotly debated
   Morgan Hill Times Tuesday, October 21, 2003


=PTP============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 22, 2003

Metro: 73 miles of rail is doable

Plan hinges on bigger bond vote in 2009 or later

By LUCAS WALL


Metro released a budget this week showing it could complete its proposed 73-
mile rail expansion by 2024 if voters endorse a larger second bond issue later in
the decade.

For almost two months, debate has focused on funding for a more modest rail
initiative -- a $640 million bond issue that will be on the Nov. 4 ballot. Critics have
attacked that proposal because it will pay for only 22 miles inside Loop 610.

With less than two weeks before the election, Metropolitan Transit Authority
officials now are promising that their entire rail system, including many miles
outside the Loop, can be built in the next 21 years.

"We're doing everything we can to tell voters it's a 73-mile plan," said Metro
Chief Financial Officer Francis Britton, armed with a proposal dated Aug. 25
showing construction costs for the complete transit-expansion plan would top
$7.5 billion, including $5.8 billion for all 73 miles of rail -- 65 miles of light rail and
an 8-mile commuter spur to Fort Bend County. Also included is $979 million for
new bus routes and $774 million for additional roadwork.

Metro had previously floated a projection of $2.8 billion to construct 40 miles of
rail by 2019. That projection included asking voters for $340 million in bonds
around 2009. The Aug. 25 document would almost triple that future bond
proposal to complete the rail system by the plan's 2025 expiration.

Rail opponents, who have criticized Metro numerous times for what they believe
are faulty financial projections, said this development only proves their point.

Chris Begala, a spokesman for Texans for True Mobility, said he suspects this
week's clarification was issued because of criticism that the 40 miles of rail in the
construction phase now before voters barely extend beyond the Loop. TTM,
formed to oppose Metro's plan, contends the inner Loop rail lines won't reduce
traffic congestion.

Begala said the transit authority is making promises it can't afford.

"Metro has been like daddy at Christmas time, trying to give everybody
everything they want," Begala said. "But in reality, you can't."

Metro says its numbers aren't wishful thinking: if the Nov. 4 referendum is
passed and voters endorse $910 million in additional bonds toward the end of
this decade, the transit authority contends it could complete the system blueprint
laid out in its 2025 "Metro Solutions" plan.

Proposals for light rail lines to Bush intercontinental and Hobby airports, plus the
planned commuter train to Missouri City -- removed by the Metro board Aug. 12
to fund roads for five more years -- could be constructed by 2025 if a future
board decides to seek the greater second bond issue, Britton said.

This week's revelation follows months of wrangling over Metro's budget numbers,
which have changed dozens of times since the plan's first draft came out in April.

Metro's board added to the perplexity, voting five times on the Metro Solutions
proposition. On July 31, it approved a blueprint for 73 miles of rail. Aug. 12, it
added the road money and reduced the next phase of rail construction to 40
miles. Aug. 18, it approved ballot language for the Nov. 4 referendum that
included only $640 million in bonds, enough to fund 22 miles of rail. The ballot
language was then tweaked in votes Aug. 28 and Sept. 22.

Arthur Schechter, chairman of the board, said he understands how some people
could become confused over how much rail can be built by 2025. Metro's vision
remains that all 73 rail miles can be finished by 2025 if a future transit board
seeks to accelerate completion of the system, he said.

After the Aug. 18 vote to ask for a $640 million bond issue, Schechter said the
smaller bond amount only delayed the larger plan. Now he and other Metro
officials are trying to assure voters rail can extend well beyond the Loop by 2025.

Rail foes remain skeptical.

"To come out with this type of rhetoric two weeks before the election, it's just
another example of the confusion that Metro has been inducing and the
disingenuous way they've gone about this," Begala said. "It calls into question
once again their ability to fund this proposal."

Metro officials strongly disputed claims that they changed the financing plan right
before the election to try to placate rail supporters, some who believe the plan is
too small, or rail opponents such as Begala, who point out the next 40-mile rail
phase only serves the inner city.

Metro President and CEO Shirley DeLibero said her agency sent the 73-mile
financing plan to the Houston-Galveston Area Council last month. The HGAC is
the region's transportation planning agency. And Britton said the ballot language
and all documents Metro has issued explaining the plan clearly state it includes
73 miles. Anyone who thought all of those could not be built by 2025 have
misinterpreted the information, he said.

"This document that was approved has the 73 miles funded in it," Britton said. "it
always has."

in addition to $910 million more in bonds, voters would also have to approve
elimination of Metro's "general mobility" fund after 2014 if all proposed rail lines
are to be complete by 2025. The fund distributes 25 percent of the transit
authority's penny sales tax to Houston, Harris County, and 14 small cities for
road construction and maintenance. The more spent on roads, the less rail that
can be built.

Past proposals to eliminate general mobility -- including one made earlier this
year in a Metro Solutions draft -- met stiff political resistance from local officials
who fear they'd have to raise property taxes to make up for the lost cash.

Paul Mabry, spokesman for the pro-rail group Citizens for Public Transportation,
said one of the great parts of Metro Solutions is the ability for voters to decide
after the first six years whether rail construction should continue beyond the next
22 miles.

"The voters are the ultimate authority," Mabry said. "We are voting next month
on $640 million in bonds. What we vote on in the future is to be determined."


This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2174089



=PTP=================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2003

DA to probe opponents of rail plan

By ALAN BERNSTEIN

Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal says his staff will investigate
whether a group against Metro's light rail expansion plan is breaking the law by
refusing to disclose its campaign contributors.

But the public won't know the results of the probe until after the Nov. 4
referendum on a $640 million bond issue for the Metropolitan Transit Authority to
add light rail routes and expand other projects such as bus service.

"While an investigation will be conducted ... It has been my long-standing policy
to take no action that may influence an election before the election is held,"
Rosenthal said in a letter to Houston Chronicle lawyer Joel R. White.

The Chronicle two weeks ago asked Rosenthal to investigate after Texans for
True Mobility used TV commercials and mail to slam Metro's plan as ineffective
and too costly.

Under Texas election law, candidates and political committees must file forms
showing which individuals gave them money, and how much. The Chronicle
contended that the law covers Texans for True Mobility. Violation of the law, a
misdemeanor, carries maximum punishment of a $500 fine.

The Metro critics say they created a nonprofit corporation to educate the public
about transportation issues and the organization is not subject to the disclosure
rule.

"We are absolutely compliant with every letter and spirit of the law," group
spokesman Chris Begala said Wednesday.

Begala said the organization is not voluntarily identifying its contributors because
the donors want to preserve their right of free expression as a group rather than
as individuals who could be vulnerable to criticism from powerful institutions. He
listed Metro, the city and the Chronicle as examples of such institutions.

The contributors can include corporations and individuals.

Spokesmen for public interest groups such as Common Cause have called on
the group to disclose its contributors so the public will know who is behind the
campaign, and Chronicle editors said they asked for the criminal investigation
essentially for the same reason.

Rosenthal said he has assigned the case to his Public integrity Division.

He said he and his staff will not comment on the progress of the investigation.

in a similar case, the Travis County district attorney's office is investigating
whether the Texas Association of Business violated state law by using corporate
donations in a $2 million campaign for legislative candidates last year.

The group says its ads are protected by constitutional free speech rights, while
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle says some corporate donations to
political campaigns are illegal to avoid a situation where "a corporation can
secretly buy an election."

Texans for True Mobility and the Texas Association of Business use the same
lawyer, former First Assistant State Attorney General Andy Taylor.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2174545




=PTP===================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 23, 2003

Closure of HOV ramp expected to last years

The Texas Department of Transportation has closed the entrance ramp to the
westbound U.S. 290 HOV lane from interstate 10.

Metro buses and carpools that use the lane face a detour of several years while
the interchange at I-10 and the West Loop is being rebuilt.

Traffic heading for the HOV lane must exit I-10 at Washington, turn right and
access the Northwest Transit Center from Old Katy Road. Signs direct vehicles
to the U.S. 290 HOV lane from the transit center.

Ken Connaughton, Metropolitan Transit Authority spokesman, said the shutdown
is not delaying bus schedules.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_102203WABsoundtransitJK.2c28f2
d5.html

KING 5 News
Wednesday, October 22, 2003

$500 million Sound Transit grant released


SEATTLE - An Oklahoma congressman who had held up a $500 million federal
grant for Sound Transit indicated Wednesday that he would release the money,
but not before Sound Transit officials agreed to some conditions.

Rep. Ernest Istook outlined the three conditions in a letter sent to Rep. Jennifer
Dunn, a Republican representing the suburbs east of Seattle.

- Sound Transit must agree that the agency will not go back to the federal
government asking for more money.

- Sound transit must acquire a critical piece of land in Tukwila by next year.

- And the agency must guarantee that if it spends money on light rail, it will not
shortchange other areas in the Sound Transit taxing district.

A spokesman for Sound Transit said the agency would not immediately
comment. The agency's board will meet Thursday to take up the issue.

King County Councilman and Sound Transit Critic Rob McKenna, however,
predicted the agency would agree because it really had no choice.


[PHOTO]
Sound Transit
A Sound Transit Link light rail train is bathed in confetti at it's launch in August of
2003.


Sound Transit has said favorable contracts for work on the light rail system
would expire if it did not get the money soon. Some of those contracts expire at
the end of this week.

"These conditions mean that they have to stay within budget and they cannot
cover cost overruns by raiding money from the Eastside or Snohomish County or
by trying to get more money from the federal government," said King County
Councilman Rob McKenna, a Sound Transit critic.

McKenna, Dunn and others have long been concerned that if the light rail project
in Seattle costs more than anticipated, the agency will just take that money from
the communities that won't be served by light rail, but do pay the taxes.

The development is also just the latest in what has become a kind of political
gamesmanship between Sound Transit, Seattle political leaders and Dunn and
othe Sound Transit critics.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels this month threatened to hold up a project to
squeeze more lanes onto the interstate 90 bridge, which would benefit Eastside
residents.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray said Istook's release of the money was great news and
would allow the agency to have a full grant agreement signed by the end of the
week.

"This is great news for the taxpayers and travelers in Puget Sound," Murray said.



=PTP===========================================

Daily Journal of Commerce
10/20/2003

is monorail ripe for recall?

Tim Wulf
Seattle


Given the massive overestimation of monorail tax revenue, dissolution of the
monorail will become a strong possibility in the coming year.


According to state law in the authority statute (RCW 35.95A.120) "The city
transportation (monorail) authority may be dissolved by a vote of the people
residing within the boundaries of the authority if the authority is faced with
significant financial problems." This error in estimated revenue certainly appears
to constitute a "significant financial problem."


Jeff Doyle, staff coordinator/senior legal counsel for the House Transportation
Committee, Washington State Legislature, offered the following: "One can argue
that the drop in forecasted revenues for the monorail represents a "significant
financial problem." The issue is whether such a petition is found to be valid by
the city prosecutor, Tom Carr.


Affecting this finding is whether revenue projections for the monorail are
sufficient to complete the plan approved by voters. The monorail argues that
attractive interest rates, built-in contingencies in the budget, value engineering
and future revenue growth will allow the planned system to go forward.


These arguments can be countered in that such a revenue shortfall will mean a
truncated system or one not built to the standards set forth or implied in the
voter-approved plan. The city prosecutor may choose to decide that question or
defer an answer until the environmental impact statement is completed and bids
are received for the design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) contract. If
projected revenues are not sufficient to meet the DBOM bid price, that will
provide strong, if not conclusive evidence of serious financial problems. Another
tactic by the monorail "authority" may be to stretch the tax duration from 25 years
to 40 years. This should also sink the agency under an interpretation of
"significant financial problems."


Derailing the monorail will be a proper end to the manipulative strategies of the
agency. Withholding this error of tax revenue is only one of many issues now
being exposed. Even in the voting booth, the monorail agency strategically did
not include on the ballot the anticipated number of years we will pay the tax.
Don't kid yourself. Exercising only half the tax this first critical year was not
because they are such nice people. It was a clever ploy to lessen the impact of
this tax during this critical time when we can still say no.


Seattle never really had a chance to vote on alternative routes. The current route
was set in place by special interest groups. Yes, there were opportunities for
public opinion, but that is a long shot from a vote on alternatives. Building an
elevated train in front of personal and commercial property is bound to have an
endless string of lawsuits. Parking has also been ignored. Businesses close to
terminals will find regular customers may go elsewhere due to a lack of parking.


Seattle deserves better. We need to pursue this dissolution. We are in the
process of gathering e-mail addresses of those interested in signing a recall
petition. We may even do the entire process online. Please send your e-mail
address to: tkbawulf@aol.com.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_102103BUBhybrid_buses_pugetso
undJM.24ed52aa.html

KING 5 News
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Hybrid buses to roll out in metro Seattle area

Associated Press


SEATTLE - Less thick, black exhaust will spew from a new fleet of more than
200 diesel-electric hybrid buses the Puget Sound region's two biggest mass
transit agencies plan to roll out next year.

When the 60-foot articulated buses lurch into motion, they don't chug through
fuel. At low speeds, they run on a hybrid electric drive, which King County Metro
Transit expects will save 750,000 gallons of fuel and at least a half million dollars
a year.

"The reason you save so much fuel is that the bulk of what a bus does is starting
and stopping," said Matthew Kester, a spokesman for General Motors Corp.,
which manufactures the hybrid electric drive at a transmission plant in
indianapolis.


[PHOTO]
TriMet
A hybrid bus used by TriMet in Portland, Oregon.


As the bus speeds up, it uses a mix of electricity and diesel fuel. The diesel
engine, made by Caterpillar Inc., takes over once the bus reaches 20 or 25 mph,
Kester said Monday.

"Because you're not dumping all the fuel through this diesel engine to get this
bus moving, you're getting a 90 percent improvement on emissions (of soot,
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide)," Kester said. "Plus you've improved fuel
economy by about 50 to 60 percent."

New Flyer, a Canadian bus manufacturer based in Winnepeg, Manitoba, makes
the buses.

King County signed orders for 213 buses last Friday, and Sound Transit, which
runs regional express buses in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, bought 22
-- a combined investment of more than $150 million.

"Obviously it's a technology we're excited about because of the cleaner air, the
fuel savings and the maintenance savings," Sound Transit spokesman Lee
Somerstein said.

The first new hybrid buses are expected to hit the streets by next spring.

On Tuesday in Seattle, General Motors planned to show off the 60-foot model
King County Metro Transit tested out before its recent purchase.

Hybrid buses cost more up front -- about $645,000 apiece compared to
$445,000 for a standard diesel-powered bus, Metro Transit spokeswoman Linda
Thielke said.

But because they use less fuel, don't need their oil changed as often and are
easier to maintain, General Motors estimates that the county will recoup its costs
within about seven years.

Metro Transit bought its test model last year and put more than 40,000 miles on
it before deciding to buy the new fleet.

"It performed remarkably well," Thielke said, noting it had plenty of power
motoring up hills, ran quietly and required very little maintenance.

Sound Transit bought a 40-foot test model. "Our operations people just love it,"
Somerstein said. "They've had virtually no problems."

The hybrids will replace an aging fleet of dual-mode buses that run on overhead
electric wires while they pass through the downtown bus tunnel, then switch to
diesel outside the tunnel.

Because the new buses will have their own electricity supply, they'll no longer
rely on those overhead wires while inside the tunnel, making them easier to
maneuver.

Transit agencies in nine other cities are running pilot studies to test the new
hybrid bus technology. They are: Austin, Texas; Hartford, Conn.; Houston;
Minneapolis; Newark, N.J.; Orange County, Calif; Philadelphia; Portland, Ore.
and Salt Lake City.



=PTP==============================================

Commercial Appeal (Memphis)
Sunday October 19, 2003

Should Memphis get on board light rail?

Editorial

FINISHING THE Madison rail line $19 million under
budget might be just the thing to give trolley and
light-rail transportation a boost in Memphis. The
Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), which says its
part of the job will come in at $55 million, instead
of the $74 million originally expected, should be
congratulated for its success.


The imminent completion of the project should
stimulate a discussion of the future of trolley
service and light rail in Memphis. Consensus is needed
on what that future should be.

Expanding the city's modest system of antique trolleys
into an extensive, modern light-rail network would be
hard to justify on economic grounds alone. The
operating subsidy for a proposed extension of the
Memphis rail system from Midtown to Memphis
international Airport has been estimated at $8.9
million to $9.3 million annually.


A decision to expand this community's rail system
would depend on factors that relate to the economic
picture only indirectly. Some proponents favor light
rail for esthetic reasons. It has the potential, if
people use it, to improve the city's air quality and
reduce traffic congestion.


MATA projections, based on a demand-forecasting model
that includes land use and transportation network
information, predict 10,847 to 11,675 riders would use
the airport line daily by 2023. Tentatively scheduled
for completion by 2008, two alternative routes have
been proposed for the project, with a couple of
variations.


Extending the Madison rail line through Overton Square
and the Cooper-Young neighborhood and then south to
the airport would make better sense in the long term.
Both Overton Square and Cooper-Young are popular
destinations for entertainment, dining and shopping -
perhaps not living up to their full potential but both
holding great promise.


Because of the lengthy construction time required for
rail lines and the utilities that accompany them, the
Overton Square-Cooper-Young route has drawn strong
opposition, however, particularly among commercial
interests in those areas. A variation would address
that concern partially by bypassing the heart of
Cooper-Young.


There is less opposition to an alternative that would
extend the rail line south from Madison in the Medical
Center to Lamar, follow Lamar southeast to Airways,
then continue south to the airport along Airways and
Plough. That route would take the line through
blighted areas that could use economic stimulus. It
also has the advantage of being a mile shorter.


But it would be premature to make that choice now, or
perhaps even early next year, as William Hudson,
MATA's president and general manager, has suggested.
The community must first assess the value of extending
rail service that's now available only downtown but
will be expanded to Midtown next March.


The process must involve a heavy dose of community
involvement. A proposal to expand light-rail service
in Houston has turned into what the Houston Chronicle
calls a bitter partisan fight, with most Republican
officials against it and most Democratic officials
favoring it. An African-American ministers group also
is fighting the proposal because of fears it will lead
to cutbacks in bus service that will adversely affect
minority riders.


Moreover, the cost of building light-rail systems is
going up for local communities. Although federal
subsidies still can pay as much as 80 percent of the
cost of building such systems, belt tightening in
Washington has lowered expectations for most
communities to the 50-percent range. In some cases,
local taxpayers must provide the rest.


Light rail has much to offer Memphis; it could produce
significant benefits in the form of economic
development, improved air quality and reduced traffic
congestion. A careful analysis of those potential
benefits against the costs would help Memphians decide
whether to join the light-rail brigade.



=PTP==============================================

[BATN]

Sacramento Bee
Sunday, October 19, 2003

Light-rail worry in Natomas

Some fear a line to the airport would bring crime and change
area's 'mood.'

By Tony Bizjak
Bee Staff Writer


Looming over more than a few residents' heads in South Natomas these
days is this clouded question:


if a light-rail line is built through the heart of the neighborhood,
will it bring strangers and crime to residents' doorsteps?


Steve Grant, who lives a few doors from one possible route for a
light-rail line, says that is among his concerns. He sees light rail
as an "impersonal" conveyance that doesn't have a place in the
neighborhood.


"It will bring crime and change the whole mood of the neighborhood,"
he said.


Sacramento Regional Transit officials are expected to decide in the
coming months the route for a planned light-rail line from downtown
to Sacramento international Airport.


Several officials have said they are leaning toward building the line
along Truxel Road, the main thoroughfare through Grant's
neighborhood, so that it's situated close to residents who might use
it. Another proposal would locate the line along interstate 5.


Truxel-area resident Sean South, who works downtown, says he would
like to see the line in his neighborhood.


"I don't have the fears that some people have about some sort of bad
element coming to the community via light rail," South said. "I guess
it's possible. But if you want light rail to work, you have to make
it convenient to where people live."


in response to complaints that there has not been enough community
discussion about light rail, RT officials have scheduled a public
meeting for 6:30 p.m. Monday at the community center on Truxel Road.


One thing residents will not hear, however, is a definitive statement
on what light rail might mean for crime, safety, and property values
in the area.


There is "no simple answer," said Sacramento Police Lt. Mark Sakauye,
who heads RT's security force.


He and others at RT argue light rail and bus lines tend to reflect
problems inherent in a neighborhood rather than to bring new problems
in, and that those problems can be managed with good law enforcement.


Light rail, Sakauye noted, is not a good getaway vehicle.


"(A criminal is) not going to break into your house, take your TV,
then go wait at the station for a train."


However, RT officials acknowledge they have not formally studied the
effect of the light-rail system, now 16 years old, on crime or
property values. RT board member Dave Jones suggests the district
should commission such an analysis.


"People have concerns," Jones said. "Let's take a look at it."


A Bee review of national research, and interviews with public
officials, police and residents of Sacramento neighborhoods with
light-rail lines, offers a mixed picture. Generally, public transit
is associated with nuisance issues, such as noise and vandalism,
rather than major crime.


A 2002 study of Los Angeles' "Green Line," conducted by the UCLA
Urban Planning Department, concluded that "the transit line has not
had significant impacts on crime trends or crime dislocation in the
station neighborhoods, and has not transported crime from the inner
city to the suburbs."


An earlier UCLA study determined that "If there was crime in the
neighborhood, there was crime at the station," said statistician
Robin Liggett. "The biggest thing we found in terms of crime at the
station was in the park-and-ride lots -- where they should think
about design -- where most of it was auto thefts or thefts from
autos."


if RT builds the line on Truxel, it has plans for small park-and-ride
lots in South Natomas at West El Camino Avenue, Pebblestone Way and
San Juan Road, said the agency's Jo Noble.


Sacramento residents near existing light-rail lines offer varying
opinions about the impact on crime.


Heath Charamuga of the Rosemont Homeowners Association, called light
rail "a positive for Rosemont."


"I don't see that we have any crime issues with it whatsoever,"
Charamuga said. "The people who use it are from Rosemont. In fact,
our crime has decreased in the last five years, and property values
have increased."


RT officials, however, are building a soundwall in Rosemont because
the rail line runs behind back yards and has generated complaints
about noise.


Nearby, in College Greens, some residents say they believe the
combination of light rail, a probation office, a Social Security
office, liquor shops and a flea market has caused problems ranging
from panhandling to petty theft to home break-ins, most near the
shopping area along Folsom Boulevard.


"incidents are fairly close to Folsom, not deep into the
neighborhood," said neighborhood activist Annette Deglow. "People
will tell you light rail is part of the problem."


in east Sacramento, near 48th Street, some residents suspected a
string of residential break-ins might be related to light rail, but
Councilman Steve Cohn said RT police have not been able to make that
connection.


"We took some steps to better light the station, but there was
nothing traceable to someone using light rail," Cohn said.


Police and RT officials acknowledge they have had drug problems and
other crime issues at some stations, notably the 12th Street light-
rail station downtown.


in 1992, a college student was shot to death while sitting after dark
at the 23rd Street station; a 14-year-old who lived two blocks away
was convicted of the crime.


But RT police say they have had no complaints of crime on the new
south line, which opened last month between Meadowview and downtown.


RT officials say they soon will be enforcing a new ordinance that
prohibits anyone from loitering at a light-rail station without a
train ticket. They also say they will improve computer tracking of
crimes committed at light-rail stations.


The limited data RT has kept show most RT police arrests and
citations are for disorderly conduct and fare evasion.


Studies elsewhere also offer mixed results about how property values
are affected by light rail.


John Landis of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the
University of California, Berkeley, studied the issue in the 1990s
and says he thinks light rail doesn't really affect property
values "one way or the other."


However, a California State University, Fullerton, team this year
analyzed 41 studies of 15 light-rail systems nationwide, and found
both positive and negative effects on property values, although not
statistically significant in either direction.


Fullerton researcher Lee Cockerill said residences right next to
stations may see property values decline, while residences slightly
farther away but within walking distance could see increases.
Commercial properties adjacent to stations tend to see the largest
increases in value, he said.


Cockerill is among the researchers who say a lot depends on the
design of stations and how useful the light-rail system is overall.



The Bee's Tony Bizjak can be reached at (916) 321-1059 or
tbizjak@sacbee.com.



=PTP=========================================

[PTP NOTE:  Comments from the Bay Area Transportation News editor have
been retained for informational purposes.]

[BATN]

BART considers paring down Peninsula parking

SFO extension refuses to take off.

San Francisco Examiner
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

By Sara Zaske
Of The Examiner Staff
szaske@examiner.com


The holidays may bring the gift of discounted and free parking at
BART's Peninsula stations.


After waiting in vain for the economy to recover, transit officials
are searching for ways to boost patronage of the 8.7-mile line. Ticket
sales have remained dismally low despite hopes that the start of the
school year would bring new passengers -- and new revenue -- to the
extension.


Samtrans, which agreed to underwrite the extension's operations in
exchange for ticket and parking revenue, is close to surpassing a
previously agreed upon spending limit of $6 million.


Officials said it was unclear how exceeding that amount will impact
Samtrans' other bus and train services.


"It depends on how far above the $6 million we go," said spokesperson
Jaime Maltbie Kunz.


Total usage on the new BART line was at approximately 40 percent off
expectations throughout the summer, and September was no better. The
line logged 24,687 trips through Oct. 3, roughly 47 percent below the
predicted 46,646 riders.


The low ridership numbers spell big cash problems for Samtrans, and
the Peninsula agency is still negotiating with BART over the amount of
operations funding it must shoulder.


BART had previously told the Peninsula transit agency that $6 million
was the most it would need to spend this year. Since the extension
line opened on June 22, Samtrans has paid out $5.8 million.


Supervisor Mike Nevin, who sits on the board, said the $6 million
figure was not set in stone.


"I think there is some wiggle room there," he said. "it's not the end
of the world or the end of line. It was a conservative estimate of
what we were looking at. Not a concrete number that can't be looked
at."


[BATN: "Conservative" in such a context would customarily mean a
prudent upper limit.]


in the meantime, the two transit agencies have been discussing ways to
promote the line, and a radical change to the parking system is due
before the BART board of directors on Thursday.


The BART staff has proposed cutting parking fees in half, starting
December 1. If approved, daily parking would drop from $2 to $1.


Monthly unreserved parking would fall from $42 to $20 and reserved
parking would be pared down to $30 from $63. The discounts would only
apply to the newest stations on the line: South San Francisco, San
Bruno and Millbrae.


[BATN: Even if the parking lots on the extension filled as a result
of this proposal, this could attract perhaps 3,000 or so new riders
per day and maybe $2 million in additional annual revenue. Where will
the other 16,000 trips and the other millions of dollars missing from
the apparently unrealistic projections be found?]


There is also another proposal to possibly suspend all weekend parking
fees as of Nov. 15.


BART board president Pete Snyder said that the agency is willing to
work with Samtrans to do whatever is necessary to boost ridership.
However, neither Nevin nor Snyder want to touch ticket prices or
service levels, yet.


"We believe only way gain any success is maintain basic level of
service necessary operation," Snyder said.


[BATN: Reducing the level of service on this grossly underperforming
extension is the ONLY rational move. SamTrans is being billed by BART
to operate over 400 trains per day on the extension, meaning that the
average train is carrying fewer than 60 passengers, meaning that the
trains, which cost nearly $1,000 per hour to operate, are running 90%
empty. Each SamTrans-subsidized near-empty BART train burns operating
cash which could fund more productive bus or Caltrain services.]


Of the four new Peninsula stations, the airport stop is apparently the
only station that is doing well.


The Millbrae station is the most behind its expectations, with only
roughly 5,000 riders passing through its BART's electronic turnstiles
every month [BATN: presumably "every weekday" -- not "every month"].
BART had predicted three times that number.



=PTP================================================

[BATN]

Morgan Hill Times
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

BART bills put more trains in limbo

By Peter Crowley

is the planned Bay Area Rapid Transit line to San Jose realistic anymore?

That's the hard question Valley Transportation Authority Board members
are asking themselves in light of new revenue projections that VTA
staff say might break BART's back financially. Without a new revenue
source or a massive economic recovery, staff said the VTA can't borrow
enough to finish the project.


South Valley Supervisor Don Gage is pushing to freeze $170 million
earmarked for engineering the BART extension south from Fremont,
through San Jose to Santa Clara. He'd rather cut BART short at
Milpitas and see the money spent on other promised rail routes, like
light rail to eastern San Jose and improved Caltrain service to the
South Valley area.


Others, like San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, said Gage is overreacting
based on pessimistic, recession-based sales-tax revenue estimates and
warned that delaying the engineering would make the project unprepared
when future funds become available.


Gilroy Mayor and VTA Board member Tom Springer said the South Bay has
to build BART if it doesn't want jobs to flee. California is expected
to add 13 million people in the next 20 to 25 years, he said, and if
commuting to work in the Bay Area becomes a problem, industry may well
move these jobs to the Central Valley.


"If you kill BART, you practically guarantee that jobs go over to the
Central Valley," Springer said. Springer is on the VTA Board until
December, in a seat that rotates between Gilroy, Milpitas and Morgan
Hill.


On Aug. 7, VTA Board members voted 7-5 to include the BART engineering
fees in a $550 million bond.


REVENUE PROJECTIONS


Within the last few weeks, however, VTA staff have revised their
revenue projections. When voters overwhelmingly approved the sales tax
hike in 2000, it was at the peak of an unprecedented boom for the Bay
Area. Now, in the middle of a lengthy recession, the expectation of
nearly $6 billion from Measure A has dropped. The VTA is now using an
admittedly conservative estimate of less than $4 billion.


Building the BART extension -- let alone operating it -- is projected to
cost $4.6 billion to $6.5 billion, depending on how long it has to be
delayed. A quicker timetable would be cheaper, but the VTA then runs
into the cash-flow problem of not being able to borrow enough money.


Based on these forecasts, the VTA says it couldn't do what's expected
of it without more money.


And where would more money come from? There's been talk of another
half-cent sales tax hike for BART on the 2004 ballot, or extending the
current one farther. Taxing the problem into submission may be
problematic with voters, however, partly because the recession might
not have lifted in time for a 2004 vote and partly because there's
also talk of yet another half-cent sales tax to save existing VTA bus
and light-rail operations, which are running under a $100 million
annual deficit. Part of the board's August bond was to save the VTA
from a 20 percent service cut, the biggest in its history.


The voters' mandate in favor of BART, however, is still fresh in the
memory of Gonzales, a VTA Board member who gave the BART link its
initial push. According to spokesman David Vossbrink, "The mayor
remains firmly committed to the project" and believes recent, gloomy
sales-tax-revenue projections won't come to pass.


"it's not reasonable to expect that the current economic situation is
going to be the norm," Vossbrink said last week. "The voters have
always said that BART is a very important project."


Vossbrink said the mayor's staff still hopes to begin construction in
four years.


in an Oct. 1 memo, VTA Chief Financial Officer Scott Buhrer told board
members that "in the absence of a new revenue source or a substantial
improvement in the local economy, the board will need to prioritize
which projects to pursue because we simply cannot build both BART and
Downtown East Valley (light rail extension, which voters approved
along with BART in 2000) by 2013."


This prioritizing will probably take place when the VTA Board meets in
November, Gage said. BART, as proposed, is low on his priority list.


Gage would prefer to cut the BART extension short -- perhaps at
Milpitas, he said, with a light-rail extension link to San Jose. This
would likely cut BART costs in half, he said, since the project's most
expensive aspect is tunneling under downtown San Jose.


CUTTING BART


The VTA's Policy Advisory Board, however, decided on Oct. 6 that it
wanted the BART line through San Jose, even if it had to eliminate
several stations. Cost-cutting measures have been ordered by
Washington for those requesting federal funds, but the PAB decided not
to cut that deeply. It is, however, submitting the possibility of
cutting two of the seven proposed San Jose stations.


Higher than BART on Gage's priority list, and much less expensive, are
an extension of light rail to eastern San Jose and several
voter-approved Caltrain projects:


* double-track and triple-track the San Jose-to-Gilroy Caltrain line,
allowing 20 round-trip trains a day to Morgan Hill, San Martin and
Gilroy on weekdays instead of the current four.


* convert Caltrain to electric power, expected to make trains quieter,
cleaner and perhaps more efficient.


VTA staff estimated in 2001 that these Caltrain upgrades would cost
$325 million.


OPPOSITION


The BayRail Alliance, a grass-roots riders' advocacy group, has
opposed the BART plan from the beginning and still said it won't
justify its high price tag.


"is it all going to go to benefit commuters coming into the county
from other counties -- at the expense of the real transportation needs
we have here?" Alliance spokeswoman Margaret Okuzumi asked.


"Are (VTA Board members) still going to say, 'BART to San Jose is our
top priority,' or are they going to say, 'Wait a minute; the emperor
has no clothes?'" Okuzumi asked. "Even if they put every single penny
of Measure A toward building BART, ... even if they borrowed to the
gills and even with their somewhat optimistic assumptions (of state
and federal grants), they've shown through their own spreadsheets that
they can't do it. They need another revenue source. ... They can't
borrow enough to build BART within a reasonable time frame."


[BATN: See also a October 2, 2003, memo from the VTA CFO

("The end result of this was that the BART project would be completed
in FY 2026 and we were still unable to maintain a positive cash
flow"), a 4 September VTA spreadsheet

("2013 Ending Balance, Revenues less Expenditures, Negative $2,916,495,000")
and a graphical illustration of that spreadsheet
 ]







PTP Digest 2003/10/22-B = CONTENTS

* SF-BA: 78% of Caltrain riders have access to car
   Caltrain press release Friday, October 17, 2003

* Tucson op-ed: LRT plan is best way to shape city's future
   Tucson Citizen Tuesday, October 21, 2003

* Tucson op-ed: Chamber has problems with LRT plan
   Tucson Citizen  Wednesday, October 22, 2003

* Tucson: Pro-rail group responds to issues raised by Chamber
   CFASTS Website October 2003

* Seattle's Dunn pulls Istook, Bush, Rove into anti-transit huddle
   Seattle Times Wednesday, October 22, 2003

* Seattle ed: Monorail agency must stop 'creepy' intimidation
   Seattle Times Monday, October 20, 2003

* Seattle monorail: Cash-strapped agency eyes 1-track design
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Wednesday, October 22, 2003

* Spokane: Rail could be 'catalyst for growth and development'
   Spokane Spokesman Review Tuesday, October 21, 2003

* Cincinnati letter assails appointment of 'idelologues' to SORTA board
   CINCINNATI POST October 21, 2003



=PTP===============================================

[PTP NOTE: Caltrain is a regional rail service in the San Francisco-San Jose-
Bay Area.]

[BATN]

Caltrain press release
Friday, October 17, 2003


Caltrain Riders are "Return Customers," Survey Shows


Caltrain riders are a railroad version of "frequent flyers," according
to the results of the latest passenger survey: nearly a third have
been riding for four-plus years, and more than half ride the train
five days a week.


Some 5,700 passengers completed Caltrain's annual survey earlier this
year. In a departure from past surveys which were used to gauge the
quality of Caltrain service, the 2003 survey was designed to give
Caltrain a better picture of who rides the train and what Caltrain can
do to make the service more attractive to existing and potential
riders.


More than 79 percent of riders are commuters, and the primary reasons
cited for taking the train were avoidance of traffic (20 percent of
all responses), better use of time and stress reduction (both 15
percent).


The most popular morning northbound boarding stations were San Jose
Diridon and Mountain View, both at 11 percent, and the most popular
"on" station for southbound riders was the San Francisco terminal, at
47 percent, followed by the 22nd Street station in San Francisco, at
13 percent.


Although 78 percent of all riders have access to cars, only 64 percent
of midday riders do. Nine percent of passengers bring a bike on board,
and another three percent use a bike for one leg of their trip.


Fifty-nine percent of riders are male and 47 percent are married. More
than half are between the ages of 25 and 44, and 38 percent have
college degrees, while 30 percent have post-graduate degrees.


One in five Caltrain passengers has a household income of $100,000 to
$149,999 per year. The vast majority (72 percent) do not have children
at home, 12 percent have only one child and 10 percent have two
children.


Many passengers added individual comments, which have been catalogued
and will help Caltrain to make adjustments as needed.


The most frequently requested improvement was express service,
mentioned on 10 percent of surveys returned with comments, and seven
percent of the comments were about the lack of weekend service, which
has been suspended until next spring because of track construction.


Thirty-two percent of passengers get their news from newspapers, 26
percent from television and 20 percent each from the radio and from
the internet.


Sixty-nine percent of passengers speak only English at home, while 31
percent speak another language instead of or in addition to
English. The highest percentage was Spanish (13 percent).



=PTP=================================================

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=opinion&story_id=102103b5_light
railyes

Tucson Citizen
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Guest Opinion: Props. 200, 201 best way to shape city's future

STEPHEN FARLEY

Editor's note: This is the first of two Guest Opnion columns on Propositions 200
and 201, which will appear on the Nov. 4 city ballot. Tomorrow, John Dougherty,
director of governmental affairs at the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of
Commerce, will explain why the group opposes the propositions.
Thanks to the work of hundreds of citizen volunteers and the signatures of
18,000 Tucson voters, we will finally have a transportation plan on the November
ballot that we can vote for.

We have the power to choose the kind of future we want for our community - a
future where the transportation system works for all of us, whether we drive, ride,
walk, bike or use a wheelchair.

Propositions 200 and 201 will restore balance to our unbalanced transportation
system throughout all areas of the city by:


Building and operating a bus system for the entire city (40 percent of the plan)
that will take us where we want to go, when we want to go there, with minimal
waiting times

Rebuilding our crumbling neighborhood streets (20 percent of the plan) to make
potholes a thing of the past

Dedicating significant funds for new sidewalks and bikeways (10 percent of the
plan) to connect the gaps in our current patchy pedestrian and bike network

Building and operating a 13-mile light rail system (22 percent of the plan) along
Broadway and South Sixth Avenue to connect major regional malls, the
University of Arizona, downtown, the South Side and East Side commuters while
providing a stress-free and dependable commute to ease congestion and boost
the economy

Building and operating a 47-mile bus rapid transit system to bring people to and
from all corners of the city efficiently and quickly

Building and operating the Old Pueblo Trolley extension, along with three other
downtown shuttles, to boost downtown revitalization efforts and enable Rio
Nuevo to fulfill its potential as an economic generator

Hiring new traffic enforcement police officers to crack down on dangerous drivers
and make the streets safe for everyone

Boosting VanTran paratransit service by nearly 40 percent and extending that
service to the Southeast Side for the first time.

All of these projects together will cost the average Tucson family less than $30
per year.
In  exchange, families will be able to save thousands of dollars each year by not
having to use our automobiles everywhere we go. We will also gain improved
access to jobs, medical care and shopping and we will prosper from an economy
boosted by a transportation system that works on many different levels.

Jobs by the thousands will be created in the construction, operation and
maintenance of the system as well as the new development that will be
encouraged in proximity to the transit corridors.

This is a visionary but practical plan for investment in our transportation
infrastructure. There's nothing radical or untested about any element of
Propositions 200 and 201. All projects are already called for in previously
adopted regional transportation plans and there is nothing in the initiative that
precludes future road work paid for from other funding sources.

Propositions 200 and 201 have been developed by grassroots citizen activists in
conjunction with local and national transportation experts through a nine-month
public outreach effort. The final plan was shaped by input from our
neighborhoods, businesses and government and was put on the ballot by the
signatures of more than 18,000 Tucson voters.

Many car-oriented Western cities, including Phoenix, have enacted similar plans
(including a light rail component) that had strong bipartisan support and big
boosters in the business community and the Chamber of Commerce. We are the
only major Western city that is not already aggressively pursuing a multimodal
transportation system that includes light rail.

Cities such as Albuquerque and El Paso that compete with us for attracting high-
wage businesses are already designing light rail systems and bragging about
them to prospective companies.

Why should Tucson's economy be left in the dust?

Some people have expressed concern that light rail construction would somehow
be more disruptive than a typical road widening. This is most assuredly not the
case, as construction will not require the takings of private property (unlike most
road widenings) and most work will happen in the road median with minimal lane
closures and no interference with right turns into businesses or homes. Recent
advances in construction techniques in Portland allowed crews to be in and out
of a three-block area in less than three weeks.

And once the rails are in the ground, we will never have to undergo construction
again to add capacity as we grow; we will simply add more trains. With road
widenings, the disruption is more widespread and hazardous to businesses and
when you need to add capacity, there's no choice but to widen the road again,
taking more property along the edges.

Some opponents say that they are against Propositions 200 and 201 because
they want to have a regional transportation agency with a new tax and a new
plan, not a city-based plan. This opposition seems insincere, given that these
same people enthusiastically supported last year's distinctly non-regional failed
city road tax.

But even so, any regional plan would need to have - at its heart in the City of
Tucson - a multimodal transportation system very much like Propositions 200
and 201. Officials from Marana, Oro Valley and other communities have
expressed their hope that these propositions pass so that they can link their
transit systems to ours.

in fact, the passage of Propositions 200 and 201 is the key to the future
achievement of a regional transportation system for Pima County. Why should
we wait until we have a new bureaucracy in place before we enact a system we
already know we need? We have needs that Propositions 200 and 201 will take
care of right now.

Propositions 200 and 201 won't solve all of our transportation problems. But it
will set us on a better path that will allow us to improve our quality of life as we
grow. Rather than becoming passive victims of car-based sprawl and its
unpleasant side-effects, we finally have the opportunity to join together to act
and take our future into our own hands.

Please, for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren, vote yes on
Propositions 200 and 201.

Stephen Farley is creator of the Broadway Underpass historic murals and co-
chair of Citizens for a Sensible Transportation Solution. For more information,
see www.SaveTucson.org.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=opinion&story_id=102203b5_light
railno

Tucson Citizen
Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Guest Opinion: Chamber notes problems with Props. 200, 201

JOHN DOUGHERTY

Editor's note: This is the second of two Guest Opinion columns on Propositions
200 and 201, which will appear on the Nov. 4 city ballot. Yesterday, Stephen
Farley, co-chair of Citizens for a Sensible Transportation Solution, explained why
his group supports the propositions.
The Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce opposes the ill-conceived
transportation plan and corresponding light rail tax initiative that will be on the
Nov. 4 general election ballot as Propositions 200 and 201.

The chamber opposes the proposed transportation plan for five major reasons:


Few benefit: A full 68 percent of the proposed expenditures would be used for
mass transit, which would benefit less than 4 percent of our population. Currently
just 2.5 percent of our citizens use public transportation. Only 20 percent of
these new taxes would be spent on road maintenance.

No voice, no choice: The proposed plan turns over complete control and
responsibility for the administration of the initiative to the Tucson Department of
Transportation. This fundamental change in the Tucson City Charter would
effectively exclude the mayor and City Council, and by extension, all city voters,
from any decision-making process.

Tucson only: The proposed plan is too narrowly focused on urban Tucson and
does not address the dynamics in transportation patterns throughout the greater
metropolitan area. The chamber advocates instead for a comprehensive regional
transportation solution, which may include light rail, to meet the needs of all
citizens in the Tucson metropolitan area.

Skyrocketing subsidies: Expanding Tucson's public transit system according to
the proposed plan would result in skyrocketing subsidies required to keep it
running. In San Diego, for example, the light rail system is subsidized at a cost of
more than $7.50 per passenger trip. The chamber is concerned that the
proposed transportation plan would require Tucson to substantially increase its
current bus subsidy of $3.50 per passenger trip.

Unsecured funding: Tax increases would pay for only a fraction of the proposed
plan. The bulk of the funding would have to come from the federal government -
but without a comprehensive feasibility study and the necessary political clout in
Washington, those critical dollars are not guaranteed. In fact, federal funding for
similar projects has been reduced across the country.

Additionally, the Tucson Chamber Board of Directors raised the following specific
objections to the proposed plan:

Other local governments and transportation organizations were not consulted.

Proposed light rail route would leave county citizens unserviced.

Utility relocation concerns are not adequately funded.

Language contained in the City Charter change would preclude road expansion:
[Comprehensive Transportation initiative, Section 2 (b) (3)].

Cost and construction time estimates are woefully underestimated.

No alternative analysis report is in place to comply with federal funding rules.

Federal matching fund estimates are unknown.

Rail construction will impede traffic and business access on Broadway and Sixth
Avenue and will reduce overall street capacity.

Neighborhoods around proposed rail stations would be impacted (changes in
zoning, parking, etc.)

There are no "sunset" provisions to the tax increases.

John Dougherty is director of Governmental Affairs at the Tucson metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce. For more information about the chamber's opposition to
Propositions 200 and 201, contact Dougherty at 792-2250, ext. 127 or by e-mail
at jdougher@tucsonchamber.org.



=PTP===============================================

[PTP NOTE: The following material from the Citizens for a Sensible
Transportation Solution website responds to most of the issues raised in the
preceding op-ed from the Tucson Chamber of Commerce.]

http://www.savetucson.org/responses.htm

CFASTS Website
October 2003

CFASTS Response to the Press Release from the Tucson Chamber of
Commerce Opposing Propositions 200 and 201:

Pardon the somewhat atypical press release format (and atypical length) to
follow, but we believe it is most helpful to directly respond to the allegations
contained in the 9/10/03 press release from the Tucson Chamber regarding
Propositions 200 and 201.

Unfortunately, the Tucson Chamber seems to have decided to make itself
irrelevant in the world of economic development by opposing the Comprehensive
Transportation initiative for stated reasons that can be easily refuted.

Apparently, the Tucson Chamber has decided to ignore the lead offered by
scores of Chambers around the country, including Phoenix, Albuquerque, El
Paso, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, Louisville, Charlotte and countless other
communities with whom we compete for the attraction of high-wage businesses.
These communities have endorsed and aggressively pursued true multi-modal
systems featuring buses, sidewalks, neighborhood street maintenance,
bikeways, bus rapid transit, light rail transit, and trolley lines. These communities
recognize that providing a full range of choices to citizens allows a community to
continue to grow without sacrificing their quality of life or their economy.

The Tucson Chamber, in opposing the visionary and practical Propositions 200
and 201, is not offering any alternative vision in return. In fact, they infer that
businesses in Tucson should not support any future transportation plan in this
cynical statement from President Jack Camper: "Businesses in Tucson have
heard too many transportation promises about how their lives will be made
better. They have been promised better but have received worse." This may
have in fact described Propositions 100 and 400, the City's road sales tax which
was defeated last May with 70% of the citizens voting no despite enthusiastic
endorsement by the Tucson Chamber.

Propositions 200 and 201 are nothing like that failed City plan. The
Comprehensive Transportation initiative was put together by local and national
experts in transportation, in response to the stated needs of the Tucson public,
and was placed on the ballot by the signatures of more than 18,000 registered
voters.

The proposition is funded by:

* a 3/10 of a cent increase in the City sales tax (30 cents on a $100 purchase, it
will cost the average household an extra $29 a year)

* a 4 cent increase in the City construction contracting sales tax (modeled on a
successful tax in place in Marana that offsets a loophole that deducts 35% from
the sales price of construction contracting before tax is assessed)

* increased revenues from increased ridership on the improved system (no
increase in fares is necessary)

The proposition spends:

* 40% of its funds on a vastly better bus system with hours extended from 5am-
midnight, an improvement named as the number-one transportation priority by
66% of voters who voted in the May 2002 election, according to a July 2002
survey by the Arizona Daily Star;

* 20% of its funds on neighborhood street maintenance, rebuilding 136 miles of
crumbling neighborhood streets in the first two years alone;

* 22% of its funds on a 13-mile Light Rail system, which has been a proven
success in 27 North American cities at attracting former car commuters and
boosting economic activity in the transit corridor;

* 10% of its funds on sidewalks and bikeways to connect the gaps in our
multimodal system;

* 6% of its funds on extending the Old Pueblo Trolley all the way to the Rio
Nuevo urban revitalization project west of I-10, plus 3 other downtown shuttle
lines, all operating every 10 minutes, seven days a week;

* 2% of its funds to hire 11 uniformed Tucson Police Officers to crack down on
dangerous drivers and improve safety.

As is obvious, this is not simply a "light rail initiative" as it is called by the
Chamber, which doesn't mention any other aspect of the plan except the light
rail. In fact, the light rail opening was intentionally pushed back to 2012 so that
we can immediately enact urgent needs like street maintenance and more buses
right up front, and allow us more time to obtain the 60% federal matching funds
to build the light rail system.

it is also important to point out that all costs (outside of those federal matching
funds for the capital costs of light rail)--capital, operating, financing and
maintenance--are completely paid for by this plan, without the need for additional
funds. There is even a 20% contingency built into the plan to account for
unforeseen circumstances.

Finally, enacting Propositions 200 and 201 is only a piece of our total
transportation picture. The props will not preclude additional road projects
(billions of dollars of which are already funded in Tucson over the next 20 years),
and will not preclude a future regional transportation authority, should the
citizens want that. Indeed, any future regional plan will necessarily include
elements similar to this plan within the City of Tucson as its regional heart. Why
should we wait until another bureaucratic structure is in place before we act?

Bearing in mind that Light Rail is only 22% of our total plan, below are the claims
made by the Tucson Chamber about light rail in their press release, followed by
our response:

CHAMBER: "It will cripple businesses along the proposed route... The Tucson
Chamber has 200 members along the Broadway portion of the train route alone.
Construction and reduced traffic capacity along Broadway could prove to be fatal
to them and their employees"

CFASTS: Road capacity will not be reduced along Broadway. Along most of
Broadway, there is a diamond lane for buses as the outside lane. Those lanes
will be moved to the center, next to the median, and dedicated to rail instead of
buses. Construction will take place in the center of the road, not at the edges,
and will thus not affect access to businesses. New rail construction techniques
get crews into and out of a three block area in three weeks, and will not tie up
more than two lanes in that small area for much time. Furthermore, once you
have the rails laid, you will never have to undergo construction again to add
passenger capacity-you simply run more trains. When you need to add capacity
to a road, you have no choice but to widen, and that involves much longer and
more disruptive construction schedules than rail projects, as we have seen all
over Tucson in recent years. If the Chamber is concerned about the effects of
transportation construction on businesses, they should look more closely at the
more widespread road widening projects.

And when you look at the increased property values, increased retail activity,
increased commercial occupancies, and increased jobs that spring up along rail
routes all over the country, the only real impact on businesses along the route
will be strongly positive. In fact, in other communities, businesses have taxed
themselves to help build the rail system in anticipation of the economic growth
created by rail.

CHAMBER: "The proposed construction tax hike to six percent will do nothing
but make it prohibitive for working families to buy their first home, or remodel a
kitchen, fix a leaky roof, or do any sort of home improvement. This plan adds
thousands of dollars to the cost of housing in Tucson."

CFASTS: We have an entire fact sheet dedicated to the debunking of this myth,
you can find a PDF file on our website at www.SaveTucson.org. In fact, this tax
is modeled on one that has been in place in Marana for the past two years, and
which has had no complaints from homebuilders, contractors, or homebuyers,
and is one of the reasons Marana has been able to continue to invest in its
infrastructure without encountering budget deficits.

This tax offsets a loophole only available to construction contracting in which the
sales price is discounted by 35% before tax is assessed-that means the tax on a
new house or addition is only 4.94%. This tax increase raises that to an effective
7.54%-about the same sales tax we pay on everything else. It does not apply to
the sales of existing homes, which make up the largest percentage of home
sales.

Even with Propositions 200 and 201 in place, and even assuming it is passed
through to the buyer (which it may not), the same house would still be cheaper in
Tucson than in Marana or any other location in Pima County. According to
SAHBA, the buyer of a median-price home ($175,000--hardly in range of most
working families) would pay an additional $3,500 in taxes, mortgaged out over 30
years, and deductible from federal taxes. That amounts to a miniscule amount
per month to receive a vastly improved transit system that could save working
families thousands of dollars per year in transportation costs.

CHAMBER: "Other local governments and transportation organizations were not
consulted"

CFASTS: All projects in Propositions 200 and 201 are included in the PAG Long-
Range Regional Transportation Plan for 2025. We spoke extensively with
officials from City of Tucson, PAG, Pima County, and even officials in Marana
and Oro Valley who are excited to plug into this catalytic Tucson transit system
with their own routes.

CHAMBER: "Proposed light rail route would leave County citizens unserved"

CFASTS: That assumes that no one from the County ever comes into the city to
work, shop, or play. The system includes 12 shaded & secure Park-N-Ride lots
at the edges to encourage people to drive to the lots and take comfortable,
efficient, high-speed transit to go the rest of the way. These will attract thousands
of County residents, and for those who would make the counter argument that
County resident should pay, they will be paying through the plan's reasonable
3/10 of a cent sales tax increase when they shop.

CHAMBER: "Utility relocation concerns are misrepresented by CFASTS and not
adequately funded."

CFASTS: Our cost estimates include the projected cost of relocating utilities that
are under the rails. This is a standard budget item in every Light Rail project.
Along most of South Sixth Avenue, the City of Tucson had the foresight to move
the utilities out of the way during the recent reconstruction of the street, in
anticipation of future light rail, as called for in the Broadway Corridor Study of the
late 1980s.

CHAMBER: "Language contained in the City Charter change would exclude road
expansion Section 2(b)(3)"

CFASTS: The language they refer to is actually in the ordinance, not the charter
amendment. The full language in question actually reads:

"(B) ROADS: THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ALL CITY ROADS. IN CARRYING OUT ITS DUTIES
WITH RESPECT TO CITY ROADS, AT ALL TIMES, THE DEPARTMENT
SHALL:
(1) ENSURE THAT ALL ROADS ADEQUATELY SUPPORT A VARIETY OF
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING AUTOMOBILES, MASS
TRANSIT, BICYCLES, AND PEDESTRIANS.
(2) PRESERVE THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS.
(3) FULLY EXPLORE AND EMPLOY STRATEGIES OTHER THAN ROAD
WIDENING TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
(4) ENSURE THAT EACH ROAD PROJECT ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATES
PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST NEEDS.
(5) ENSURE THAT EACH ROAD PROJECT ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATES
TRANSIT NEEDS."

Section 2(b)(3) was added to avoid boondoggles like the arbitrary, destructive,
and expensive widening of Campbell Avenue between Grant and Elm, which
cost $10 million to add two lanes for a half mile and did nothing to improve the
traffic flow along Campbell. Had the Department of Transportation explored
transit alternatives, they could have added extra capacity without widening and
without endangering the businesses north of Grant along Campbell.

CHAMBER: "CFASTS cost and construction time estimates are woefully
underestimated"

CFASTS: This plan was vetted by national experts, including the former Western
Region director of the Federal Transit Administration, which doles out the federal
funds, and was pegged based on best estimates in Tucson at $37 million per
mile. And according to the US Government Accounting Office Report on Transit,
the standard cost estimate for Light Rail systems in the US is $34.8 million per
mile.

CHAMBER: "No alternatives analysis is in place to comply with FTA funding
rules"

CFASTS: The Alternatives Analysis (AA) was ordered by Mayor and Council in
December 2001. Its Request For Proposals will be sent out in October of this
year, according to Gary Oaks of the City DOT. The FTA does require an AA, but
it also requires a dedicated funding source in place to fund the future system
before you can apply for the funds. Propositions 200 and 201 will satisfy the
requirement, and once we have finished the AA, we will be able to submit our
request immediately. Alternatively, we will not be able to request funds, even if
we have the AA in hand, until we have the funding source in place.

CHAMBER: "CFASTS federal matching fund estimates are unknown"

CFASTS: We're not sure what they mean by this. We estimate that 60% of our
capital costs for Light Rail will come from the federal government. And while we
cannot be sure that we will obtain full funding, we can be certain of NOT
obtaining ANY funding if we do not apply.

CHAMBER: "Neighborhoods around proposed rail stations will be impacted
(changes in zoning, parking, crime, etc.)"

CFASTS: Neighborhoods will be impacted--positively! The federal funding
requires that we involve neighborhoods at every step of the way, and that their
input be pivotal in the final design. While one of the benefits of Light Rail is that
is can encourage more compact smart growth, neighborhoods can choose not to
change zoning in their area at all. Light rail is flexible enough to include small,
low-key neighborhood stations without parking or adjacent development where
appropriate, and larger, mixed-use developments where appropriate. This is the
first time we have heard the crime issue raised, and we hope it is not an indicator
of the Chamber's opinion of the type of people who ride transit. There is
absolutely no correlation between higher crime rates and light rail.

CHAMBER: "Proposed light rail route is within South Tucson city limits, which
would not be subjected to increased tax"

CFASTS: One mile out of the 13-mile route, and one station out of the 16
stations are in South Tucson. While the City of South Tucson will not collect the
taxes to fund the system, the residents of South Tucson do most of their
shopping in the surrounding City of Tucson, and thus will be paying the tax. It
would in fact cost more to route the system around South Tucson, costing us all
more in the end.

CHAMBER: "There are no "sunset" provisions to tax increases"

CFASTS: Because there is no "sunset" provision to our transportation needs.
Once we have built the system over the first twenty years of the plan, we will
continue to have the funding source in place to continue to operate the system
and build new projects to supplement the system based on our changing needs
in the year 2023. This is part of why we say that we all need to vote YES on
Propositions 200 and 201 for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren it's
about time we invested in our future, instead of simply short-term fixes.

if we have left anything out, forgive us, if you have read the whole thing, thank
you. If you need more information, don't hesitate, to email, call, or visit our
website.




=PTP===============================================

Seattle Times
Wednesday, October 22, 2003

in key week for light rail, a meeting at White House

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn, an Eastside Republican and
longtime critic of Sound Transit, traveled to the White House yesterday to speak
with President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Dunn, R-Bellevue, brought along Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., an influential
subcommittee chairman who is holding up a $500 million federal grant Sound
Transit needs to begin construction of its light-rail system. Also attending the
half-hour meeting was Rep. George Nethercutt, a Spokane Republican running
for U.S. Senate.

The four talked about the need to consider congestion relief in funding future
light-rail projects, said Dunn's spokeswoman Danielle Holland. Sound Transit's
stalled grant never came up, she said.

But the meeting's timing struck some observers as curious, and Sound Transit
supporters doubt the agency and its grant weren't discussed. "That's like saying
you read Playboy but don't look at the pictures. It's just not believable," said a
Democratic source.

Others suggested Rove may have been asked to reconsider the Bush
administration's support of funding for Sound Transit.

Dunn was on her way to iraq and could not be reached directly, and Nethercutt
declined to comment.

The White House meeting took place during a week when Congress may decide
the fate of the $2.44 billion light-rail project.

Istook formally disapproved the $500 million grant last month. Sound Transit
stands to lose favorable construction bids Friday unless he reverses his position.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, a light-rail supporter, said Istook told him on the
House floor Monday night that a final decision on the grant would be made within
48 hours. Istook did not tell Dicks how he would rule, and his spokesperson did
not elaborate.

Sound Transit officials say the federal money is crucial to breaking ground on the
Seattle-to-Tukwila route. Without it, they say, the project will die.

Although Sound Transit faced a tough time in Congress, the Bush administration
has been one of its biggest supporters.

Bush included $75 million for light rail in his proposed 2004 budget, and the
federal Department of Transportation rated Sound Transit "highly
recommended."

Last May, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, a Bush appointee, said he
had no reservations about the project.

Mineta's department agreed to award the $500 million grant to Sound Transit in
July, but the deal had to pass through House and Senate transportation
subcommittees.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., ensured the grant moved smoothly through the
Senate, but it ran aground in Istook's House subcommittee.

Istook has a history of opposing light-rail projects, contending they don't pay for
themselves and don't relieve congestion.

On Sept. 10, he formally refused to sign off on Sound Transit's funding proposal,
and the grant has been in limbo ever since.

Among his concerns is the possible effect of initiative 776, the Tim Eyman-
sponsored measure that would cut about $703 million from Sound Transit's
budget.

i-776, which would cap vehicle tabs at $30, was ruled unconstitutional by a King
County Superior Court judge. It is on appeal at the state Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Sound Transit says two construction bids worth $94 million will
terminate Friday. The bids originally expired Oct. 10, but Sound Transit won a
two-week extension.

if the contracts are voided, the agency must rebid the work, at a possible cost of
tens of millions of dollars and monthslong delays, according to Sound Transit.

"it's an important week, and we hope we can move forward. We're in a holding
pattern and keeping our fingers crossed," said Sound Transit Communications
Director Ric ilgenfritz.

Opponents, too, wish for a swift resolution to the Sound Transit saga.

Metropolitan King County Councilman Rob McKenna said light rail would provide
minimal benefits for the price, and he joins Dunn in her concern that Eastside
transit revenue could be tapped to pay for cost overruns.

"I would rather have congressional leaders make a decision this week," he said.
"Let's hear it one way or the other."


[SIDEBAR]

Report card
The report, one of six state reports being released today, is available online:
www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/home.html



Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or afryer@seattletimes.com



=PTP===============================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2001770088_monoed20.
html

Seattle Times
Monday, October 20, 2003

Fix monorail in Olympia, not at license counter


Editorial

Seattle monorail officials are trying to achieve through intimidation a change in
law that could not be accomplished by legislation.

Monorail officials have urged car-licensing agents to report to the Department of
Licensing suspected monorail tax evaders. The department then would give the
information to the Seattle Monorail Project, which claims it is merely collecting
information.

Targeting people who change licensing addresses to locations outside the city
limits - or those who admit they are licensing elsewhere to avoid the tax - is
creepy.

Monorail officials insist it is illegal for Seattle residents to register cars outside the
city to dodge the tax, but there is no specific penalty for doing so. The monorail
ought to clarify rules regarding licensing in a straightforward manner, via
legislation that requires the Department of Licensing to do so.

Monorail execs wanted the Legislature to close the loophole last session. The bill
passed the House, not the Senate.

The monorail now should do what every other group must do: Go back and try
again.

Enlisting licensing agents is a bluff, a bet people will be so spooked by list-
keeping they won't evade the tax.

Monorail tax revenues are coming in at two-thirds the amount anticipated.
People licensing cars at recreational and business addresses outside city limits
are part of the shortfall. Evasion hurts the monorail project, and monorail officials
have an interest in the information.

But using licensing sub-agents who work in neighborhoods to collect information
about their customers is lousy public relations. Licensing agents do not have to
rat on people. Monorail execs would do better to return to Olympia to shore up
the rules.



=PTP===============================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/144926_monorail22.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Monorail planners may have 1-track mind

By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Monorail planners have for months been trying to figure out how to gracefully fit a
structure with two shadow-casting tracks on top of sequoia-sized columns into
Seattle's neighborhoods.

Now they're considering having just one track.

Yesterday, Seattle's monorail authority unveiled the idea of building one track in
some areas, carrying trains running both north and south. The trains would pass
each other at stations, where there would still be separate tracks.

Joel Horn, executive director of the Seattle Monorail Project, said the one-track
idea would save money, but how much is not yet known. The project has to
come up with savings because it's on a collision course with trouble; the project's
car-tab tax is raising about 30 percent less than expected.

One concern about the 14-mile line from Ballard to West Seattle is what the
monorail might do to neighborhoods Rick Sundberg, an architect who serves on
the monorail board, said a single-track "would be a little more delicate coming
into the city."

Rather than two tracks spanning about 17 feet above streets, a single track and
an emergency walkway would be only about 4 or 5 feet across. Having to bear
less weight, the 3- to 4-foot-wide columns would be roughly the same size as, or
thinner than those holding up the current Seattle Center Monorail. The idea is
more complicated downtown. With trains having to wait for oncoming trains to
pass, and crowds of people getting on and off, Horn said the authority is unsure
if the trains could run every four or five minutes downtown, as currently planned,
on a single track.

Horn acknowledged the single-track idea could have other problems. The
authority is trying to figure out how much more the additional wear and tear on a
single track might cost throughout the years. And having only one track might
cause problems should a train break down.


P-I reporter Kery Murakami can be reached at 206-448-8131 or
kerymurakami@seattlepi.com


=PTP=============================================

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=102103&ID=s1427786&cat=secti
on.business


Spokane Spokesman Review
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Spokane

Transit backers plan for growth

Amy Cannata - Staff writer

Rapid transit stations could be a catalyst for growth and development in the
Spokane Valley.

Spokane Regional Light Rail is holding a series of meetings this week to plan
how transit stations could influence economic development in Spokane Valley
and Liberty Lake.

Transit stations are proposed in both cities' cores.

A station proposed at the University City mall could help revitalize older Spokane
Valley commercial properties that have suffered as development has moved east
toward the Spokane Valley Mall.

Spokane Valley officials have been considering the area as a location for city
offices.

"it's very important that the development they propose not be dependent on
transit being there," light rail project manager Kim Traver said.

The light rail committee is studying the possibility of bus rapid transit.

A study this year showed there aren't enough potential riders to win federal
financing of a proposed 16-mile light rail line between downtown Spokane and
Liberty Lake.

With bus rapid transit, buses would be given priority at intersections, stop less
frequently and hold more passengers.

Another possibility is a shorter light rail line.

Bus or rail rapid transit could benefit University City, but current development
plans don't count on it, said Orville Barnes, the shopping mall's property
manager.

"We're looking at the fact that it will become a mixed-use type of area. We're
trying to position ourselves to do that sort of thing," Barnes said.

A portion of the mall is being torn down to make way for more surface parking.

The automobile still is king in the Spokane Valley, but transit could have a bigger
impact in future years, Barnes said.

"We're developing it in a manner that it could take advantage of that but also
work now," he said.


•Spokane Regional Light Rail will hold two public meetings this week to plan
development around proposed transit stations at the University City mall and in
Liberty Lake. The first meeting will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Wednesday at
Decades at University City, 10502 E. Sprague. The Liberty Lake meeting will be
from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday at Telect, 2111 N. Molter Road.



=PTP============================================

[PTP NOTE: Dr. Haynes Goddard, Professor of  Economics at the University of
Cincinnati.  Dr. Goddard led the panel of  economists and financial experts that
oversaw the economic analysis of  transport investments at OKI over the past
three years.]


CINCINNATI POST
October 21, 2003

[Letter to the Editor]

Poor Choices for SORTA Board

To the editor of The Post:

The decision by the Hamilton County Commissioners on October 8 to appoint
two anti-transit ideologues to the SORTA board, with virtually no public
discussion, represents a significant abuse of governmental authority.

One of the new Board members, medical supply salesman Stephan Louis, is the
leader against regional efforts to bring balance to our regional
transportation infrastructure. He was recently found guilty by the Ohio
Elections Commission of attempting to affect the outcome of last
November's transit levy by falsely claiming that the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) had termed the region's transit plan among the worst
in the nation, when the FTA had made no such statement.

The other new SORTA board member is Daniel Peters, Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the Buckeye institute, a self-styled libertarian "think"
tank based in Columbus. A reading of this institute's publications on
transportation shows clearly that there is very little real thinking going
on there. In fact, the same week the editor of the Columbus Dispatch very
publicly banished the Buckeye institute from appearing in op-ed pieces
because they submitted plagiarized material as their own. This
intellectual dishonesty is not new at Buckeye, Ohio's very own purveyor of
junk science, the head of which the Commissioners have named to guide the
County's transit authority.

These ideologues were nominated by Hamilton County Commissioner John
Dowlin, who has very clearly demonstrated in many public meetings, both at OKI
and elsewhere, that he does not understand the investment analyses of
transport alternatives for our region conducted at OKI, and prefers to refer to his
"own set of facts", finding OKI's valid analyses to be inconvenient--not supporting
his preconceived conclusions. Even though OKI has obtained the services of
some of the best transport and economic consultants in nation, Dowlin
recommended to the OKI I-75 Committee at its vote two weeks ago that the
committee use Louis' unfounded and amateur conclusions in place of the work of
the consultants, even though Louis has no expertise nor training in the area.

Thanks to the efforts of several professional economists and financial
executives in the region, OKI has been able to elevate the quality of the
economic appraisal of transport projects to among the best in the nation,
all to no consequence, as local politicians like Dowlin routinely ignore
the findings. The citizens of the region are paying the costs of this
ideological blindness as our mobility in the region continues to deteriorate.

We have been very poorly served by the Hamilton County Commissioners on
these appointments. Those concerned about the economic future of the region
need to tell them to get educated.











PTP Digest 2003/10/22-A = CONTENTS

* Houston:  Under-40-somethings rally for rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 22, 2003

* Houston-area US rep: Vote No on Metro plan, back alternative
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 21, 2003

* Houston op-ed: Metro plan's a 'winning combination' of roads, rail, buses
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 21, 2003

* Calcutta eyes light metro
   TIMES OF INDIA [Calcutta] TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003

* Portsmouth UK: Leaders urge govt. OK of LRT tram plan
   Hampshire County Council  17/10/2003

* Seattle: Diesel-electric buses may replace trolleys in tunnel
   Seattle Post-Intelligencer Tuesday, October 21, 2003

* Seattle: 235 new hybrid buses may lower op. costs
   New York Times October 21, 2003

* Newark Airport train/monorail connection gets mixed reviews
   News 12 New Jersey (10/20/03)

* New Orleans may suffer if Amtrak zapped
   New Orleans Times-Picayune Monday October 20, 2003

* Kuala Lumpur: Monorail builder touts progress
   KL Monorail [News Release] Dateline: 3/10/03

* Radio 'shock jocks' urge assaults on cyclists
   Chicago Tribune October 14, 2003


=PTP===========================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 22, 2003


Under-40 set drawn to rail, leaders say

By LUCAS WALL


A group of young professionals rallied Tuesday at City Hall, warning voters that
Houston will have trouble retaining and attracting talented workers if voters
refuse to authorize rail expansion Nov. 4.

Jason Presley, vice chairman of a young leaders group sponsored by the
Houston Downtown Alliance, said the city's traffic congestion, air pollution and
lack of a vibrant center make it an unappealing choice for many workers younger
than 40. The alliance is a nonprofit organization formed to promote a "vital and
vibrant" downtown.

"Houstonians are not fundamentally tied to our cars as others would have you
believe," Presley said to an audience of about 100 gathered on the east steps.
"The number of young Houstonians moving to cities like New York, Chicago and
San Francisco is proof of that. Houstonians drive because there is a lack of
viable alternate options."

Some gathered around the podium held signs with slogans including "Don't
Make Me Move to Dallas" and "Don't Make Me Move to Denver." Both of those
cities have light rail systems similar to the one the Metropolitan Transit Authority
has placed on next month's ballot.

Matt Harris, chair of the 700-member Emerging Leaders coalition, said young
people would see the most benefits from the long-term transit expansion that
Metro has mapped out. The Nov. 4 vote would authorize $640 million in bonds to
accelerate construction of the next 22 miles of light rail.

"This referendum is more than just a bond issue; it is a vote for the future," Harris
said.

Catherine Pernot of Houston Solutions, a group of young professionals that
educates others about quality-of-life issues, said Metro's plan offers choices for
those who don't want to live in the suburbs with two cars in the garage.

"If we want a healthy, long-term city, we need healthy, long-term transportation
options," she said. "It is time to diversify our transportation supply."

Three members of the Business Committee Against Rail held a protest at the
rally, holding up signs promoting more road construction. David Hutzelman, the
committee's 63-year-old director, said other cities such as Austin that do not
have light rail do just fine attracting young workers.

"Why would yuppies want to take twice as long to commute on a 15 mph trolley
while likely standing for rush-hour trips?" Hutzelman asked. "The answer is they
wouldn't."

Metro did not have statistics available Tuesday on how many 20- and 30-
somethings ride its buses. The American Public Transportation Association's
demographics of national transit riders are broken down only by minors, adults
and senior citizens.



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2171903



=PTP===========================================

[PTP NOTE:  in the following op-ed, Houston-area US Rep. John Culberson
promotes the "100 Percent Solutions Plan" being developed by the Houston-
Galveston Area Council as a preferable alternative to the Metro Solutions plan
up for a vote next month.  However, the 'Houston Transportation Bulletin 3' of 13
October 2003 (previously posted to this list) had these observations on the
"100% Plan": "The METRO Solutions opposition cites the '100 Percent Solutions
Plan' being developed by the Houston-Galveston Area Council as an alternative
to METRO Solutions. However, the 100 Percent Solutions Plan not only includes
METRO Solutions, but includes an expanded version of METRO Solutions with
more rail and bus than in METRO¹s plan. The METRO Solutions transit plan is a
part of the 100 Percent Solution Plan that already has identified funding
sources...."]


Houston Chronicle
Oct. 21, 2003

Viewpoints

Choose the '100% Solution' over Metro's

By JOHN CULBERSON

METRO is asking voters to approve the single largest construction project in
Houston's history on Nov. 4, and every day raises new questions about its ability
to pay for it. As the only Texan on the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation, my job requires me to be involved whenever the Metropolitan
Transit Authority calls an election to build rail, or whenever the Texas
Department of Transportation or Harris County proposes a highway project,
because I am responsible for helping them obtain federal funding.

As a taxpayer, I am opposed to the rail plan. However, I have repeatedly pledged
to Metro and to the Chronicle that I will support federal funding for the plan if it is
approved. My personal position is that Houstonians can do far better than this
massive 73-mile rail plan that was hastily approved and, by Metro's own
admission, "might not reduce congestion." I am working with County Judge
Robert Eckels and the Houston-Galveston Area Council to develop a "100
Percent Solution" for all of our traffic problems.

The 100 Percent Solution will include many elements: commuter rail lines out to
the suburbs where our population growth is highest; more toll roads such as the
new Katy Toll Road to take the strain off of our highways, opening up more lanes
on key thoroughfares in the area, adding new roads to the system, as well as
diverting truck traffic from the Port of Houston around the city and shifting their
freight loads onto trains. Every element of the 100 Percent Solution will be
judged against the basic criteria: Does it reduce congestion; and does it improve
travel time? The 100 Percent Solution is almost ready, and we have the right
leadership in Harris County, Austin and Washington, D.C., to develop and
implement as much of it as we can afford. But first, we must oppose Metro's plan
because Metro will consume nearly half of all transportation dollars in Harris
County to carry only 1 percent of the traffic. We won't have enough money left
over for the 100 Percent Solution.

in any referendum election, the first place we need absolute honesty is the ballot
language. The ballot is the contract between the voters and the government. i
know from my experience in Austin that there are no state or federal minimum
guidelines for ballot language. The only restriction under Texas law is that the
ballot language cannot "mislead" the voters. So I worked with Metro in June and
July to develop acceptable guidelines for its November ballot language. Metro
actually wrote the first draft of my new minimum federal ballot requirements on
June 26. They watched these new requirements pass the subcommittee, the full
committee, survive an amendment to strike them and eventually pass the House.

The Metro board consciously decided to ignore these requirements and approve
vague ballot language that did not even spell out how many miles of rail it was
proposing to build. It knowingly created its "last-minute" ballot problem. On Aug.
19, the Chronicle reported that the final rail plan for the Nov. 4 ballot was "cut" by
"almost half" to "22 miles" in order to "appease foes." The impression given to
voters was that the referendum would be on 22 miles of rail at a cost of $640
million in bonds, when in fact, Metro was really asking voters to give their
blessing to a 73-mile rail system that will ultimately cost $7.8 billion. Metro finally
agreed to abide by these requirements and list the 73 miles on the ballot.

I was recently asked by Eckels to verify Metro's federal formula projections over
the life of the next transportation reauthorization bill (six years). I took Metro's
estimates to the Federal Transit Administration and asked it to figure out exactly
how much formula money Metro should expect to receive. FTA ran the numbers,
and I discovered that Metro was overestimating their projections by $116 million.
The numbers FTA used were based on President Bush's reauthorization
proposal, which assumes a 2 percent growth rate every year. Since the only
conceivable way to arrive at Metro's estimates would be to assume a massive
federal gas tax increase, and Bush has threatened to veto any bill with a gas tax
increase, Metro's numbers are obviously unrealistic. Even more troubling is the
fact that Metro has not even asked the loan officer at the bank, the FTA, what
level of funding to expect from the bank. FTA's revenue estimates mean that
Metro would not be able to build the rail it is asking us to approve, would not be
able to maintain its existing bus service without dramatic cuts, would not be able
to pay back the $640 million in bonds or would not be able to protect the 25
percent of the penny sales tax that goes to the cities without a tax increase.

Metro's only sources of revenue to pay for this rail plan are their one-cent sales
tax, federal funding, fare box money and whatever modest interest it earns on its
investments. Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt and
University of Houston economist Barton Smith have already concluded that
Metro's sales tax revenue projections are too high. Now with its federal formula
funding projections being called into question, I encourage every voter to take a
long, hard look at what Metro is selling and ask whether or not we can really
afford it.

The more closely I examine Metro's proposal, the clearer it becomes that my
duty to protect the integrity of the public treasury requires me to oppose this
particular rail plan. I know from my experience in the Texas Legislature and in
Congress that there is often a direct relationship between how bad a law is and
how big a hurry the authors are in to get it passed. Usually, the faster the law is
being rushed into effect, and the less you get to read in advance, and the harder
it is to get information from the authors, the worse the law will be on closer
inspection. The same is true of Metro's 73-mile rail plan.

Culberson, a Houston Republican, represents Texas' 7th U.S. Congressional
District, which is west Houston.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2171581



=PTP=================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 21, 2003

Viewpoints

A winning combination: highways, rail, buses

By U.S. REP. GENE GREEN

ON Nov. 4, Harris County voters will consider the Metro Solutions plan, which
includes 73 miles of light rail and a 50 percent expansion of the Metropolitan
Transit Authority's bus service. With traffic congestion the top local issue in our
area, I support approval of Metro Solutions. It will serve our district with light rail
by including East End and Northside.

Harris County residents will waste an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas
each year in congested traffic, according to the Texas Transportation institute's
2003 Urban Mobility Report. Together, we lose $2.1 billion, every year, in
productivity and fuel. And congestion has been getting worse. In contrast, Metro
Solutions has $2.8 billion for light rail over six years.

Congestion impacts our air quality, and our Clean Air Act deadline is 2007.
Failure means lost jobs and lost federal highway funding. I am a co-sponsor of
legislation with Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, to protect area projects
already approved by the Environmental Protection Agency from cancellation, but
that is a Band-Aid, not a solution. Success means increasing highway and road
capacity, adding light rail and expanding bus service.

The nonpartisan Urban Mobility Report is clear: We cannot prevent congestion
from worsening by just building more highways. I certainly support highway
construction in our area, even in areas where it does not directly benefit my
constituents. Like U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, I support I-10
expansion, which is already $240 million over budget at $1.7 billion. But those of
us who represent areas served by light rail cannot continue to support suburban
projects such as I-10 West or the Grand Parkway without reciprocal help for our
communities.

We cannot bet the ranch on rail. Metro Solutions recognizes this and does not
raise taxes or take money from roads; it uses bonds backed by fares and federal
funding. Metro Solutions also increases bus service by 50 percent and 44 new
routes. Light rail is not opposed to highways or buses, and our congestion is
becoming so severe we need all available solutions. As each year passes
without action, congestion will continue

to increase.

Folks who do not often use public transportation wonder: What is in it for me?
But transportation is a regional problem, with congestion in one area quickly
backing up and spreading to others. We should not ask what will we ride
tomorrow, but what will the thousands of new Houstonians ride in 2007? Using
all means to reduce congestion in Harris County is the only way that all will
benefit. If we limit ourselves, congestion will increase for all.

Some respected local leaders, such as Culberson and Harris County Judge
Robert Eckels say Metro will go broke with Metro Solutions. But in fact, their
projections are based on a transportation bill, proposed by President Bush,
which they oppose, has not even been considered in Congress and no one
believes will pass Congress. In addition, Metro has reserve funds to cover much
of this phony discrepancy.

We can afford Metro Solutions, and get the best plan for expanding light rail and
bus service. But Metro doesn't build highways. For new and expanded area
highways, we must take two actions in Congress.

First, we must return more of the gas tax that Texans pay to Texas. I am a co-
sponsor of legislation with Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, to return
95 percent instead of the current 88 percent. Passage of this legislation is basic
fairness that will increase Texas share of the federal highway pie.

However, the federal gas tax does not keep pace with inflation. To allow for
more, faster highway construction the federal gas tax can be indexed to inflation,
as in the proposal by Republican Transportation Committee Chairman Don
Young. Federal gas tax revenues are not controlled by Congress and
automatically pay for transportation infrastructure. Although we might like to, it
will be nearly impossible to increase Texas' share of the highway pie in
Congress, without allowing the pie to grow with inflation.

if voters approve Metro Solutions and Congress acts sensibly, highways, light rail
and buses will be a win, win, win combination for Harris County.

Green, a Houston Democrat, represents Texas' 29th U.S. Congressional District.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2171519



=PTP=============================================

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=24389
1

TIMES OF INDIA [Calcutta]
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003

Barasat to Joka in 90 minutes flat

SOUMYADIPTA BANERJEE


The one rupee that the state government is taking from you for every litre of fuel
that you buy, is all set to fund one of the most ambitious projects of the state
transport department.

According to sources in the department, at least nine private companies have
shown interest in this: a Rs 1,400-crore light railway transit project. It will be a
sophisticated version of Kolkata's trams that will link Joka and Barasat passing
through Kamalgazi in Garia, EM Bypass, Sector IV in Salt Lake and Dum Dum—
a distance of 50 kilometres which it is claimed will not take more than 90 minutes
to cover. No deadline, however, has yet been set for the completion of the
project.



"At least nine foreign companies have collected the project report from us. There
are some indian companies too. The project will be jointly funded by the
government and a private company on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT)
basis," said a senior official of the transport department.



Since the government has decided to regulate the fares for the new service, it is
thinking if offering some carrots will help the company recover its costs more
easily.



"No company will be able to recover the cost quickly as we will not let them
charge an astronomical transit fare. We might offer the company things like land
at a subsidised rate and infrastructural support at nominal costs to help them
out," the senior official added.



The state government had a round of talks with senior officials of the transport
planning directorate and the Calcutta Tram Company recently and the final
blueprint will soon be ready.



Senior officials confirmed that the project is in its last leg of planning. A
confirmed report is expected by 2004. "The tram is supposed to run on
electricity. It will have six coaches and will run at the speed of the Metro. It will
not have overhead hi-tension wires and might draw electricity from a third rail.
The train tracks will be laid on a higher level than the surface to make it safer,"
said B.K. Sadhu, chief engineer, Transportation, Planning and Traffic
Engineering Directorate.



soumyadipta.banerjee@timesgroup.com




=PTP================================================

http://www.hants.gov.uk/press/2003/PR585.html

Hampshire County Council
17/10/2003

HURRY UP AND MAKE DECISION URGE TRAM PROMOTERS

Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Council, promoters of the tram
scheme aimed at tackling severe congestion in the South's most heavily
populated area outside London want the Government to make a decision as
quickly as possible to end their anxious wait.

it's now three months since the two councils met transport ministers to leave the
Government in no doubt about the widespread commitment to South Hampshire
Rapid Transit, that it represented good value for money, it underpinned the
transport strategy for the whole of South Hampshire and its benefits would far
outstrip the costs.

The Government first approved the scheme aimed at taking three million car
journeys off local roads more than two years ago as part of a Local Transport
Plan the Government said was one of the best it had ever seen. The local
authorities followed the Government's preferred procurement route to the letter.
Since then the cost estimates increased due to a number of factors outside the
local authorities' control. These included greater insurance premiums, high
construction inflation, an increase in public utility diversion work and the fact that
the tunnel under Portsmouth harbour has to be deeper to accommodate the
Royal Navy's new ships.

The light rail market had also been affected by tram schemes elsewhere in the
country where money was lost due to over estimating the amount of revenue
available for fares, despite high passenger numbers.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling asked the promoters to examine how the
costs could be reduced and to submit a revised proposal and that proposal is
now with Ministers awaiting a decision.

County Council Leader Councillor Ken Thornber said: "We've made the case
that SHRT1 underpins the entire transport strategy for south Hampshire. It's
about agencies working together to deliver on the social, economic and leisure
agendas in an area which has pockets of deprivation among the highest in the
country. Without light rapid transit a key piece of that strategy is removed.

"Less than a year ago Hampshire County Council was awarded a maximum 4
stars for its environment services and the Cabinet has made transportation one
of its key priorities because people told us that's what their priority was. This
scheme is a good one, it's badly needed and will deliver value for money. We're
really keen to work with the Government to deliver this vital scheme for the
people of south Hampshire."

The Leader of Portsmouth City Council, Councillor Phil Shaddock, said: "This
scheme is important for the economy, not just for Portsmouth but for south-east
Hampshire too. It is an important first core of a public transport strategy. It's
essential the Government grants the funding we have requested to bring further
prosperity to the area."

For further information please contact: Kate Ball on 01962 845626
kate.ball@hants.gov.uk



=PTP================================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/144771_hybridbuses21.html

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Diesel-electric buses hit streets next year

Hybrids will save money in long run, transit officials say

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Less thick, black exhaust will spew from a new fleet of more than 200 diesel-
electric hybrid buses the region's two biggest mass-transit agencies plan to roll
out next year.

When the 60-foot articulated buses lurch into motion, they don't chug through
fuel. At low speeds, they run on a hybrid electric drive, which King County Metro
Transit expects will save 750,000 gallons of fuel and at least a half-million dollars
a year.

"The reason you save so much fuel is that the bulk of what a bus does is starting
and stopping," said Matthew Kester, a spokesman for General Motors Corp.,
which manufactures the hybrid electric drive at a transmission plant in
indianapolis.

As the bus speeds up, it uses a mix of electricity and diesel fuel. The diesel
engine, made by Caterpillar Inc., takes over once the bus reaches 20 or 25 mph,
Kester said yesterday.

"Because you're not dumping all the fuel through this diesel engine to get this
bus moving, you're getting a 90 percent improvement on emissions (of soot,
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide)," Kester said. "Plus you've improved fuel
economy by about 50 to 60 percent."

New Flyer, a Canadian bus manufacturer based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, makes
the buses.

King County signed orders for 213 buses Friday, and Sound Transit, which runs
regional express buses in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, bought 22 -- a
combined investment of more than $150 million.

"Obviously, it's a technology we're excited about because of the cleaner air, the
fuel savings and the maintenance savings," Sound Transit spokesman Lee
Somerstein said.

The first new hybrids are expected to hit the streets by next spring.

Today in Seattle, General Motors Corp. plans to show off the 60-foot model that
King County Metro Transit tested out before its recent purchase.

Hybrid buses cost more up front -- about $645,000 apiece, compared with
$445,000 for a standard diesel-powered bus, Metro Transit spokeswoman Linda
Thielke said.

But because they use less fuel, hybrid buses don't need their oil changed as
often and are easier to maintain, General Motors estimates that the county will
recoup its costs within about seven years.

Metro Transit bought its test model last year and put more than 40,000 miles on
it before deciding to buy the new fleet.

"It performed remarkably well," Thielke said, noting it had plenty of power
motoring up hills, ran quietly and required very little maintenance.

Sound Transit bought a 40-foot test model. "Our operations people just love it,"
Somerstein said. "They've had virtually no problems."

The hybrids will replace an aging fleet of dual-mode buses that run on overhead
electric wires while they pass through the downtown bus tunnel, then switch to
diesel outside the tunnel.

Because the new buses will have their own electricity supply, they'll no longer
rely on those overhead wires while inside the tunnel, making them easier to
maneuver.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/business/21AUTO.html?pagewanted=print&
position=

New York Times
October 21, 2003

Seattle's Transit District Buys 235 Hybrid Buses

By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, Oct. 20 — King County, Wash., which includes Seattle, plans to buy
235 diesel hybrid buses for its transit system, one of the largest orders for city
buses with hybrid technology.

The King County Metropolitan Transit Authority plans to spend about $47 million
more for the hybrids than it would have for conventional diesel buses. County
managers say they think they will save $27 million over 12 years by using less
fuel and oil and reducing maintenance costs, though savings from new
technologies can be hard to predict.

The buses will be on Seattle streets by May.

The hybrid engine systems, which supplement internal combustion with electric
power, will be made by General Motors for buses built by New Flyer.

"If we replace 13,000 buses in the nine largest cities, we would save 40 million
gallons of fuel annually," said Thomas G. Stephens, group vice president of G.M.
Powertrain, which is building the hybrid engine system. "That's the equivalent of
selling 500,000 small passenger car hybrids."

The 235 Seattle buses will generate fuel savings equivalent to replacing 8,000
conventional cars with hybrids, Mr. Stephens said.

New York City has also been a supporter of diesel hybrid buses, with 10 on the
road and plans for 125 more starting in December and an additional 200 by
2005. The New York buses are made by Orion Bus industries, a branch of
DaimlerChrysler, with hybrid technology from BAE Systems of Britain.

Toyota and Honda have dominated hybrid technology in cars, with sales
numbering in the tens of thousands each year. Toyota plans to sell hundreds of
thousands within a couple of years.

G.M. and the Ford Motor Company have said they will eventually sell hybrids.
G.M.'s most ambitious hybrid will be a version of the Saturn Vue sport utility
vehicle, but it will not be sold until 2005.

Building hybrid systems for buses will help G.M. develop the technology, Mr.
Stephens said, and a pilot project is under way with 10 cities using 36 of the
buses.

"The experience G.M. is gaining here is very viable beyond mass transit
applications," Mr. Stephens said. "Read that to be cars and trucks."

Buses running on compressed natural gas have been a much more common
environmentally friendly technology in the past. Seattle, however, considered
using natural gas buses but the range was too short, said Jim Boon, the county's
procurement manager. In addition, buses spend much of their time in a 1.3-mile
tunnel, where the fire department prohibits the use of natural gas, he said.

"The fire department won't allow you to take it underground," Mr. Boon said,
because of the risk of a leak.

Mr. Boon said diesel hybrids, with a combination of low sulfur fuel and emissions
filters, would burn as cleanly as natural gas.

The county expects to save 800,000 gallons of fuel and 39,000 quarts of engine
oil each year. Mr. Stephens said the hybrid system would reduce emissions of
smog-forming pollutants by 60 percent to 90 percent.

Mr. Boon said he thought maintenance costs would be cut by far fewer brake
repairs for the new electromagnetic brake system on the buses and fewer oil
changes.

"We typically change oil every 6,000 miles," he said. "On these, we'll change it
every 24,000 miles."



=PTP=================================================

[PTP NOTE: AirTrain refers to the regional rail connection to Newark Liberty
international Airport, not just the monorail internal peoplemover system]

http://www.news12.com/NJ/topstories/article?id=92813


News 12 New Jersey
(10/20/03)

Mixed reviews for the Air Train to and from Newark Liberty


NEWARK - For the past two years, the Port Authority's "Air Train" has connected
Newark Liberty Airport with New Jersey Transit and Amtrak rail lines. The
monorail service gives passengers the opportunity to travel in and out of Newark
Airport without having to park their cars or pick up a bus or taxi. Two years after
the Air Train made its debut, passengers are giving the service mostly positive
reviews.

Many riders say the Air Train is quick, convenient and a good way to connect to
destinations in New Jersey and New York City. Critics, however, think the service
is too expensive. At the high end, a one-way trip on the Air Train costs riders
about $12. According to the Tri-state Transportation Campaign, a non-profit
agency that tracks commuter travel, the Air Train fares are too high, especially
for a family of four. Others believe the fares are reasonably priced when
considering the gridlock traffic and parking nightmares associated with Newark
Liberty Airport.

The Port Authority estimates about 3,200 passengers use the Air Train each
day. Officials say ridership is up four percent, and they estimate the number of
daily passengers will triple during the holiday travel season.



=PTP=============================================

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1066627558270560.xml

New Orleans Times-Picayune
Monday October 20, 2003

Amtrak proposal threatens city, says activist

Passenger train lines are at risk, he says

By Susan Finch
Staff writer

Long-distance passenger train lines such as the City of New Orleans are the
"glue" that holds the nation's rail transportation system together, but they would
likely disappear if the Bush administration persuades Congress to restructure
Amtrak to let private companies run the trains, the head of a rail passenger
advocacy group said Sunday.

Moreover, the administration's plan would spell the end of New Orleans' status
as a major rail passenger terminal, said Ross Capon, executive director of the
National Association of Railroad Passengers. That's because the only service
Amtrak, officially known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp., offers out of
Union Passenger Terminal is the long-distance kind, Capon said at a meeting of
his group's board of directors at the Royal St. Charles Hotel.

The Amtrak trains that stop here are the City of New Orleans, which runs to
Chicago; the Sunset Limited, which links Orlando, Fla., and the West Coast; and
the Crescent, which operates between New York and New Orleans with stops in
Washington, D.C., and Atlanta.

All three of those lines showed an uptick in passenger numbers in the fiscal year
that ended Sept. 30, Capon said. In September alone, he said, the City of New
Orleans line saw a 23 percent increase; the Sunset, 34.1 percent; and the
Crescent, 20.6 percent.

Another danger of the Bush plan for Amtrak, Capon said, is that if passenger
train service disappears from New Orleans, pressure likely will build for the
railroads to sell the land across which the long-distance trains run.

"Just the right to use the tracks is something that would die if Amtrak dies," he
said.

Preserving such tracks would keep in place the foundation needed to develop
commuter rail service, Capon said.

The Bush administration says it is committed to continuing passenger rail service
as a vital part of the country's transportation system. But it says the best way to
do so is not to continue subsidizing Amtrak, which has been plagued by annual
financial crises, decaying assets and sometimes unreliable service.

Under the Bush plan, all Amtrak lines except the heavily used Northeast routes
would be put up for bid to companies the administration think could run the trains
with smaller taxpayer subsidies. The cost of the federal subsidies, would
gradually shift from the federal government to the states served by Amtrak's
trains.

The White House plan has drawn fire not only from groups such as Capon's but
also from several members of Congress, including Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.,
whose state is traversed by all three Amtrak long-distance trains that stop in New
Orleans.

Lott has joined with other lawmakers to propose a six-year plan that would give
Amtrak $2 billion a year, some of the largest federal subsidies for rail ever, and
set up a program to upgrade the rail system using $48 billion in government-
backed bonds.

Since Amtrak went into operation in the spring of 1971, federal subsidies for its
operations have totaled nearly $27 billion.

. . . . . . .


Susan Finch can be reached at sfinch@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3340.



=PTP============================================

http://www.monorail.com.my/news.htm

KL Monorail [News Release]
Dateline: 3/10/03

KL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP 6th ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING


KL infrastructure Group Berhad had its 6th Annual General Meeting today, its
first after public listing on the KLSE main board. Meeting was held at Sheraton
imperial Hotel Kuala Lumpur.


The Company had in its annual report, registered a net profit of RM192,000 and
earning per share of RM0.01 in its last financial year ending 30 April 2003. Profit
was wholly contributed by its media marketing company Monorail Multimedia
Sdn Bhd which holds the right to all advertising space in the KL Monorail
corridor.


KL Monorail System Sdn Bhd, the main subsidiary of KL infrastructure Group
holds the concession for the construction, operation and maintenance of the
RM1.18billion, 8.6km monorail system in the city centre. The company had on 31
August 2003, launched its revenue operation and is not expected to contribute to
the group earnings until the next financial year.


in September, the KL Monorail carried some 350,000 passengers during its
introductory service running 5 hours a day with a train interval of 10 minutes.
Since October, it extended its operation hours to run from 7am to 8pm and on 8
October, 40 days after it launched its operation, it received its 500,000th
passenger.


Currently 6 trains are in operation and eventually by the early next year, 12 trains
will operate from 6am to 12 midnight with a train frequency ranging from 3
minutes to 15 minutes.


Revenues for KL infrastructure come from 3 main streams, namely, fare
collection from the monorail operation, advertisement space rental, and leasing
of retail space in the monorail stations and in "Jalan-Jalan Xintiandi", a riverside
food and leisure development which is part of the KL Monorail project in
Brickfields.


http://www.monorail.com.my/news.htm




=PTP============================================

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-
0310140066oct14,1,6358088.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed

Chicago Tribune
October 14, 2003

AT RANDOM RADIO

Cyclists fail to see the humor in deejays' calls for assaults
 Advertisement

By J. Michael Kennedy
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times

Kevin Bray was, well, shocked, when he heard that shock jocks were urging their
listeners to run bicyclists off the road. He was horrified when he found out it had
happened at least three times since July, in each case at stations owned by
radio behemoth Clear Channel -- first in Cleveland, then Houston and finally at a
station in Raleigh, N.C. To Bray, an avid cyclist and veteran North Carolina
highway patrolman, there seemed to be an ominous pattern developing.

"All I can say is, 'Who's next?'" said Bray, who has filed a complaint against the
Raleigh station with the Federal Communications Commission. "What these
people are doing is some sort of sick marketing ploy."

That thought has also occurred to Patrick McCormick, director of
communications for the 40,000-member League of American Bicyclists, an
organization dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights. He said his group has been
deluged with complaints now that three major radio markets have been beset by
the same anti-cyclist comments. "We're still contemplating what we're going to
do as a national organization," McCormick said.

The incidents have stirred rage in the cycling world. In each incident, disc
jockeys derided cyclists and encouraged listeners to run them down. In the latest
example, at Raleigh station WDCG-FM, disc jockeys Bob Dumas and Madison
Lane began their rant against cyclists Sept. 22. In the course of the program,
listeners flooded their telephone lines to vent about cyclists, including one
woman who boasted that her father intentionally hit one while they were on the
way to church. One of the disc jockeys promoted the joys of hitting cyclists with
Yoo-hoo bottles.

Warning to shock jocks

When patrolman Bray heard about the program, he wrote an e-mail to the shock
jocks, warning them they were instructing the motoring public in how to commit
assault with a deadly weapon -- their cars. Bray also informed them that he was
reporting them to the FCC.

"I don't know much about radio broadcasting," he wrote. "But I have enough
sense to know that these acts are either illegal or contrary to the code of ethics
you should be bound by when the FCC allows you to go on the air."

The station's initial response came from station manager Kenneth Spitzer, who
referred to the show as "animated banter." But after a demonstration outside the
station and the threat by advertisers to pull out, Spitzer issued a public apology
on the air Thursday.

The first of the anti-cyclist diatribe occurred in July in Cleveland, when WMJi-FM
disc jockeys suggested cyclists be rammed off the road. One of those who got
on the phone to defend cyclists was Lois Cowan, who co-owns four bike shops in
the Cleveland area.

"I was repeatedly called a buffoon, an idiot and a PMS sufferer who couldn't take
a joke," she said. "Then there were three hours of calls from people saying,
'Yeah, you guys are right.'"

The session left Cowan in tears, but she immediately swung into action, helping
engineer a bombardment of calls and e-mails to the station. In the end, the
station called a truce and agreed to, among other things, hundreds of public-
service announcements about the need to share the road.

Timing angers cyclists

The Houston incident also took place in September, and the timing of the show
infuriated the city's cycling community. On Aug. 30, a woman driving a pickup
truck had lost control and slammed into a 20-bike pace line, killing two riders and
injuring eight others. Three days later, the disc jockeys at station KLOL-FM went
on their anti-biking rampage, setting off another round of protests.

"When you incite people to violence, you've crossed the line," said Houston
cyclist Frank Karbarz, who helped organize against the station. "They did it
almost like a tutorial. It wasn't humorous. It was how to hurt someone."

Cowan doesn't believe that Clear Channel, which owns more than 1,200 radio
stations in the United States, is encouraging the anti-cycling venom. She said it's
more probable that word spread among disc jockeys that knocking cyclists is
sure to push emotional buttons with their listeners.

A Clear Channel representative said each station was "operated and produced
independently" and "each station is working to correct the problem in their city."

But noted cycling writer Ed Pavelka said he felt the three incidents have at least
the makings of a trend. "First it was Cleveland, then Houston and Raleigh," he
said. "Either someone's not getting the message, or someone's doing it with
intent."

in 2001, 728 cyclists were killed in accidents involving motor vehicles in the
United States. And an additional 45,000 cyclists were injured.

Legally, cyclists are afforded the same rights as motorists. Lawyer Gary Brustin,
who specializes in cycling cases, noted that some motorists just don't like
sharing the road with bikes. "They just don't like them."











PTP 2003/10/20-A - CONTENTS

* Houston ed: Vote for transit solutions, reject highway myths
   Houston Chronicle  Sept. 26, 2003

* Houston: Former anti-rail mayor backs rail plan
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 18, 2003

* Houston op-ed: Metro transit plan can help cure congestion
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 18, 2003

* Houston op-ed:  Ride bus, support rail plan
   Houston Chronicle  Oct. 19, 2003

* Seattle Mariners fight move to drop monorail station
   Seattle Times  Sunday, October 19, 2003

* Sacramento rail yard to become TOD, multi-modal center
   Sacramento Business Journal September 15, 2003



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 18, 2003

 Editorial


FOR METRO'S PLAN

Approve transit solutions; reject highway myths

The steamboat, the locomotive, the automobile, the Wright brothers' first
powered airplane -- all were ridiculed in their day before they proved to be
engines of progress that increased the quality and bounds of human life. Voters
should view the Metropolitan Transit Authority's transit proposal on the Nov. 4
ballot in the same light.

The plan, dubbed Metro Solutions, proposes to expand local and express bus
routes and Park & Ride facilities. It would increase the frequency and hours of
bus operations and expand the fledgling light-rail line that will open in the Main
Street corridor on Jan. 1.

Many critics of the plan shamelessly swear they are not opposed to light rail, they
are only opposed to every light-rail route Metro has ever proposed. Do they really
think light rail should avoid downtown, the city's principal colleges and
universities, the Texas Medical Center, and the three new sports stadiums?
Should light-rail not serve the airports, the Galleria and other employment and
commercial centers?

Houston's been arguing rail transit for more than 20 years. Where are the rail
proposals from Metro's opponents, who claim superior planning ability?

As they consider the merits of Metro Solutions, voters should take care to
separate the facts from the myths and check the claims and numbers of those
who say we can build enough roads and freeways to reduce congestion.

According to Texas A&M University's Texas Transportation institute, respected
by both sides of the argument, congestion in the Houston region rose 97 percent
during the 1990s, when the region spent nothing on rail and more on roads than
any state but California. The limits of freeway expansion are plainly exhibited in
the stretch of businesses and houses in Spring Valley that must be scraped to
make way for new concrete on the Katy Freeway -- at a cost twice that of the 22
rail miles voters are asked to approve Nov. 4.

Rail critics say it relies upon 19th-century technology, but the internal combustion
engine used by cars and trucks long predates clean, electric-powered rail transit.
Critics say mass transit doesn't reduce congestion, but ignore the fact that
congestion is growing faster in cities without multimodal mass transit. They say
transit money would be better invested to help people who don't use mass
transit, but forget that federal transit aid would go to other cities' transit, not to
our roads.

While the fight seems to be over light rail, Metro Solutions is more bus and HOV
lane than rail. Metro will also spend another $800 million to subsidize municipal
and county street repairs, freeing other local tax dollars to be spent on other vital
community needs.

Viewed in any light, the facts support the value of Metro Solutions. The myths
offered by rail opponents are, put less charitably, falsehoods.

The Chronicle urges voters to vote "For" the detailed transit referendum on Nov.
4, giving Houston-area residents an alternative to long and frustrating periods
spent stalled in traffic.



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2166689



=PTP===============================================

[PTP NOTE: As mayor, Bob Lanier (a former head of the Texas Highway
Commission) engineered the scuttling of Houston Metro's effort to launch an
elevated rail transit or monorail project in the early 1990s.  instead, he strong-
armed Metro into redirecting some of its funds into subsidizing roadways.  His
endorsement of the current Metro Solutions plan, calling for expansion of light
rail, is a breakthrough.]

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 18, 2003

Viewpoints

Why I will be voting for the Metro plan

By BOB LANIER

it's important that Houston come together on transportation, come together on
transit and rail, come together on highways and on city and county roads. The
Metro Solutions Plan, which includes rail, buses, roads and no tax increase, is a
good consensus plan. I support it and will vote for it.

The consensus plan has three fundamental elements that will be addressed by
voters in the November referendum. First, the city charter requires that the
overall rail plan be voted on before the Metropolitan Transit Authority uses city
right of way. Second, the plan commits 25 percent of Metro's sales tax to general
mobility (roads) for the next 10 years. Third, the plan authorizes $640 million in
bonds to be used, along with substantial federal funding, to implement the
consensus plan.

With respect to rail, the Main Street line is near completion, and I think it has a
good chance of success. It's logical to build extensions from where we are, Main
Street line, into neighborhoods, moving residents to work downtown or in the
Medical Center and to other activities.

The biggest mobility gain we can make in a low-density city such as Houston is
to shorten the distance between residences and the workplace. There is, over
time, room for a good half-million new residents inside Loop 610. If these new
residents shorten their work trips, we will have 2 million to 3 million trips, maybe
10 to 15 passenger miles, a day that will be shortened. Metro's initial light-rail
system is designed to link close-in neighborhoods and Houston's major
employment and activity centers -- the Medical Center, downtown, Greenway
and the Galleria, as well as our major universities, the University of Houston, UH-
Downtown, Texas Southern University, Houston Community College and Rice
University.

Now do I know this will work? No, I really don't. But I think it has a good chance.
Rail will cost some more, but the public will get a somewhat nicer ride and, as a
result, some additional ridership. The big benefit of this plan will be that it really
supports this movement that is happening in Houston -- to some extent around
the nation -- of people moving closer to the workplace. Light rail makes sense
inside Loop 610, serving close-in neighborhoods, employment centers and
universities, athletic arenas, restaurants, etc. It's not a heavy carrier of people,
but it can be of great service within 610. And it won't hurt to have this upscale
transportation going to some of these inner-city neighborhoods.

After this initial light-rail system is created, the community should consider
development of long-haul rail transit on Metro's own grade-separated right of
way. This kind of rail service is really the heavy carrier of people within the rail
family. Long-haul service to the airport or to the suburbs, such as the proposed
line to Fort Bend communities, should be grade separated. Metro's rail car
technology is adaptable for this kind of service, but this development should not
be considered until the initial light-rail connector system is in place, and is
successful. We have to build from the inside out.

The community needs to realize that the bus is the workhorse of any transit
system, and it will be the workhorse of this plan. If we built all 73 miles of
proposed rail, buses will still carry roughly 75 percent of the total transit traffic.
Buses carry about 75 percent of total transit traffic in Dallas, which already has
40 miles of light rail in operation. So the bus is the workhorse of Houston's transit
operation, and we must consider all the people who ride the bus, and who may
have concerns that the bus operation will be neglected as we include light rail in
our system. In fact, the consensus plan calls for expanding the bus system --
more buses, more express and cross-town routes, and improved and expanded
Park & Ride service.

Metro has a solid record of providing excellent bus service and the consensus
plan builds on that record. Some 12 years ago, Metro started its better bus
program. Dallas added 40 miles of rail. Today, Houston buses carry more than
50 percent more passengers than does Dallas rail and bus combined. Houston's
bus operation is No. 1 in the state in terms of ridership, market share and
passenger miles carried. The rail will be additive and popular, I believe.

With regard to Metro's proposal to continue investing in roads, it is important to
note that for 25 years, 1978 to 2003, Metro has spent 25 percent of its sales tax
dollars on roads. During that time, Metro, without debt, built a billion-dollar better
bus program for which we received $500 million in federal funding. Further,
Metro helped build the 100-mile transitway system that facilitates moving buses
and carpools for long-haul trips. Metro also is paying more than $300 million for
the Main Street rail line. And during this time Metro achieved No. 1 transit status
in Texas. The rail will be additive to this base.

The continuance of the Metro road money, which is provided for in the
proposition, is therefore feasible. It is also essential. This money has been used
in our neighborhoods-to-standards program, where neighborhoods have been
completely redone -- newly surfaced city streets and major thoroughfares and
new sidewalks. These neighborhoods must be attractive places where new
residents will move. The consensus plan provides an overall package -- you can't
let the rail lines run into neighborhoods where the maintenance has been
neglected.

This has been a difficult decision for me. I've had a long history with
transportation, including transit. But I really believe that what we are about to do
is in the best interest of our community.

I believe in my heart that approving Metro's consensus plan is in the best interest
of Houston. It's not about partisan politics. It's not about winning a point of view.
Its about doing what, in your hearts, you really feel like is best for the community.
I think we are better off approving this plan.


Lanier was mayor of Houston from 1991 to 1997. In the 1980s he served as
chairman of the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2164431



=PTP================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 18, 2003

Viewpoints

Curing congestion

Accidents, disabled vehicles and road debris cause congestion, some say as
much as 50 percent

By DAVID HITCHCOCK

A friend informed me several years ago that no one goes to Ninfa's anymore
because it's too crowded. Yogi Berra couldn't have said it any better.

I remember this when I hear discussions about congestion, like those in
Houston's mayoral race and current light-rail debates. U.S. cities faced with
population loss or dismal economies aren't worried about congestion. It's
thriving, growing communities like Houston where too much traffic hits the road.

To effectively address congestion, we need to be clear about what causes it and
what doesn't.

Accidents, disabled vehicles and road debris cause congestion, some say as
much as 50 percent. Add rubbernecking to this as well. We also cause
congestion by building service roads adjacent to every freeway. The
development that occurs next to the freeways adds to congestion and other
traffic problems. There are better ways to do this.

The lack of a good arterial street system and minimal control over street access
also contribute to congestion. None of these causes will be addressed by
roadway expansion.

Another cause is roadway construction itself. Some roadway projects today
experience so much delay that the time lost by current travelers is greater than
any future time-saving, a negative return for taxpayers and travelers alike. This is
particularly troublesome, since time-saving for drivers is a principal justification
for roadway projects.

Furthermore, most of today's projects are for maintenance, not expansion.
Maintenance is absolutely essential, and transportation officials should be
encouraged to invest heavily in this area, but maintenance also causes
congestion.

Paradoxically, congestion is driven more by changes in our travel behavior than
growth. In Houston, while our population increased by 29 percent from 1982 to
1997, our driving increased by 72 percent.

We are driving more, driving farther and driving by ourselves more often. We've
switched from transit and other travel modes to driving. In the United States
these changes have accounted for a whopping 87 percent of increased vehicle
travel.

The causes of congestion are not about work trips either, which now account for
less than 20 percent of all trips. Look around you -- many of those sitting in traffic
with you are not headed to work.

The changes in the ways we travel and the ways we build our transportation
system have taken us to the physical limits of some key segments of our
roadway system, and adding capacity will only address part of the problem.

The usual thinking about the cause of congestion is too many vehicles in too little
space. Expanding roadways addresses the space issue, but not the vehicle
issue. Since we now believe that we have no other choice but driving, expanding
roadways is the only solution we are willing to consider.

Our public policies often support this belief and this single solution. However,
many transportation experts and officials have stated bluntly that we cannot build
our way out of congestion. The leading U.S. report on congestion by the Texas
Transportation institute makes this point clearly. The solution (to congestion) is
really a diverse set of options that require funding commitments, as well as a
variety of changes in the ways that transportation systems are used. Of the five
major options described in the report, only one is expansion -- but this includes
expansion of roadways and transit. The fifth part of the report's solutions to
congestion is get used to it (I'm paraphrasing).

For most things in our lives (except transportation), we expect and demand
choices. Many of us can choose to drive, walk, bike or share rides. Some of us
have transit available. But unfortunately, most of us consider every option but
driving to be inadequate or unsatisfactory to meet our travel needs.

At the same time, there are literally hundreds of ways to reduce or change travel
that also reduce congestion. Examples include: trip chaining, changes in
employee transportation benefits, congestion pricing, mileage-based insurance,
transportation-efficient mortgages, walk-to-school programs, programs to
encourage ride-sharing, smart-growth development practices, mixed-use
development, auto-free zones, peripheral parking areas, car sharing, health
incentives for nonmotorized travel, telecommuting, internet shopping, etc.

Most of these are probably unknown to the reader, and the complexity is part of
why we don't use them. We prefer single, straightforward solutions (like build
more roads), not complexities. We prefer silver bullets and sound bites.

For several reasons these have not been priorities for Houston:

· History: Our experience is in building roads, and that's where our expertise lies.
We have little experience in anything else.

· Car ownership: We have invested heavily in two or more vehicles in each
household, and are willing to spend more on our personal transportation system
than other major cities.

· infatuation: We love our vehicles, and they are an important part of our lives.

· Funding: We have large, dedicated sources of funds which are used mostly for
highways.

· Decision-making: Road-building interests have more influence on policy-makers
and community leaders. Fortunately, some road-building interests are now
beginning to see that, like air quality, we must have a different strategy if we are
to solve the congestion problem.

Solving Houston's traffic congestion will require smarter, more resilient strategies
than we've seen to date.

Congestion is not about transit versus highways, as the opponents of light rail
would have it. It is about having a full menu of transportation options. ironically,
the single-option solution of building more highways will continue to be
unsatisfactory to most people. They take too long to build or expand. The
benefits are often marginal. The process of building them is painful. And, after all
that, there is still congestion.

if we pursue a more diverse, dynamic transportation system with more choices,
people in the future may say that Houston's a great place, with so many easy
ways to get around.

Or we may hear that people just don't go to Houston anymore. It's too crowded.


Hitchcock is an urban and regional planner who has lived in Houston for almost
20 years. He currently lives in The Woodlands, close to work, and his wife works
from home. Hitchcock can be e-mailed at DavidH1310@aol.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2164429



=PTP================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 19, 2003


SOUNDING BOARD

View of light rail from the seat of a bus

By VERONICA BUCIO


Did you see what bus that was that just passed?" a blur of a man asked as he
quickly walked by.

I didn't have to think about it. "A Number 2," I said. The digital sign on the front of
the bus was broken, and I had to squint to see the handwritten number on a
sheet of paper taped to the windshield.

"Oh, I'm glad it wasn't a 15. I hope I haven't missed it."

I didn't tell him he had. There was no point in disappointing him. I'd seen a No.
15 speed by the empty bus stop before I crossed the street toward it a couple of
minutes before.

The Metro schedule in my purse said there'd be another one in a little more than
10 minutes.

He paced a bit, looked down the street for the next bus and then took a seat on
the other steel bench a few feet from mine, where I got my first good look at the
man. As he rushed to light a cigarette, his clothes continued to speak for him:
faded and dusty blue work pants, an old black

T-shirt, cement-splattered work boots and a fatigue tote bag.

it was almost twilight downtown, and he was off the job at any one of the
construction sites not far from the corner of San

Jacinto and Prairie.


The bus was almost full as I boarded it around 8:35 a.m., so I took the seat
nearest the door. "These seats must be vacated for seniors and the disabled,"
signs beside the rows on both aisles advised. I slid over one at the next stop to
allow a slightly stooped old man to sit down.

Smiling, he thanked me in Spanish and said he moved slowly because of his
age.

As soon as he was settled, he picked up a large black bobby pin from a ledge
next to him and asked if it were mine. I smiled and said no.

"In Mexico, they used to open ... " he said, stopping to find a word. "Doors?" i
offered. "Yes," he continued, amused, "they used to open doors with these."

I let a crack about the old TV show MacGyver go by; even if my Spanish had
been quick enough (and it wasn't), I wouldn't have been able to make the cultural
translation it might have needed. He'd moved on to "It seems as if it's going to be
a beautiful day today" before I'd barely finished the thought.

Smiling and mumbling in agreement, I looked over my shoulder out the window,
just in time to catch a favorite sight along the four-mile trip through the city's
northside to downtown: Luis Jimenez's wildly fantastic fiberglass sculpture,
Vaquero, in Moody Park.


The experience of riding the bus to and from work a few days last week was
mostly as I remembered it being 20 years ago. While a freshman at the
University of Houston, during the months before I bought my first car, i
commuted between the central campus, a duplex in Montrose and a job near the
Astrodome.

The memories and sensations about those days that I'd carried around in my
mind since then replayed themselves in real time: The slightly awkward wait at
bus stops, where it seems as if you're on pause while the rest of the planet -- the
world of drivers in the cars passing by -- fast-forwards. The feel of a moving bus
as it makes long arcs around corners and softly jarring bounces over potholes.
The unintended but inevitable social interaction with other passengers, strangers
with whom you inadvertently rub shoulders or thighs in tight squeezes. The small
dramas that play out all around if you're curious enough to notice them.

The experience was exactly the same but for one difference: This time, I rode a
bus because I wanted to, not because I had to.

And what a difference that makes.

it was an experiment. I wanted to explore a contradiction I seem to share with
many Houstonians about public transportation. Most of us believe strongly in the
community need for it, and most are willing to spend taxes to fund it. But
relatively few of us actually use it. Most of us believe public transportation --
buses for now, and light rail, beyond the Main line, perhaps in the future -- is
good for other people. People who don't have a choice. The rest of us drive.

As a believer, I acknowledge the weak spot that contradiction creates in
arguments for supporting public transportation and, more specifically, the Metro
Solution referendum up for vote two weeks from now. So, I left my car in the
driveway, walked to the closest bus stop, paid the dollar fare -- and put my
support to a test.

I was surprised by the outcome.

Unlike 20 years ago, when I viewed riding a bus as drudgery, I enjoyed the
experience overall: the walk, one block from home, three blocks to work; the
mingling with humanity; leaving the driving to someone else. The bus drivers
were polite, the interiors were clean and the buses arrived mostly on time.

it was eye-opening and mind-changing.

And because of it, buses will become part of my commute. I'm going to walk the
walk and ride the ride.

if Houston truly plans to become a multimodal transportation city, more of us will
have to leave cars in our driveways.

That plan has my vote.

Bucio, assistant Outlook editor, is a member of the Chronicle Editorial Board.
(veronica.bucio@chron.com)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2167811



=PTP=============================================

Seattle Times
Sunday, October 19, 2003


Mariners decry proposal to drop monorail station

SEATTLE — The Mariners issued a strongly worded letter last week opposing
the possible cancellation of a proposed monorail station near the right-field
stands of Safeco Field.

Clyde Maciver, Mariners executive vice president, emphasized that the ballpark
station was integral to last year's voter-approved monorail plan, and losing it
would hurt the monorail's ridership and revenues.

Recently, Seattle Monorail Project officials have considered whether to cut the
Safeco station and build a larger "superstation" at King Street. Monorail board
chairman Tom Weeks says that could prevent overcrowding on stadium
concourses near the trains.

Another issue is the state Department of Transportation, which owns land the
monorail needs to build the Safeco station but has been unwilling to sell.

Maciver's letter said monorail officials should be trying harder to get the DOT
site.


=PTP=========================================

[BATN]

* Sacramento downtown UP rail yard redevelopment


Sacramento Business Journal

September 15, 2003

Downtown railyard sale almost final
Buyer may add 65% to city's retail plan

By Mike McCarthy
Staff Writer


Developer-architect Jon Jerde and Union Pacific Railroad Co. have
worked out most of a deal for Jerde to buy the downtown Sacramento
railyard by year-end.


The only remaining issue is securing insurance to protect both
parties from any future problems rising from the 240-acre site's
environmental cleanup, said Mike Casey, director of special
properties for Union Pacific of Omaha, Neb.


Jerde's team is not disclosing details of its development plan yet.
But knowledgeable sources say his development company, Millennia
Associates of Los Angeles, has shaped a basic, tentative plan to
show to various downtown groups and interests. It calls for:


* A largely residential project with more than 3,000 houses and
apartments -- enough to bring more than 6,000 new residents
downtown.


* 2.5 million square feet of offices.


* About 800,000 square feet of retail and entertainment, including
attractions intended to lure shoppers, diners and audiences from
miles away.


The attractions might include a subsidized new stadium for the
Sacramento Kings, although that idea has stalled over a probable
cost that has ballooned to well above $500 million.


No one's discussing the sale price of the land, but industry
yardsticks suggest it would be at least $100 million.


The environmental cleanup of the railyard is expected to take
several more years. The Amtrak depot at the site will eventually be
part of a new train/bus/light-rail station.


Enough new retail to trigger a fight? Compared to the existing
redevelopment plan for the railyard, Jerde's plan proposes more
housing and fewer offices because that seems to be what the market
and city want.


Jerde's version also calls for more shopping. The city's current
plan sets aside 527,000 square feet for retail and entertainment.
Jerde's plan calls for about 800,000, sources said, although the
figure could not be confirmed. A regional mall typically has 1
million square feet.


Jerde has worked on projects in the cores of other U.S. cities,
including a railyard redevelopment in Salt Lake City, and the local
project resembles those ventures. He usually includes a large
section for stores, restaurants and entertainment.


The big question here is how downtown Sacramento landlords,
merchants and others would respond to the arrival of potential
competitors.


Eager to mesh: "Whatever is developed there needs linkages to the
downtown business community and needs to complement it," said
Michael Ault, executive director of the Downtown Sacramento
Partnership, a powerful coalition of landlords and
merchants. "There's still a lot that needs to be done on J, K and L
streets."


The partnership led the charge that defeated a proposal by Mills
Corp. of Arlington, Va., in 1999 to build a large retail center on
the mostly empty former railyard. The partnership's members include
Westfield America Inc. of Los Angeles, which owns the 1.2 million-
square-foot Westfield Shoppingtown Downtown Plaza and was worried
about the possible competition.


The city has been trying to boost foot traffic downtown for years,
with mixed success. Jerde said he is taking pains to assure downtown
interests, city officials and the rest of the community that the
final plan for the site would depend on their input.


"If we don't mesh with downtown, it would be a complete flop," he
said. "If we can't enhance the existing setting, it just won't
work."


Jerde said he understands that merchants and landlords would worry
about potential conflict with redevelopment projects, but added that
his plans enhance downtown business.


"We just have conceptual ideas now," said Suheil Totah, a land-use
attorney and partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP,
who's working with the Jerde group in Sacramento. "There won't be
anything definite until we talk with the community.









PTP Digest 2003/10/19-A = CONTENTS

* Houston Metro unveils new LRT cars to public
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 18, 2003

* Houston:  LRT experiences offer ammunition to fans, foes	
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 18, 2003

* Houston rail vote faces uphill struggle
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 18, 2003

* Houston Chronicle's letters policy
   Houston Chronicle Sun. Oct. 19, 2003

* Phoenix: 'Light rail can be boon to retailers'
   Arizona Republic Oct. 17, 2003

* Salt Lake agency seeks deals to expedite rail development
   Salt Lake Tribune  THURSDAY October 16, 2003

* Austin: 'Scenario D' LRT & bus plan has least cost, least sprawl
   News 8 Austin 10/15/2003

* San Jose forum debates Smart Growth, TOD, rail
   Silicon Valley Biz ink Friday, September 12, 2003

* Seattle: More on plan for Sounder regional rail to Everett
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, October 17, 2003

* Automatic RR crossing horns may cut train noise
   Toledo Blade Tuesday, October 14, 2003



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 18, 2003


[PHOTO]
John Everett / Chronicle
Workers ready Metro's new light rail cars in preparation for a public preview
today.


Public gets first look at Metro's rail cars

By TODD ACKERMAN


Houstonians got their first tour of Metro's new light rail cars today and most gave
them a big thumbs up.

Two and a half months before the first line becomes operational, two of the
sleek, 95-foot-long, 12-feet-tall cars were placed on the track outside Reliant
Stadium as part of a Metro event allowing the public to step aboard Metro
vehicles.

"I can't wait until they start running," said Anne Jasian, a Sugar Land
homemaker. "They're so clean and beautiful. I'll definitely take the kids on it.
They're excited about it right now, except that they wish they could ride it."

Greg Smith, a Houston salesman, called the day "a good start." He said once
light rail is established, "once Houston wakes up and smells the coffee," it will
become quite popular.

Light rail seemed popular with most of the steady flow that made it out to Metro's
Discover Metro Day event. A smattering of people interviewed cited a variety of
reasons for liking the cars -- from their look to their anticipated effect on pollution
-- and said they planned to vote for Metro's $640 million light rail bond issue next
month.

The mood was decidedly different at the first of a series of town meetings
scheduled by U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, an opponent of Metro's
light rail plan. No one from Metro showed up so Culberson and Harris County
Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, a member of the anti-rail Texans for
True Mobility group, spoke against Metro's plan.

"This plan would spend too much money to move too few people," said
Culberson. "It wouldn't be fiscally responsible to support it."

Although the town hall meeting occasionally turned testy, a majority of the people
in attendance seemed supportive of Culberson's and Bettencourt's arguments.

it was much more festive at the balloon-draped Discover Metro Day. Besides
touring the new rail cars, visitors saw Metro's new hybrid diesel-electric buses,
Metro Police's drag racing car and a restored, open-air 12-passenger bus used
in 1924.

Metro's transportation of the future, the light rail car, was first unveiled and
toured May 1, but that was only for invited guests, Mayor Lee Brown among
them. The two cars outside Reliant Stadium will continue to be open to the
general public Sunday until game time.

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2166078



=PTP==============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 18, 2003

From coast to coast, rail tales offer contrasts

By LUCAS WALL


SALT LAKE CITY -- With a major sporting event just around the corner, work
crews are everywhere patching torn-up streets, scrambling to complete new
buildings and laying miles of tracks for sleek new trains to ferry the anticipated
crowds.

Sound familiar? Such was the scene in Utah's capital two years ago as it hurried
to pretty itself in time for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The rush resembled the
frenzy now occurring in Houston, which is hosting the 2004 Super Bowl and
wants to show itself off.

Salt Lake City is the most recent U.S. city to open a light rail system. The first
TRAX trains began running in 1999 after an intense political debate that mirrors
the fight in Houston. But after the games were over, the city seems to have
reached a consensus that rail is an important part of its transportation network.

We are on the cusp here in Salt Lake City of a very exciting advance in terms of
public transportation, not only helping clean up the air and saving the destruction
of our open spaces but providing the mobility freedom, said Mayor Rocky
Anderson. We're providing this inspiration for people throughout the country.
They are looking at Salt Lake City, marveling at the great public support we now
have.

  Last month, the Utah Transit Authority opened the third segment of TRAX.
Ridership on the first two segments has been much higher than projected,
downtown development is picking up -- thanks in part to the Olympics boost --
and riders rave about the inexpensive, stress-free commute.

But light rail's record in 18 U.S. cities is a mixed bag, making it difficult for
Houston voters to predict what will happen if they approve Metro's Nov. 4 transit-
expansion referendum. The centerpiece is a $640 million bond issue to
accelerate construction of the next 22 miles of light rail, additions to the 7 1/2-
mile line along the Main Street corridor that is scheduled to open a month before
the Feb. 1 Super Bowl.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority and its supporters tout numerous benefits that
light rail can produce, including the potential to change the shape of future
Houston development. They envision an inner Loop that sprouts "urban villages"
-- New York-style, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods along the tracks where
residents can move around the city without a car.

Rail opponents dismiss this as fantasy, arguing that Houstonians love their
vehicles and that spreading people out keeps housing costs down. Metro's
proposed trains cost too much and will not attract enough riders to reduce
congestion or change the city, they say.

So while proponents around the country label light rail a tremendous success,
critics deride it as an utter failure. Deciding who is right might depend on where
you look.

When comparing light rail systems, seven, including Salt Lake City's, stand out
as success stories. Five boast decent ridership and benefits to the community,
but leave residents with a sense there should be more. In six cities, such as
Buffalo, N.Y., the systems can be regarded as failures.

But even the successes are born of strife, as in Los Angeles, where constant
political wrangling, major cost overruns and slow trains make many continue to
question whether rail transit is worth it.


in 1992, Salt Lake City voters rejected a plan to double the Utah Transit
Authority's one-fourth-cent sales tax to fund light rail. UTA proceeded to cobble
together local money and get Utah's congressional delegation to obtain 80
percent federal funding. The first line, 15 miles between downtown and the
suburb of Sandy, opened in 1999.

"From that moment on, the entire community has embraced public transit," said
John inglish, UTA's general manager. "We're now enjoying the most amazing
renaissance in our community that I would not have imagined 10 years ago."

Skeptics such as James Grisso, doubtful the city of 182,000 could support light
rail, were surprised at its success.

"People underestimated the value of this system," said Grisso, who voted
against the 1992 referendum but now rides TRAX daily to the University of Utah.

Euphoric at its sudden popularity, UTA went back to the voters in 2000 and
secured the extra quarter-cent.

Flush with new tax revenue, the authority scrambled to finish its second segment
between downtown and the university in time for the Olympics. Residents saw
hundreds of thousands ride the transit system during the 17-day games,
sparking more interest.

Last month, UTA opened the final piece of the Red Line to the university's
medical center. Numerous local dignitaries joined some 300 spectators for the
ribbon-cutting ceremony. Inglish noted that UTA carries more than 20 percent of
trips to the university, which "is taking out thousands of parking spaces and
converting them to buildings."

The rail has helped attract some new investment, most notably The Gateway,
which has reclaimed downtown's western industrial reaches. The outdoor
shopping mall is next to the Delta Center, where both rail lines end. A seven-
story, 330-unit apartment complex is attached to the mall, and a 12-story, 152-
condominium tower is going up.

UTA is examining several corridors for future expansion and is considering
asking voters to double its tax again, to a full cent.

Bill Millnar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, which
held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City last month, said Houston voters could
look at Metro's rail proposal as too small. But as Salt Lake City demonstrates, he
said, you have to start somewhere.

"These are networks and links," Millnar said. "You can't build the third link unless
you built the second link unless you built the first link."

Just about every rider interviewed onboard TRAX trains spoke proudly of their
light rail.

"You definitely want it," Connie Yates said to Houston voters as her Blue Line
train carried her at 55 mph toward a Park & Ride lot, from which she would drive
the last six miles to home. "The people who swore they would never ride it, that it
was just the biggest waste of time, I have had personal comments from them
saying that they have sold cars because they didn't need them anymore because
they ride this faithfully."


Light rail's story is not so cheery everywhere, though. In Buffalo, the Niagara
Frontier Transportation Authority ran out of money halfway through construction
of its Main Street light rail line in 1985 and has never been able to come up with
the cash or political support to extend the six-mile chunk it ended up with.

Buffalo is the only U.S. city to build a modern light rail line and never expand it.
But if Houston voters reject Metro's Nov. 4 referendum, the Bayou City could
share that distinction.

The city, on the shore of Lake Erie, had a 35-mile system plan when construction
began in the 1970s. The first line was to travel 12 miles from the harbor through
downtown to the State University of New York at Buffalo's main campus in
suburban Amherst. When the NFTA ran out of money and federal grants dried
up, the project was stopped at the university's smaller south campus just inside
the city limits.

"It could have been a catalyst to really change the face of downtown if they built
the spurs to the outlying communities," said Mayor Anthony Masiello. "Without
the spurs, this hasn't been successful. It hasn't generated the private-sector
investment or the critical mass it was envisioned to do.

"If we had known that that's all we would have gotten, the six-mile main trunk,
then we would have never done this."

Buffalo, current population 288,000, had an ambitious plan two decades ago. It
closed the heart of Main Street to vehicle traffic and turned it into a mile-long
pedestrian mall with trains running through the middle. But the expected
revitalization -- thousands of apartments, new office towers, department stores --
never materialized, and the grand idea is about to be abandoned.

"We lost the momentum that the initial opening had," Masiello said. "We are now
looking at ways to restore vehicle traffic to Main Street."

Some have called for ripping up the train tracks, labeling light rail a dismal
failure. But Lawrence Meckler, NFTA executive director, said that would be going
too far. He noted that the train carries 21,700 riders a day and would take a lot of
buses to replace. And five miles of the tracks are in a subway, where the train
travels at a greater speed.

"I still think the Metro Rail is a positive," Meckler said. "We see it as successful,
popular and safe. It moves people. ... For its length, it is one of the most heavily
used systems in the country."

But, he admitted, "It hasn't worked out the way the planners thought it would."

Rail proponents point out that downtown Buffalo's woes cannot be solely blamed
on the addition of train tracks. Buffalo's economy has been in a steep slide for
decades as the steel mills that fueled employment shuttered one by one. The
city has lost half its population since 1950, leading to declining property values
and a diminished tax base.

The mayor said it proved impossible to sell more rail in a city that has no traffic
problem and is under the scrutiny of a financial control board.

"If it's done right, it will work well for Houston," Masiello said. "If Houston is in a
growth mode, then you're going to have to deal with these problems sooner or
later. But will Houstonians give up their cars? I'm not sure they will."

Buffalo-area residents said the short line is an embarrassing symbol of their
city's decline, and they were split on whether NFTA should expand it.

"This is a comfortable way to move people," Bruce Weikleenget of Amherst said
while taking the train home after jury duty. "It should go farther."

Weikleenget, a former Houston resident, said he would vote for Metro's plan if he
still lived in Houston.

"I know what it's like with all the freeways down there," he said. "They need a
way to move people faster."


The battle over rail has been waged for three decades in Houston. But if there's
one place that can top the nasty transit politics, it's Los Angeles. The City of
Angels is often compared to the Bayou City, sort of like a big brother of urban
sprawl, gigantic freeways, traffic congestion, air pollution and automobile
dependency.

The key difference is that since 1990, California's largest city has opened 56
miles of light rail, a 16-mile subway and a six-county commuter rail system. The
latest light rail segment, the Gold Line to Pasadena, opened in July.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority trains carry nearly a
quarter-million riders a day, and the Metrolink commuter lines ferry 35,000
passengers to and from distant suburbs. To stand in Union Station during the
afternoon rush is to risk being knocked over by a horde of commuters scrambling
out of the subway to catch one of the double-decker Metrolink trains.

"For those of us who are coming in from the valleys, this is actually much faster
and easier for us than sitting on the freeway," said Jerri Potras, en route home to
the San Gabriel Valley. "Give it a try. It's wonderful."

it's a sight many in Los Angeles still can't believe.

"We used to hear, 'Nobody will ride rail in L.A.' That voice is silent," said Roger
Christiansen, a transit activist who serves on the MTA's Citizens Advisory
Council. "Rail has changed Los Angeles. It has made the city much more
walkable, much more accessible."

Still, the 72-mile local rail system covers only a piece of the nation's most
populous county, and its impact on traffic is arguable.

"We're not offering a cure for congestion," Christiansen said. "We're offering an
alternative, a pleasant alternative."

The path to rail in the city where traffic is the nation's worst has been anything
but pleasant, however. Start-up in the 1990s was a disaster, with every line
costing several times the initial budget and being completed years late. The MTA
halted work on the Gold Line in 1998, and the state created a special authority to
finish it.

Roger Snoble, the CEO lured recently from Dallas, appears to have turned
things around. But despite the progress, rail critics still abound. They argue,
among other things, that the high cost of rail hurts the bus system. The MTA is
under a 1996 court order to improve bus service.

"The cost of one rail line absorbs the subsidy that could serve many, many bus
lines," said Jim Moore, a professor of transportation engineering at the University
of Southern California. "You invest in rail, you reduce total transit ridership. It
happened in Miami, it happened here, and it will happen in Houston."

John Catoe, MTA's deputy CEO, acknowledged that the bus system was
neglected. But, he said, the authority has made major improvements, including
the recent launch of six long-distance rapid bus lines that are "having a good
impact on congestion and traffic movement."

Tom Rubin, a former L.A. transit executive turned consultant, said the new buses
are more efficient than the rail lines, but people are not about to give up their
cars.

"Keep spending the money on roads," he said. "That's what's carrying well over
95 percent of all person trips and 100 percent of the freight trips."

Those riding the trains mostly favor transit expansion over more roads, but they
question how well MTA has done to date.

Tony Banash, who makes a two-hour commute between Long Beach and the
San Fernando Valley on two trains and a bus, said Houston voters shouldn't
support a bad plan. The Blue Line, taking an hour to cover its 22-mile route,
resembles the system Metro is planning. The Green and Gold lines, on the other
hand, mostly have an exclusive right of way and travel much faster.

"The street running has been an endless nightmare," Banash said as his Blue
Line train crawled through dilapidated neighborhoods south of downtown L.A.
"Don't build it in the street."

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2164522



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 18, 2003


Transit plans often hard sell to voters

By LUCAS WALL


Convincing American voters to approve a transit-expansion referendum is no
easy task.

At least 28 governments held elections within the past year that involved extra
funding for mass transit. Only 12 of those measures passed -- and one of those
was later struck down by a court.

While polls in Houston show support for the Metropolitan Transit Authority's Nov.
4 transit-expansion proposition, transit officials realize they have a tough sell.
The "Metro Solutions" plan includes a $640 million bond issue to accelerate
construction of the next 22 miles of light rail, a 73-mile rail system blueprint, 44
new bus routes, expanded HOV lanes and $774 million in new roadwork.

Voters in Orange County, Fla., rejected a similar multimodal referendum Oct. 7.
The proposed 1/2-cent sales-tax increase would have raised $2.6 billion over 20
years to start a light rail system, widen highways and build bike paths and
sidewalks. Pre-Election Day polls had indicated the "Mobility 20/20" plan would
pass.

But many Orlando voters refused to swallow what they considered a poison pill --
Mobility 20/20 would have used some of the new sales-tax revenue to add four
express toll lanes to interstate 4 next to the current eight free lanes. Many voters
also expressed disapproval of light rail, which they had rejected in 1997.

Nine transit referendums took place in North Texas last month. Voters in three
Denton County cities approved a 1/2-cent sales tax to help fund light rail to
Dallas. Five cities rejected the proposal, however, and voters in Lake Worth
decided to pull out of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.

Metro has one big advantage over other entities: it is not asking voters to raise
taxes. The authority already has a full penny sales tax, the envy of most transit
agencies, which get by with a quarter- or half-cent. Metro says it can fund the
proposed $4.6 billion expansion using bonds, federal grants and existing tax
revenue.

Nearly every other transit referendum during the past year has included a tax
hike, a tough sell to voters in tough economic times.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2163857



=PTP===============================================

Houston Chronicle
Sun. Oct. 19, 2003

LETTERS POLICY: We welcome and encourage letters from readers. Letters
can be mailed to Viewpoints, C/O Houston Chronicle, P.O. Box 4260, Houston,
Texas 77210. Letters may also be sent by e-mail to viewpoints@chron.com or by
fax to 713-220-3575. Letters must include the name, address and telephone
numbers for verification purposes only. All letters are subject to editing.

NEW OUTLOOK ADDRESS: Readers interested in expressing their opinions
and views in Outlook may now send essays to our new e-mail address
outlook@chron.com. Op-ed pieces can still be submitted by fax at 713-220-3575
or by regular mail to the Houston Chronicle, P.O. Box 4260, 77210, attention
Outlook Editor.




=PTP=============================================

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1017lightrailside17.ht
ml

Arizona Republic
Oct. 17, 2003

Light rail can be boon to retailers

Jonathan J. Higuera

For businesses that survive the construction of the light-rail system, the final
outcome could be lucrative.

Studies of economic development opportunities near light-rail projects generally
show rising property values for both residences and businesses near light-rail
stations. Rail projects also tend to attract commercial and mixed-use
development projects.

"Light rail clearly signals to business and developers that the public sector is
making a major investment in that community," said Robert Dunphy, a senior
fellow at the Urban Land institute in Washington, D.C. "Developers like to see
that kind of investment. That gives them confidence going forward."

That said, commercial and mixed-use development is by no means a given.
Some areas need incentives beyond the transit system to transform. Special tax
districts, economic incentives and housing subsidies are among the strategies
some cities have used, Dunphy said.

"In some places, a transit system is all you need to turn it around. That may not
be enough in some areas."

Dunphy, who served on the Urban Land institute panel analyzing Phoenix's
redevelopment opportunities along the light-rail line, said several Valley areas
have strong potential for increased commercial development. It described
Central Avenue and Camelback as a potential "crown jewel," while several
stations along the Washington Street corridor also had strong redevelopment
potential.

Other stops may need help to spur the desired redevelopment.

in Salt Lake City, which completed its line in 1999, anecdotal evidence shows
downtown businesses near the light-rail stops have fared well, said Bill Knowles,
a consultant who has worked with Salt Lake business owners.

"You won't find anyone who will say it's been bad for business," he said. "Some
will say they don't know if it's been good and others definitively say it's been
good."

A University of North Texas study of Dallas' light-rail system found rising property
values and increased sales for businesses near stations.

The potential has some speculators looking for spots to buy along the Valley line.

"We keep hearing from people who are speculating along the line, both for
residential and commercial," Valley Metro Rail spokeswoman Daina Mann said.
"It's not surprising. You just have to look at the statistics from other cities."



=PTP============================================

Salt Lake Tribune
THURSDAY October 16, 2003

UTA looking to grease rights of way


[PHOTO]
Lona Mae Lauritzen watches I-15 traffic from her light-rail car in 2000. Expansion
of commuter rail along the Wasatch Front could require state overrides of local
planners, the UTA says. (Trent Nelson/Salt Lake Tribune file photo)


By Joe Baird

    With the pressure on to complete the first leg of a commuter rail system and
several light rail spurs in the next decade, Utah Transit Authority officials told
state lawmakers Wednesday that they need to be able to work unimpeded to
complete the projects in a timely manner.
    To that end, the UTA wants an interlocal agreement that will exempt the transit
provider from local planning and zoning regulations in railway corridors. Failing
that, the UTA will seek legislation that provides such an exemption.
    "We believe we already have an exemption; we believe we can build tracks in
the corridors. We're just trying to strengthen that," said Mike Allegra, the UTA's
director of rail operations. "What we don't want to happen is to get into building a
line and have somebody say 'Hey, wait a minute,' and try to stop it."
    UTA counsel Katherine Pett says the exemption would apply only to rail
corridors the UTA already owns or shares with Union Pacific Railroad. She told
legislators the construction impact on cities and towns along the lines would be
minimal.
    "These are areas that have been historically used by railroads. We're not
changing that," Pett told members of the Political Subdivisions interim
Committee. "In many cases, we're not even adding track. All we'd be doing is
improving infrastructure."
    As has been the case in past light rail projects, she said, the UTA would
continue to be guided by local regulations in the construction of train stations and
park-and-ride lots.

    However, Jodi Hoffman, legislative lobbyist for the Utah League of Cities and
Towns, cautioned against providing the UTA a blank right-of-way check.
    "While the rail corridors exist, they do not exist in the intensity that they will
when light rail and commuter rail begin running," she said. "is it the city's burden
to build something like sound walls? Or is it the burden of the Wasatch Front
Regional Council? There are potential unintended consequences here that UTA
might not see."
   Still, Hoffman says she is optimistic that the UTA and the cities and towns
along the route will be able to work things out without resorting to legislation. So
are state lawmakers.
    Commuter and light rail "are perceived as benefits to the communities; they're
not being imposed on anybody," said Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights. "To the
degree that there is a disparate impact, it can be addressed."
    jbaird@sltrib.com



=PTP=================================================

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=86521

News 8 Austin
10/15/2003

Envision Central Texas: Scenario D

By: Antonio Castelan and Web staff

Central Texas' population is exploding. In the next 20 to 40 years, the population
is expected to swell from 1.4 million to 2.5 million.

Envision Central Texas (ECT) has spent the past two years working with
communities across the five counties, gathering citizen input on how best the
expected growth should be distributed and managed.

They have come up with four scenarios that consider land use, transportation,
and the environment.


 Scenario focuses on redevelopment within Austin's city limits.
Scenario D is exact opposite of Scenario A; there's urban renewal instead of
urban sprawl.

Development would be concentrated within city of Austin limits, not rural areas
and outlying counties.

Only 85,000 acres of rural areas would be developed, so the small towns of
Central Texas would remain so.

Scenario D changes neighborhoods by replacing older properties with
condominiums, apartments and lofts, much like the Warehouse District.

More people would live in condos and apartments (52 percent) than single-family
houses (48 percent).

Dianna Lewis is executive director of the Neighborhood Housing Services of
Austin, a nonprofit neighborhood housing service focusing on helping first time
home buyers.


[GRAPHIC]
  Austin development
Scenario D focuses on building in Austin and rebuilding some city infrastructure.



She believes in the idea of redeveloping old neighborhoods, as long as residents
remain a part of the planning process.

"Neighbors in the area continued to be a part of that process. That their views or
desires were respected as part of that process," she said.

Scenario D invests the most in transportation and the least in roads, as the
suburbs won't be developed there won't be new roads of expansion projects of
existing ones.

Cars would be less depended on, and the average morning rush hour time would
be 18 minutes.

An extensive bus and light rail system would be in place, along with a $100
million biking and pedestrian system.

East Austin activist Chris Johnson sees some pluses to this type of growth.

"It brings jobs, economic development, but by the same token I just have to
reiterate all the neighbors in the community have to come together," he said.

Johnson is seeing his neighborhood change with the 11th Street Revitalization
Project underway.

"The property value goes up. The demand goes up, then so do their property
values. I have mixed reviews about development," he said.

The Edwards Aquifer would see 397 acres developed, a little more than the 53
acres under Scenario C, but much less than A's 36,000 and B's 19,000.

Three billion would be spent to revamp infrastructure, the cheapest price tag out
of the four scenarios.



=PTP============================================

[BATN]

Silicon Valley Biz ink
Friday, September 12, 2003

Forum rekindles smart-growth discussion

By Radhika Kaushik


Renewed talks about the role of smart growth in urban planning aim to
bring proponents and opponents together to build consensus on a topic
viewed by some Bay Area planning organizations as critical to San
Jose.


The Commonwealth Club Silicon Valley and San Jose Downtown
Association recently sponsored a forum about the proposed Tamien
project -- a stalled urban development near the Tamien Light Rail
station, just south of downtown San Jose. The San Jose City Council
has been wrestling with a proposal to build two 11-story residential
high-rises near the transit route.


"There are a lot of different stakeholders [in the Tamien project]
who do not have a shared idea of how to get there, which [prompted]
the Commonwealth Club to host this forum," says councilwoman Cindy
Chavez.


The principles of smart growth -- a return to pre-World War II,
compact communities and mixed-use projects that incorporate both
retail and housing -- are gaining acceptance in many Bay Area cities.


San Jose, for example, wants to create more opportunities for people
to live downtown in mixed-use developments. The city aims to create a
culturally vibrant downtown community and provide residents with
different housing options. In addition, the city believes denser
housing downtown would make the San Jose transit system more viable
and decrease dependence on cars.


The plans also include bicycle trails.


This hunky-dory vision of a tightly knit urban community has some
opponents bristling over what they believe is city planners'
disregard for practicalities. They don't buy into smart-growth
advocates' pretty picture of integrated neighborhoods. Instead, they
say smart growth increases traffic congestion, air pollution and
housing costs, and leaves less open space.


Randal O'Toole, an economist with the Thoreau institute in Oregon,
has been battling what he calls "smart-growth myths" for years. He
believes much smart-growth planning is skewed by development
interests and planners who decide for everyone "how they should
live."


"They hate anyone with quarter-acre plots. [Planners] will put
transportation dollars into [expensive] rail transit. Bus transit is
cheaper, but then they want to stop building highways," says O'Toole.


However, Jessica Fitchen, South Bay field representative for the
Greenbelt Alliance, a nonprofit urban-planning organization, holds up
Morgan Hill as a shining example of smart planning in action. In that
city, there is a move to add housing in the downtown core, which
would create a safer and more active downtown area, Fitchen says.


Similar trends in San Jose, Santa Clara, Palo Alto and other cities
speak volumes about smart-growth momentum, she says.


"[Opponents of smart growth] are running scared. They're seeing that
the models of the post-war [era] have turned out to be a fraud. You
can't have open lots and freeways forever," Fitchen says.


However, San Jose is moving toward smart growth with several mixed-
use projects completed downtown. Many of these projects are geared
toward affluent residents.


"In San Jose, the majority of housing is single-family lots. We're
trying to create housing for other segments of our society, more in a
cultural center and for people who are attracted to that kind of
living," says Laurel Prevetti, deputy director of planning services
for San Jose. "Downtown [San Jose] already has a lot of housing for
lower income people and we need newer housing to attract high-income
people to balance that."


Walnut Creek is one Bay Area city that has incorporated mixed-use
projects. Mayor Gwen Regalia says community dialogue is instrumental
in the successful adoption of smart-growth principles.


"There are some opposed to smart growth. But we created the Citizens
institutes, which for the past three years have been explaining to
the community [what] we are trying to accomplish," she says.


The Citizens institutes are workshops that explain the city's urban-
planning activities to interested citizens.



Radhika Kaushik is a Biz ink reporter.
You can reach her at .



=PTP==============================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/144337_millionbet17.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, October 17, 2003

Sound Transit makes $1 million bet on commuter train

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF

Sound Transit's finance committee yesterday risked $1 million to try to keep alive
its promise that a Sounder commuter rail train will be running between Seattle
and Everett by the end of the year.

Sound Transit and Burlington Northern Santa Fe agreed earlier this year on the
general outlines and price for getting commuter trains running on Burlington
Northern's tracks. But they said there would be two more months of negotiations
to nail down the fine points.

Those negotiations are running behind schedule. Sound Transit officials say
there are no particular barriers to agreement, just lots of complex issues to work
out.

But repairs necessary to get the first train running will take about two months to
finish and must be started soon if service is to start before the end of the year,
Sounder Director Martin Minkoff said.

The finance committee yesterday agreed to allow Burlington Northern to make
improvements costing no more than $1 million even though the final agreement
hasn't been signed. If negotiations fail, Sound Transit still must pay the railroad
for the work.

Minkoff said both sides are negotiating in good faith. Finance Committee Chair
Kevin Phelps said Sound Transit has a lot of money invested in getting the line
up and running. Both Sound Transit and Burlington Northern would have "a PR
problem" if negotiations fell through, he said.



=PTP===========================================

[BATN]

Toledo Blade
Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Lake Twp. to test alert horns at rail crossings

Automatic system may lessen use of whistles


By David Pathc
Blade Staff Writer


The sound of a locomotive horn wailing across the moonlit countryside
may be a part of rural Americana, but it can be a noisy nuisance for
people who live near main line tracks.


A new technology that could alert motorists at railroad crossings
while reducing the frequency of train horns is likely to get its
first Ohio test sometime in the next year or so at three crossings in
Lake Township, just west of Millbury.


But during the testing period, the automated, pole-mounted horn
system to be installed at Bradner, Ayers, and Matthews road crossings
will mean more noise -- not less. That's because passing trains will
continue to sound their horns at the same time the pole-mounted
system is operating.


The system sounds an electronic rendition of a train horn from
speakers that are mounted toward road traffic. Motorists will hear a
much louder warning than from a passing locomotive, while most homes
and businesses in the area are expected to receive much less noise
from the system.


"Elimination of train whistling is an ultimate goal of the
technology," said Kurt Anderson, a spokesman for Railroad Controls,
L.P., the Benbrook, Texas, manufacturer.


The roadside devices have indicator lamps pointed toward the tracks
so that when they are substituted for train horns, engineers will
know they are working properly. If the indicator does not illuminate,
the engineer will blow the train's horn approaching the crossing.


But Susan Kirkland, manager of safety programs for the Ohio Rail
Development Commission, said that for for now, the roadside horns
will be used as a supplemental safety device and not as a substitute
for engineers sounding the trains' horns.


"It will be a warning for the second train" that can be hidden from
motorists by a train passing through on a parallel set of tracks, Ms.
Kirkland said. That is why three crossings in Lake Township -- where
the railroad has three parallel tracks -- were chosen for the test
instead of communities with numerous crossings such as Perrysburg or
Fostoria.


Once the automated horns' reliability is proven, and federal
regulations are changed to allow "quiet zones," then they might
replace train whistles at horn-equipped crossings in Ohio, Ms.
Kirkland said.


"it's in the very early phases of testing nationwide," said Rudy
Husband, spokesman for the Norfolk Southern railroad, whose tracks
the three test-site roads cross.


Cassi Krantz, who lives next to the tracks on Bradner Road, is less
than enthusiastic about adding the roadside horns to the train horns
during the test.


"There's enough noise here as it is, anyway," she said, though she
added that after eight years' at the residence, she's fairly
accustomed to the trains.


Two other Lake Township residents who live farther from the rails
said they too are used to train whistles, and believe safety should
be paramount.


"My husband used to be an engineer, and he hit quite a few cars over
the years," said Linda Gilley of Ayers Road. "He's all for anything
they can do to make cars more aware, and so am i."


"Whatever seems to be the safest" is what should be done, said Jim
Ayers, who lives two doors down on the family farm across the tracks
from the Gilleys.


The Ayers crossing was the scene of a fatal crash Sept. 29, 2000,
when a car driven by Joseph Abraham, 17, a Lake High student, failed
to yield and was struck by a train. At the time of his death, the
crossing had only crossbuck signs. Warning lights and gates were
installed there and at Matthews Road in early 2002, and gates were
added at Bradner Road.


The rail commission has budgeted up to $200,000 for the three Lake
Township devices. Railroad Controls estimates the cost for a typical
crossing at $55,000 to $60,000.


The first use of a roadside horn began nine years ago in Gearing,
Neb., Mr. Anderson said. The devices have since been tested in
California, Kansas, iowa, Texas, and illinois.


The Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, which evaluated
the system's use at two crossings in the Chicago suburb of Mundelein,
ill., found that grade-crossing violations declined by 68 percent
when the roadside horns were used, and that overall horn noise
declined by 80 percent in the surrounding area.


The crossings' circuitry is designed for the system to activate 25
seconds before a train gets to the road, no matter what its speed.








PTP 2003/10/18-A = CONTENTS

* Amtrak reports record ridership for 2003
   Metro October 17, 2003

* Austin: LRT vital to city's development, says Dallas developer
   AMERICAN-STATESMAN Thursday, October 16, 2003

* Austin: 'Scenario C' envisions regional rail, no LRT, more rural growth
   News 8 Austin 10/14/2003

* Tucson: Despite denials, sprawl builders' group funds anti-rail effort
   Tucson Citizen Saturday, October 11, 2003

* Seattle-Everett regional rail service may roll
   Seattle Times Friday, October 17, 2003

* Seattle: Suburban mayor vows to fight rail transit
   Daily Journal of Commerce October 16, 2003

* Seattle monorail: Budget woes threaten major station
   SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, October 17, 2003

* Seattle monorail: New survey shows support for finishing project
   SEATTLE MONORAIL PROJECT Date: 10/16/2003

* LA op-ed: Costly subway would imperil Gold Line LRT
   Los Angeles Times Monday, October 13, 2003

* San Jose mayor backs BART rail extension to city
   San Jose El Observador Friday, October 10, 2003


=PTP===============================================

http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_newspick.cfm?id=9056995

Metro
October 17, 2003

Amtrak reports record ridership for 2003

More than 24 million passengers traveled on Amtrak in 2003, 2.7% more
than in 2002, the railroad said Wednesday.

Amtrak attributed the overall positive results to lower fares, increased
number of trains and upgraded service amenities.

Despite the number of adverse conditions this year, including a lagging
economy that has hurt the travel industry overall, the iraq war, the
Northeast blackout and Hurricane isabel.

Amtrak's ridership topped the previous record of the 23.5 million
passengers set in 2001 and was 2.7% better than last year's result of 23.4
million.

Long-distance trains showed substantial improvement over the last year,
with those in the Eastern region of the country improving ridership by
3.8% and those in the Western region improving by 6.6%.



=PTP================================================

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/b
usiness_fe6e332ad10b2.html;COXnetJSessionID=1Pon3Cf9wHWKgMtr2
9xnXetJyXDJwi6AFzdefjkMtKkvz8splb6V!-
1743610163?urac=n&urvf=10663958158030.8599724143424331#

AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Thursday, October 16, 2003

Light-rail system is vital to Austin's development, Dallas transit expert says


By R. Michelle Breyer
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

An audience packed with builders, developers, and other business and
civic leaders heard a tough message Wednesday: Austin is losing out by
not having light rail.

"You've got to get with this," said Kenneth Hughes, president of Kenneth
Hughes Inc., a Dallas firm that specializes in transit-related developments.
"Austin has more to offer a rail system -- and a rail system has more to
offer Austin -- than any city in the United States today," he said at a
luncheon sponsored by the Urban Land institute.

Developers of major transit-related projects in Dallas said light rail there
has been a major catalyst for development, despite the recent economic
downturn. They said their projects would not have happened without light
rail. The stations become nodes for development, attracting people who
like the idea of being able to live, work and shop without needing a car.

Hughes recently built Mockingbird Station atop a Dallas Area Rapid
Transit light-rail station, where a former warehouse complex now includes
apartments, stores, a theater and offices. In Plano, light rail drew Amicus
Partners to develop an apartment, theater and retail project that has
awakened the downtown.

But major transit projects can be a tough sell. In 2000, Austin voters
narrowly defeated a referendum on light rail. Some opponents argued that
light rail wouldn't relieve enough congestion to merit the billions of dollars
it would cost, while others feared it might bring unwanted development to
their communities.

But in Houston, a new 7.5-mile Main Line light-rail system between
downtown and Reliant Park will open Jan. 1. Next month, voters will
decide whether to add 22 miles to the system, an issue that has become
the hottest topic in the city's mayoral race.

Guy Hagstette, director of capital projects and planning for the Houston
Downtown Management District, said city leaders see the Main Street
system as a way to rejuvenate a major urban corridor. It has taken years
to accomplish, but in the end, he says he thinks it will be worth it.

"At the end of the day, the story isn't about light rail so much as creating a
great urban corridor: re-creating an urban city in the heart of Houston," he
said.

Jim Skaggs, who ran the anti-rail campaign in Austin, questioned the
feasibility of rail systems in light of what he said are a declining number of
commuters.

Hughes and other developers who spoke at the luncheon disputed that
claim, arguing that light-rail projects in other cities have attracted a legion
of commuters who never used the bus system.

"I hear that statistic periodically, but if you test it against what's happening
in the cities that have put in rail systems, you have seen an increase in
transit usage in all those cities," Hughes said.

Rather than fighting efforts to create a rail system, Austin should work for
a rail system that meets the needs of the city and its residents, Hughes
said. He urged city leaders to begin with a small starter system rather than
do nothing.

"The message here is to get yourself together and decide what you want
your (transit) system to do," Hughes said. "But start it, because you won't
be sorry."




=PTP================================================

http://www.news8austin.com/content/special_coverage/news_8_town_hall
/?ArID=86435&SecID=381

Envision Central Texas: Scenario C

 News 8 Austin
10/14/2003

By: Antonio Castelan and Web staff

Central Texas' population is exploding. In the next 20 to 40 years, the
population is expected to swell from 1.4 million to 2.5 million.

Envision Central Texas (ECT) has spent the past two years working with
communities across the five counties, gathering citizen input on how best
the expected growth should be distributed and managed.

They have come up with four scenarios that consider land use,
transportation, and the environment.


Scenario C calls for growth to spread to more rural areas.


Bastrop, Hays and Caldwell County would have major population booms,
and new communities would develop near major roads.

Towns such as Elgin, Hutto, Lockhart and Taylor would become more
suburban, with populations reaching 100,000.

The plan calls for more mixed-use developments, with fewer families in
single-family houses and more in apartments and condominiums.

That also means that more undeveloped land would be protected and
remain and the new developments would be established near main roads.


Scenario C doesn't include a light rail system, but it would have an
extensive commuter rail line that runs from Georgetown to San Marcos
and throughout the Austin area.

it also calls for $100 million for walking and biking facilities and $4.9 billion
for new sewer and water lines (less than Scenario A's $10.6 billion, but
more than Scenario D's $3 billion).

With mixed-use developments, transportation time would be cut because
people wouldn't have to travel as far.

Only 23 percent of land would be urbanized, a number worth welcoming
for environmentalists.



[GRAPHIC]
    Scenario C
Elgin and other small towns would change under Scenario C.


Fifty-three acres (0.1 square miles) of the Edwards Aquifer would be
developed, the least of the four scenarios.

Homebuilders find that hard to imagine.

"There would only be 57 houses built on the aquifer, so that's 20 to 50
houses, and again that not realistic. We will do that in six months this
year," Austin Homebuilders Association executive vice-president Harry
Savio said.

Scenario C is more of a middle ground.

Scenario A continues growth without implementing change. Scenario B
includes a light rail but only modifies ideas of land use. Scenario D
focuses on redeveloping urban and suburban areas, not developing new
areas.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=101103a1_
transplan

Tucson Citizen
Saturday, October 11, 2003


SAHBA puts bucks against transit plan

New campaign finance reports show that the builders association is the
largest contributor to a group opposing the Nov. 4 ballot proposal.


GARRY DUFFY


Although the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association said it isn't
taking a position on a transportation initiative on the city's November
ballot, new campaign finance reports show it is the largest contributor to
an opposition group.

The plan calls for upgrades to bus and other transit services, the
maintenance of neighborhood streets and the installation of a 13-mile
light-rail line through midtown. It would be funded by a three-tenths-of-a-
cent sales tax increase and an increase in the city's construction sales tax
to 6 percent from 2 percent. The increases would remain in place for 20
years.

On Oct. 6, Carole Pawlak, president of the builders group, said in the
Tucson Citizen that the association wasn't taking a position but had
concerns about the funding mechanism.

By an Aug. 31 campaign finance reporting deadline, the association had
contributed $14,500 to the Committee for Real Regional Transportation,
which opposes the transportation plan and its funding mechanism.

As of Thursday's midway deadline for campaign finance disclosure, the
builders group had given $22,500 to the transportation committee,
campaign finance records showed.

Officials from the builders group did not return phone calls yesterday.

Opponents of the plan have raised $40,000, with the largest contributors
being the builders.

Supporters of the transportation plan by Citizens for a Sensible
Transportation Solution said they expect to be outspent several times over
by critics of their plan.

The election will be Nov. 4.

Spokesman Stephen Farley said Citizens for a Sensible Transportation
Solution began collecting money in February 2002 from mostly individuals.

it had raised $38,500 as of Thursday.

Committee for Real Regional Transportation Chairman John Carlson Sr.
said yesterday the group would continue to seek money to help fight the
transportation plan and tax increases.

"We would like to be able to raise more," Carlson said.

Of the six contributors listed by plan opponents in Thursday's filings, one
was an individual contributor, William A. Estes Jr., a home builder. He
gave $5,000.

The other five were the builders association, Chestnut Construction Corp.,
Arizona Builders Alliance, The Kemmerly Co. and T.L. Roof and
Associates Construction Co.

Both committees involved in the ballot issue are political action
committees, so campaign contribution limits don't apply.

Citizens for a Sensible Transportation Solution listed about 120
contributors. All but a few were individuals.

Topping its list was the Sierra Club's Rincon Group at $1,500.

Anthony Haswell, who listed himself as retired, gave the most to the group
as an individual, $2,200.




=PTP=============================================

Seattle Times
Friday, October 17, 2003

Offer may get Everett Sounder service rolling

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter


in an effort to keep its promise of commuter-rail service to Everett, Sound
Transit has offered to front $1 million for track improvements in
Snohomish County — even though there's no long-term contract yet for
Sounder trains to use the regional freight corridor there.

The deal would allow the first demonstration train to make one daily round
trip between Everett and Seattle by Dec. 31, a pledge Sound Transit
made last spring.

"There is no more fundamental issue to Snohomish County residents'
support of Sound Transit than getting Sounder going from Everett to
Seattle on a daily basis," board member Mark Olson said after the Sound
Transit finance committee approved the offer yesterday. Olson is an
Everett city councilman.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway owns the tracks.

"We would like to work with Sound Transit to move a train by the end of
the year if definitive long-term agreements are completed," railway
spokesman Gus Melonas said late yesterday. "However, we will not
discuss further details of negotiations."

in May, more than six years after voters approved a regional transit plan
that included commuter rail to Everett, the transit agency announced an
agreement in principle with the railway.

At a cost to taxpayers of $250 million for additional tracks, signals and
other improvements, the railway would let Sounder make four daily round
trips for 99 years.

But talks since spring have yet to produce a final agreement. The sides
are still discussing issues such as train timetables, construction deadlines
and who would pay if environmental-protection costs soar, officials said.

A 120-day bargaining deadline was extended to Dec. 1, which would be
too late for inaugural train service this year.

To get the trains moving sooner, Sound Transit wants Burlington Northern
Santa Fe to perform limited track work ahead of time — such as
constructing short rail segments that line up with the Everett and
Edmonds station platforms, said Sounder director Marty Minkoff.

if Sound Transit ultimately walks away from the broader $250 million deal,
it would have to reimburse the railway up to $1 million.

Finance chairman Kevin Phelps and others said that was a chance worth
taking. The agency has already invested millions in design and stations.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com



=PTP=============================================

Daily Journal of Commerce
October 16, 2003


Some see BNSF corridor as best chance for Eastside light rail line


But Renton's mayor says he'll put up a fight


By MARC STILES
Journal Staff Reporter



The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's interest in selling a rail
corridor that traverses the Eastside is stoking passions from Renton
to Redmond, but not everyone is on the same track.


At one end of the argument are proponents of commuter and light rail
who relish the thought of having an existing corridor. At the other
is Jesse Tanner, the feisty mayor of Renton who curses the concept
that could result in frequent trains running through the heart of his
city.


A BNSF spokesperson confirms the railroad is interested in selling
the roughly 40 miles of single track that starts at the Black River
just north of Auburn and runs through Renton, Kirkland and
Woodinville before terminating in Snohomish.


The railroad "is always studying the status of various lines of low
profitability systemwide," said BNSF spokesman Gus Melonas. "One area
under current review is the Woodinville line."


According to Melonas, the line accommodates an average of two freight
trains a day, as well as the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train.


BNSF has asked the Washington State Department of Transportation
about buying the line, but state officials are unsure how they'll
respond.


"We're just trying to formulate how we would even go into discussions
with them or if we should," said DOT spokeswoman Linda Mullen. The
Legislature would have to act since the state has no money earmarked
for the purchase.


"it's way too early for us to know if this is a yes or no
proposition, if DOT should be involved or if it's a role for somebody
else," Mullen said.


The folks at Transportation Choices think someone should jump in.


"The sale of this right of way is an incredible opportunity for the
region to provide an alternative means in the congested interstate
405 corridor," said Kevin Shively, policy director of the group that
is advocating what it calls low-cost commuter rail in the corridor.


The group thinks the line eventually could be upgraded for light rail
or monorail. "The key is buy the right of way now to keep costs low,"
Shively said.


Transportation Choices is advocating what it calls Eastside Rail
Express -- frequent, all-day transit service using self-powered,
diesel rail passenger cars, with service to Tukwila, Renton, Port
Quendall, Bellevue, South Kirkland, downtown Kirkland, Totem Lake and
Woodinville. According to the group, the estimated capital cost,
which excludes purchase of the right of way, is $250 million to $300
million.


Redmond Mayor Rosemarie ives says she is definitely interested.
Tanner, her counterpart in Renton, is not.


"I think it's a lousy idea," Tanner said. "We let people know we
don't want that damned railroad line used as a rapid transit line."


The mayor said the line would cut downtown Renton in two and affect
other city neighborhoods.


in May 2001, the city passed a resolution outlining Renton's
concerns, and remains opposed. "It may have hardened a bit in the
interim," Tanner said.


He added that if WSDOT starts negotiating with the railroad "to
procure this damned right of way," Renton will withdraw its support
for the recently approved $4.7 billion plan to increase capacity on I-
405.


Tanner said the corridor could be used as a pedestrian and bicycle
corridor but nothing else. "If they go beyond that, they lose us and
they lose us in a hurry. We are not only opposed to it, we will fight
it."


Earlier this month, the I-405 Executive Committee, made up of elected
representatives from the Eastside, endorsed a $4.7 billion plan to
improve the freeway, one of the state's most congested roads. The
plan calls for new lanes and park-and-ride lots.


Sound Transit, the regional agency that operates commuter rail,
regional express bus service and a light rail line in Tacoma, has
looked at the Eastside rail proposal in the past. The corridor is not
part of the agency's current 10-year program, Sound Move, but could
be incorporated in a future ballot measure for voters to decide, said
Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick.




=PTP=============================================

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/144280_monorail17.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, October 17, 2003

Mariners make strong pitch for Safeco rail stop


By KERY MURAKAMi
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

in terms as subtle as a chin-high fastball, the Mariners made it clear to
monorail officials they want a station at Safeco Field.

The Seattle Monorail Authority is considering postponing the construction
of a station next to the ballpark, but yesterday, the Mariners wrote in a
letter, "We are strongly opposed to deletion of the Safeco Field station."

The team said monorail backers had advertised a station serving the
stadium during last year's initiative campaign for the $1.75 billion Ballard-
to-West Seattle line.

"The deletion of a Safeco Field station is inconsistent with the voter-
approved plan," the letter said.

The letter from Clyde Maciver, Mariner executive vice president and
general counsel, also questioned whether as many people going to
Mariner games would take the monorail if they had to get on and off at the
next closest station at King Street.

"If the station is not perceived as close and convenient, fewer people will
ride the Monorail. Based on the Monorail's own ridership estimates for
baseball fans, any reduction in ridership casts serious doubts on the
project's financial viability."

Tax revenue for the monorail is coming in 30 percent below expectations.

in the letter, Maciver continued: "The Monorail project is already under
financial stress due to the loss of revenue from car licensing fees. The
additional loss of fare box revenue due to the loss of ballpark ridership will
only exacerbate the Monorail's financial problems."

The Mariners made the letter public yesterday, even as the monorail
authority released the results of a poll, claiming to show "tremendous"
citywide support for the project that barely squeaked by in last year's
elections.

Critics questioned whether the poll was a $20,000 attempt by the agency
to bolster its public image in light of vocal critics. And the dispute over
Safeco Field illustrates how tenuous that support might be.

Monorail Executive Director Joel Horn said the agency is not
contemplating delaying a stadium station to save money. Rather, it is
studying whether the line needs separate stations at King Street and at
Safeco Field, because of the crowds that might pack the platforms after
games. Having fans walk the nearly half-mile to King Street would mean
crowds would not get to the platform at the same time, because people
walk at different speeds, monorail officials have said.

Horn, however, insisted, "We're still going to serve Safeco Field. The only
question is where."

Monorail strategic planning director Anne Levinson said whether the
monorail would lose riders by postponing a stadium station "is exactly
what we're studying." The agency's staff will make preliminary
recommendations next month, before the authority's board makes a final
decision in February or March.

The Mariners, however, still contend the voters were promised both the
King Street and Safeco Field stations.

"The availability of these two stations has been used throughout the
monorail project promotion to garner public support for the Green Line. ...
We can never know if voters would have approved the Monorail Plan
without a station at Safeco Field, as the prospect of deleting it surfaced 11
months after the vote," the letter said.

Mariner spokeswoman Rebecca Hale stopped short of saying that the
Mariners would call for the project to be sent back to the voters should the
stadium station be deleted. "We don't want this to be seen as us not
supporting the monorail. We're just trying to do what's best for the
monorail and the entire community."

Horn, meanwhile, said the dispute only proved the results of a poll,
purporting strong citywide support for the project.

"Everybody wants a monorail station, and they want one now," he said.
"It's NIMBYism in reverse."

The poll last week of 600 Seattle residents found, among other things,
that 83 percent support for other governments helping the monorail
authority build the planned 14-mile West Seattle-to-Ballard line on budget.
The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage
points.

The poll comes as the project faces questions about its finances and
concerns about its impact on neighborhoods. At the same time, the
monorail authority is asking state licensing officials to crack down on
Seattle vehicle owners who are evading the monorail tax by registering
their cars outside of the city. The project is also facing increasing scrutiny
from City Council members, who will decide early next year whether to
allow the monorail to build on city property.

Critics accused the agency of spending $20,000 on a poll to bolster its
own image and put pressure on the state and the city.

"it's outrageous that the agency, at a time the agency is facing financial
difficulties, is spending our tax dollars on a poll that does nothing but elicit
the responses they are seeking," said Geof Logan, one of the authority's
most vocal critics.

Among other things, the poll asked, "Do you think plans for the new
Monorail are moving too slowly, too quickly, or are things on pace with
your expectations?" Forty-seven percent of those sampled said the
agency was moving too slowly, only 4 percent said it was moving too
quickly and 38 percent said the speed was just right.

A number of groups, including downtown business owners, urged the
agency this week to slow down and do more studies. Horn said the
agencies posed the question because the authority is thinking about
actually speeding up the project to save money.

But he said the poll also showed that if anything, most people want the
project to move faster.

"This is what I call a little children and puppies survey," Logan said. "Who
doesn't like children and little puppies?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P-I reporter Kery Murakami can be reached at 206-448-8131 or
kerymurakami@seattlepi.com



=PTP============================================

http://www.elevated.org/project/updates/update.asp?UpdateID=78

SEATTLE MONORAIL PROJECT
Date: 10/16/2003

1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 105
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 382-1220
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Anne Levinson , (206) 382-1220

Monorail Survey Results

NEWS ADVISORY

New survey shows Broad city-wide support for Monorail

Residents want city and state leaders to get behind project and make it
happen, speed up pace of project



Seattle – A new survey conducted by Evergreen Research Group for the
Seattle Monorail Project shows tremendous, widespread support for the
Monorail among all city neighborhoods, with residents urging city and
state leaders to ensure the project is built quickly and within budget.

Even residents who voted against the Monorail want to see elected
officials and city leaders get behind the Monorail and help get it built soon,
according to the findings.

Key findings of the survey include:

83 percent of respondents want government agencies and elected
officials to help ensure that the Monorail is built quickly and within budget.

Even of those respondents who voted "no" on the Monorail petition last
fall, 66 percent now say that other government agencies and elected
officials should help ensure the Monorail is built quickly and within budget.

The election was a year ago, many respondents have received their car
tax bills and there has been a great deal of media coverage about
revenue issues. Yet 70 percent of those surveyed – half of whom did not
vote for the Monorail last year – say it is important that the Monorail gets
built now that voters have approved it.

Despite the rapid pace of the Project, nearly half (47%) still feel the
Project is moving too slowly, 38 percent say it is on pace with their
expectations and only 4 percent say it is moving too quickly.


"The continued very strong support for the Monorail across the city is
pretty remarkable. The message is loud and clear. They want us – they
expect us - and our government partners to deliver on what they have
asked for, and to get it done soon" said Anne Levinson, Deputy Director of
the Monorail Project.

Levinson added, "We all knew a majority of voters had asked their
government to support the Monorail three times, but for most projects,
once tax bills arrive in the mail, support drops a bit. Monorail tax bills have
arrived, but the support remains as strong as ever. Even two-thirds of
those surveyed who voted against the Monorail last year are telling us it is
also important to them that the Monorail gets built, quickly and on budget."


Respondents Say What's important to Them

80% percent or more of respondents said it was important to them that
the Monorail will
provide a transit solution in Seattle

provide 2,000 family wage jobs during construction

improve the environment

be completed within the budget approved by the voters

connect with buses and light rail

be designed so that operating costs will break even

be above grade and not get stuck in traffic

minimize construction impacts

run every 4-5 minutes in rush hour

open by 2007

start construction within 18 months



Stopping Tax Evasion

More than three-quarters of those surveyed said it was important to them
that the State take steps to prevent car owners from evading the tax.
While only 11 percent of respondents say they know of people evading
the tax, 78 percent say they support requiring residents to register their
cars at their home address, 70% support assessing financial penalties
and nearly two-thirds support tightening up State laws.


Performance and Accountability

Despite current levels of public dissatisfaction with government and
wariness about the economy, only 20 percent felt the Monorail Project is
doing a poor or very poor job. 71 percent rated the agency as doing good,
fair or excellent.


About the Survey

The survey was conducted by telephone Oct. 3 – 9 among 600 Seattle
residents 16 years of age and older. The results have a margin of error of
plus/minus four percent.

The Seattle Monorail Project has made public involvement a hallmark of
its approach to decision-making, from opening a street level design studio
for the public to give input on station design as it is happening, to creating
a hotline and an email comment site (info@elevated.org), to holding
scores of meeting on topics such as diversity, the environment, the route,
jobs and design.

As part of its public outreach, The Seattle Monorail Project (SMP)
commissioned this city-wide survey to assess public priorities about the
Seattle Monorail Project, identify the public's information needs about the
Project and obtain input for upcoming decisions.

"We want all of those who are paying taxes and who will be riding the
Green Line to have a way to give us direct input," said Levinson. "We
know that lots of folks cannot make it to evening meetings or are not
comfortable using our website, so we are always looking for ways to get
their views."




=PTP===========================================

[BATN]

Los Angeles Times
Monday, October 13, 2003

Opinion

Sales-tax increase measure threatens regional rail system

By Michael D. Antonovich

Our county's new Gold Line rail system is successfully playing a
vital role in the realization of our county's regional transit plan.
However, a ballot measure by Gov. Gray Davis to raise the sales tax
by a half-cent for the budget-busting subway threatens this plan.


The Gold Line can be expanded by utilizing existing freeway medians
and abandoned railroad rights-of-way for a comprehensive at-grade
and aboveground rail system. This would link Los Angeles County
commuters throughout the region to the Ventura County and San
Bernardino County lines.


Combined with a multi-modal transportation system of buses, commuter
rail and highway/street improvements, the Gold Line will improve
productivity, reduce air pollution, and increase mobility for our
citizens.


Unlike the $5-billion, 17-mile, gold-plated subway, which took
decades to build, the first phase of the nearly 14-mile Gold Line
was built in a few years for approximately $725 million.


At a cost of $1.2 billion, Phase II will connect the Gold Line to
San Bernardino County and run an additional 24 miles from Pasadena
to Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas,
La Verne, Pomona and Claremont, and could be completed in five
years, if funding was available.


As planning continues on Phase II, we also need to aggressively work
to extend the Gold Line west, with Phases III and IV, through the
San Fernando Valley by connecting the Marengo station in Pasadena
along the 210 and 134 freeways through Glendale to the Media Center
in Burbank with a spur connecting to the Red Line station in North
Hollywood. A Phase IV could be extended along the 101 freeway
corridor to Ventura County. The construction for this project could
be done with less disruption to neighboring residents and taxpayer
pocketbooks.


The vision for a regional rail system serving the entire county --
not just the city of Los Angeles -- is beginning to come into focus,
with the Santa Clarita Valley and Antelope Valley in our sights.


However, the proposed half-cent tax increase ballot measure is a
deceptively attractive package wrapped with smaller transit
projects, to con county taxpayers into paying for a nearly $1-
billion, 3-mile subway extension in the Fairfax district. Vital
resources would be siphoned away from cost-effective projects that
give county commuters and taxpayers more bang for the buck.


Proposed by tunnel-vision vested interests, this measure violates
the law approved by Los Angeles County taxpayers, who overwhelmingly
voted to prohibit further subway construction. This Sacramento
ballot proposal needs to be defeated if Los Angeles County is to
implement cost-effective transit strategies. Our efforts need to be
focused on decreasing congestion, improving air quality, increasing
mobility and enhancing the quality of life for our citizens with
cost-effective transit.



Michael D. Antonovich represents the 5th District, which includes
Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta and Montrose, on the
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. He can be reached at (213)
974-555 or at .



=PTP==========================================

[BATN]

* SJ mayor Gonzales: keep SJ BART extension moving


San Jose El Observador
Friday, October 10, 2003

Keeping BART to San Jose moving

Statement by Mayor Gonzales


SAN JOSE -­ Given the state of the current economy and the prolonged
recession in Silicon Valley, it is understandable that questions are
raised about the outlook for major transit projects like the
extension of BART to San Jose.


However, more than 70 percent of Santa Clara County voters gave us a
very clear mandate with the passage of Measure A in 2000: Bring BART
here. Our focus, therefore, remains the same: we must continue to
work hard to get the extension under construction and completed as
soon as possible so that we can provide better transit for commuters,
residents and businesses in San Jose and Silicon Valley.


BART is a large project in the 30-year Measure A program. Which
actually doesn't even start until 2006, when revenues from the sales
tax extension stat to flow. We all want things to go smoothly, but we
also know the economy will go up and down over that long period.
Every new snapshot of the local economy will give you a different
scenario and financial projections.


That's why we cannot reduce our efforts or loose sight of the need to
keep this project moving. We need to take the long view and stay
focus on working with the state and the federal government to secure
additional funding. We need to keep doing all we can to strengthen
our local economy, which also will increase our local resources for
transit.


We're making every effort to begin construction as soon as possible.
We're moving ahead with the environmental and engineering work to
allow this to happen. Although we know there will always be ups and
downs in the future we intend to keep pushing to get BART project
under construction.


And we are making progress to obtain the state and federal funding we
need to complete the extension. Securing that funding is a multi-year
effort, of course, and it will require sustained effort by VTA, our
congressional delegation, and our community and business leadership
to reach our goal. I'm encouraged by what we have already
accomplished, and I'm confident we'll reach our destination sooner
rather than later.


Today's VTA projections respond only to one hypothetical scenario
based on the state of the current Silicon Valley economy and very
conservative revenue forecasts and borrowing assumptions. However,
even a small positive change in our economy will have a significant
impact on sales tax revenues and financial-projections, which are why
we must stay focused on keeping the BART project moving.


The biggest variable in the next couple of years is our local
economy, which has slumped deeper and longer than anyone ever could
have expected. Economic recovery will provide the most help in
funding our projects, not only for VTA but also for transit agencies
all over the state. That's another reason I have been pushing so hard
in San Jose to make it easier for businesses and employers to grow
and succeed in our city.


We have already come a long way; the road in the years ahead will
continue to be unpredictable. We have to keep our eyes on our
destination as we have many more rivers to cross and mountains to
climb before this project and others in Measure A are completed. With
the continued support of the community and our elected leadership, i
know we will get there








PTP Digest 2003/10/17-A = CONTENTS

* Houston: Metro rebuffs attacks, deception of rail foes
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 16, 2003

* Seattle: Monorail revenue still falling short
   Seattle Times Thursday, October 16, 2003

* Seattle: Drop in freeway, HOV traffic due to economic slump
   Seattle Times Thursday, October 16, 2003

* Newark: 'Plane to train' is a winner
   Newark Star-Ledger Thursday, October 16, 2003



=PTP============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 16, 2003


Battle over Metro rail full of sound and fury

Opposition, allegations, debate court attention

By LUCAS WALL


The back and forth over Metro's transit plan continued at high speed
Tuesday with three news conferences, a televised debate and allegations
of lawbreaking and lying.

A group of 40 black ministers announced their opposition to the
Metropolitan Transit Authority expansion plan, saying Metro officials did
not meet with them to discuss concerns that bus service will be slashed.
That drew a perplexed response from Metro's president, who said she
assured dozens of the ministers in a July meeting that the plan includes a
50 percent expansion in bus runs with 44 new routes.

U.S. Rep. Chris Bell, D-Houston, accused Rep. John Culberson, R-
Houston, and other rail opponents of lying to voters about Metro's plan,
calling their actions "offensive and insulting."

The verbal combat also included a campaign watchdog group's
announcement that it will file a state ethics complaint against the largest
coalition opposing the transit plan. And a major business group
announced its support for the plan, which includes expansion of Metro's
light rail system, the first line of which is set to open Jan. 1.

"Metro wants to spend $8 billion on rail," said the Rev. J.J. Roberson,
president of the Baptist Ministers Association, who hosted a news
conference at his Mt. Hebron Baptist Church on Calhoun. "They will run
out of money and then cut bus service, which will leave many in our
community without transportation. We do not trust Metro."

The actual construction cost of the 40 light rail miles Metro proposes to
build by 2019 is $2.8 billion, the agency projects.

Roberson complained that the proposed light rail spur to the heavily black
Sunnyside neighborhood won't be built until 2018 and that nobody at
Metro would meet with his group as the transit plan was being drafted.

Metro officials denied the snub, showing the Houston Chronicle a program
from a July 7 meeting where Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter and
Shirley DeLibero, president and CEO, met with Roberson and others to
seek their opinions on the "Metro Solutions" plan. DeLibero said there
also have been several community meetings in Sunnyside.

The six bus routes serving Sunnyside will continue, she said, and Metro
will add two routes through that neighborhood.

"To say the bus riders are going to lose at the expense of rail is not true,"
DeLibero said.

Bob Stein, a Rice University political scientist, said it's smart strategy for
rail opponents to diversify their coalition. But, he said, he still expects an
overwhelming majority of blacks to vote for transit expansion.

in other activity Tuesday, Bell held a morning news conference at Metro's
railyard on West Bellfort to counter Republican attacks on the proposal.

"Rail will relieve traffic congestion, raise the standard of living for all
Houstonians and make urban living a true possibility," he said.

Metro's plan to expand light rail has turned into a bitter partisan fight, with
most Republican officials against it and most Democratic officials favoring
it.

At lunchtime, a downtown business organization, Central Houston,
endorsed Metro's plan during its annual meeting at the Toyota Center.

Central Houston Chairman Richard Everett said Metro Solutions is an
essential element in extending the downtown renaissance into other
neighborhoods.

Tuesday afternoon, Common Cause Texas announced that it is filing a
complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission, contending that the
nonprofit Texans for True Mobility has violated campaign laws by not
disclosing who has given it money for political ads assailing Metro's plan.

The intense day on the campaign trail ended with a discussion among
several key players Tuesday night on KUHT/Channel 8.

Chronicle reporters Kristen Mack and Mike Snyder contributed to this
story.



=PTP================================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001767272_dige16m.ht
ml

Seattle Times
Thursday, October 16, 2003

Car-tab taxes for monorail still run below estimates

SEATTLE — Car-tab taxes to pay for Seattle's monorail netted $2.15
million in September, marking the fourth straight month that collections
have run about one-third below original estimates.

if the trend continues, monorail officials have speculated they might need
to cut $224 million to $299 million from their $1.75 billion plan for a "Green
Line" connecting Ballard, downtown and West Seattle. The shortfall was
the result of flawed agency projections, evasion by some vehicle owners
and possible glitches in implementing the new tax.



=PTP=========================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001767392_hovside16
m.html

Seattle Times
Thursday, October 16, 2003

Possible explanations for less HOV traffic


As the recession has deepened, officials say traffic on many Seattle-area
freeways has dropped. New research suggests that trend may be even
more pronounced in the HOV lanes.

Seven of the 14 major HOV corridors experienced declines in volume
between 2000 and 2002, says Mark Hallenbeck of the Washington State
Transportation Center at the University of Washington. In most cases,
volumes appear to have dropped more than in the general-purpose lanes.

He offers two possible explanations:

• Car pools collapse when commuters lose or change jobs. "Car pools
may be more sensitive to the economy," Hallenbeck says. In the late
1990s, he notes, "HOV usage was increasing faster than general-purpose
usage."

• As congestion in the general-purpose lanes has eased — even if only
slightly — some erstwhile car poolers or bus riders have reverted to
driving alone.

— Eric Pryne, The Seattle Times



=PTP===============================================

Newark Star-Ledger
Thursday, October 16, 2003

'Plane to train' service in Newark earns praise

Alternative to costly cabs and traffic jams marks 2nd year


BY RON MARSICO
Star-Ledger Staff

Chris Bolan sat with his bags at the far end of Newark Liberty international
Airport's rail platform, looking relaxed as he soaked up the sun one warm
afternoon last week after a business trip to Grand Rapids, Mich.

Normally, Bolan, who lives in Bridgeport, Conn., would be shelling out
cash for a cab to Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan to catch the Metro-
North Railroad or sitting in traffic on interstate 95 if his wife picked him up.
Now, for the first time, he took an Amtrak train home from the airport.

"It makes the commuting -- be it by train or plane -- so much more
efficient," Bolan said. "it's convenient now."

Newark airport's $417 million AirTrain service -- with connections to both
Amtrak and NJ Transit lines -- marks its second anniversary this month,
still the only "train to the plane" service among the region's three major
airports. AirTrain is expected at John F. Kennedy international Airport
later this year, at a cost of $1.9 billion.

Bolan is one of 3,200 average daily users of AirTrain Newark's railroad
connection, which generally wins plaudits for service even as ridership
lags at only two-thirds of original predictions in the aftermath of the Sept.
11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the economic downturn.

Officials with the Tri-State Transportation Campaign say the price of using
AirTrain Newark is too high, especially for families.

For example, a one-way ticket anytime between Manhattan and the
Newark airport station costs $11.55, even though a round-trip, off-peak NJ
Transit ticket between Newark Penn Station and Manhattan costs $5. A
one-way ticket anytime between New Brunswick and the airport station
costs $10.80, whereas a round-trip, off-peak NJ Transit ticket between
New Brunswick and Newark Penn Station costs just $13.

"If they dropped the cost a little bit, maybe they can get their ridership up,"
said Kate Slevin, a Tri-State spokeswoman. "I think the service is good."

The airport station -- a still gleaming but utilitarian mix of concrete, metal
and glass -- connects Amtrak and NJ Transit riders to the monorail that
stops at parking areas and terminals A, B and C. So far, rail passengers
make up a little more than 10 percent of the 30,000 average daily riders
on the monorail, which opened in 1996.

"I think it has brought this airport a major step forward in providing access
to our customers," said Susan Baer, the airport's general manager, of the
rail connections. "It reduces vehicle traffic to and from the airport. ... It
really complements all the work we have done on the roadways."

Baer defended the relatively high ticket costs as necessary to offset the
investment and operating costs by the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey.

in 2002, the Port Authority spent $19.7 million to run AirTrain Newark, with
approximately half that covering the contract with Bombardier
Transportation of Canada, the system's operator. The agency pays $3.9
million, which comes from its share of the rail ticket revenues. The $15.8
million difference is paid from fees on airlines and rental car companies.

Tickets for AirTrain Newark are slightly below typical bus fares, said Baer,
noting use of the rails also eliminates parking costs for those who would
otherwise drive and leave their cars in long-term lots.

"And it's considerably less than a cab," said Baer, who said a fledgling
discount program for frequent users may be expanded. "And you have the
advantage of reliability."

There is no fee to ride the monorail between terminals and parking lots.

European travelers in particular have taken to the airport's rail link, Port
Authority officials have found.

Per Lundahl, visiting from Sweden, said he opted to use AirTrain Newark
to get to Manhattan last week when he couldn't find a hotel shuttle.

"Most (foreign) airports have got trains -- Amsterdam, Paris, Stockholm
and London, of course," said Lundahl.

While most comments about service are favorable, there are some minor
gripes about poor directional signs and high-decibel announcements on
the monorail cars.

Then there are aesthetics.

The sleek, space-age looking trains, offer quite a view.

The monorail from the station to the airport curves past the huge
Budweiser brewery, over Routes 1&9 and its spaghetti-like access roads
and ramps, before approaching the airport with the new 325-foot air traffic
control tower dominating the scene.

Tourists kill time before flights on the monorail and some of the area's
homeless spend time aboard as well, according to authorities.

Eventually, Port Authority officials want to see baggage service resumed
at the airport station when airline revenues improve. In the longer term,
the agency hopes to connect PATH service to the station, which was built
to accommodate it.

Even with the present service levels, Richard Halpern, a Massachusetts
resident, was impressed with his first use of the system.

"It was very smooth," said Halpern. "I felt like the Jetsons or something."



Ron Marsico covers Newark Liberty international Airport. He may be
reached at rmarsico@starledger.com or (973) 392-7860







PTP Digest 2003/10/16-A = CONTENTS

* Memphis streetcar project costing $19 million under budget
   Memphis Commercial Appeal  October 15, 2003

* Columbus light rail plan moves forward
   Business First - Columbus  Wednesday [2003/10/15]

* Toronto: Rail link to airport to be LRT or diesel?
   Toronto Star Oct. 16, 2003

* Houston: Metro refutes rail foes' claim that rains will flood light rail
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 15, 2003, 1:48PM

* Houston: 'Bulletin 4' zaps more anti-transit myths with facts
   Houston Transportation Bulletin 4 October 15, 2003

* LA: Surface vs. tunnel debated for Expo LRT line through USC
   Daily Trojan Vol. 150, No. 35 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)

* Phoenix: Valley Metro refutes LRT foes on air pollution claims
   Arizona Republic Oct. 16, 2003

* Austin: 'Scenario B' envisions LRT & fast buses, moderate sprawl
   News 8 Austin 10/13/2003



=PTP=================================================

[PTP NOTE: According to Light Rail Central (lightrail.com), the Memphis
Medical Center streetcar project is 2.5 miles long.]

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_234
7514,00.html

Memphis Commercial Appeal
October 15, 2003

Madison trolley line costing $19 million less than expected

By Lance Murphey

[PHOTO]
Willis Chisom (left) and Michael Watkins work on the tracks near Madison
and Lauderdale.

By Tom Bailey Jr.
baileytom@gomemphis.com

Construction of the Madison Rail Line is $19 million under budget, the
head of Memphis Area Transit Authority said Tuesday.

"Good contracts," William Hudson said in explaining the projected surplus.

The agency budgeted $74 million.

Now the cost is expected to be about $55 million, which includes the
purchase of five trolleys and other equipment.

"Good bridge contracts. Good rail contracts. Equipment contracts," said
Hudson, president and general manager of MATA. Memphis Light Gas
and Water Division came in under budget as well, he said.

The two-mile line linking downtown to the Medical Center and Midtown is
90 percent complete. It extends from Main to just beyond Cleveland.

All rail is in place. The authority will mark the final weld with a ceremony at
10 a.m. today on Madison at Dudley.

Still to be completed are the train stations and overhead power lines.

Once the project is finished, the authority will begin testing the system.
The rail line is scheduled to open in March.

"We had a good experience" with the contractors, Hudson said. ". . . A lot
of good contract negotiations and good people to do business with."

Hill Brothers Construction of Falkner, Miss., is building the line.

The federal government is paying for 80 percent of the project. Any
unused money would have to be returned to the Federal Transit
Administration, or MATA could request to spend it on other rail projects,
said Alison Burton, MATA's marketing director.

MATA would not be allowed to use any extra money for its bus service,
she said.

MATA plans to build another 9 to 10 miles of rail line from some point
along the Madison Rail Line to Memphis international Airport.

The decision on where to route that $400 million line should be made
early next year, Hudson said.



=PTP===============================================

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2003/10/13/daily19.html

Business First - Columbus
Wednesday [2003/10/15]

COTA moves forward with light rail study

The Central Ohio Transit Authority has signed memoranda of
understanding with two freight rail companies to help in a light rail study.

COTA will reimburse CSX Transportation Inc. and Norfolk Southern Corp.
$155,200 for their cooperation in the study. The study will determine how
to initiate COTA's North Corridor project, a proposed 13.2-mile light rail
line from the Polaris area to downtown Columbus. COTA may have to
alter freight service patterns and move a west side freight yard to
complete the project.

COTA hopes to have the study done by next summer, along with an
environmental impact statement.

The light rail line is part of COTA's Fast Trax plan. More information on
the plan is available at www.cotafasttrax.com. Early engineering has been
funded through state and federal grants. Voters turned down a proposed
quarter-cent sales tax increase in 1999 that included funding for the line.


=PTP===========================================

Toronto Star
Oct. 16, 2003


Rail-link decision awaited

Ottawa expected to rule in two months

Line would connect Union with airport

KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

Transport Minister David Collenette is expected to decide in the next two
months on which group will win the contract to bring a high-speed
connection between Union Station and Pearson airport.

A private consortium that is one of three groups bidding to build the rail
link between the downtown and airport also wants to build a light-rail
transit network connecting Toronto to the 905 regions.

The rail link, which would speed passengers between Pearson and
downtown in 20 minutes, is expected to carry 77,000 passengers a day.

"The evaluation is in progress and we anticipate an announcement could
be made this fall," said department press secretary Amy Butcher.

The light-rail consortium has been looking to get a foot in the door for at
least two years. Aecon, a construction company, ALSTOM, which builds
trains, and Borealis, which finances such things, together have been
promoting a $2.5 billion project dubbed SmartRide LRT.

it would use mostly hydro right-of-ways and existing rail corridors for a
light-rail system that would augment local and GO transit. So far, no level
of government has bought into the plan.

Aecon and ALSTOM recently teamed up again, dusted off the LRT
proposal and refined it to fit the Union-Pearson rail-link project. This time,
it's called the GTA LRT Consortium. The proponents suggest that light rail
is a better fit for the link in terms of easy connections with GO and the
Toronto Transit Commission.

"The technology you choose has an impact on what you can actually do
with the corridor," said Stefan Parche, vice-president of development for
Aecon infrastructure.

Picking a single-purpose technology for the link — one that can't easily be
expanded beyond the original line — means that "you basically destroy
the corridor and prevent it from being used as part of a larger network,"
Parche said. "So that needs to be looked at from a GTA system-wide
implication."

The federal government invited four consortia to present proposals for the
link.

Two other contenders for the job are Macquarie North America Ltd. and
Union Pearson Group Inc. Both groups advocate diesel technology for the
engines — lighter trains than those used by GO Transit but heavier than
what GTA LRT Consortium is proposing.

A fourth group, Pearl Consortium, which included Bombardier
Transportation, dropped out because the scope of the project changed,
said spokesperson Helene Gagnon.

The sticking point was a new requirement that the winning consortium
take over the "ridership risk," so that if ridership fell below expectations or
the line failed to make a profit, the company would shoulder the loss with
no hope of federal cash.

in industry and political circles, there are doubts that the airport link will
ever get off the ground, especially with political changes in the offing.
Prime-minister-in-waiting Paul Martin is not believed to be a big backer of
it, while Ontario premier-elect Dalton McGuinty may discover more
pressing needs.

"In my view, it's certainly not the top transportation priority of the region,"
said Michael Roschlau, president of the Canadian Urban Transit
Association.

"To me it would be a shame if public money were used to give that project
priority over other projects that are far more important, like the (TTC's)
state of good repair, the ability to increase the capacity of our transit
systems in the GTA."


The rail link will be built with private money, although funding for upgrades
in track capacity and bridge improvements needed for the new service will
come out of the $435 million in federal funding for urban transportation in
the GTA announced in March.



=PTP==================================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 15, 2003, 1:48PM


Group rails at Metro's planning

Opponents say rains will leave cars useless

By HEATHER SAUCIER


Opponents of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's light rail, which is
gearing up for its Jan. 1, 2004 start date, have found another reason to
criticize the system other than claims it will not ease congestion.

Pointing to Houston's history of flooding, opponents claim the light rail is
the wrong choice for transportation because rail cars cannot operate in
more than 3 inches of water. They are particularly concerned about the
Texas Medical Center, which filled with water during Tropical Storm
Allison.

"it's an important point that someone ought to bring out," said David
Hutzelman, director of the Business Committee Against Rail, commonly
known as BusCAR. "Flooding has just been glossed over in the obsession
to become a world-class city. If most people knew the light rail could run in
no more than 3 inches of water, they would [ask], 'What is someone doing
building a system like that in Houston, Texas?'"

Hutzelman has debated several Metro officials on television, and speaks
at various civic clubs encouraging voters to defeat the upcoming bond
issue on Nov. 4.

Having battled intense criticism of its 7.5 miles of light rail, which will run
from Reliant Park through downtown, Metro has long been prepared to
respond to flooding concerns. The trains will be the most reliable travel
mode during a flood at the Texas Medical Center, said a Frequently
Asked Questions brochure published last year for the public. Metro rails
alignment is designed to be above the 100-year flood plain, where
practical. However, in the Texas Medical Center, the streets are within the
100-year flood plain, and elevation is not practical.

"Publicizing that the tracks are at or above the 100-year flood plain, is
misleading," said Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights
Association, who actively opposes the light-rail system. "That
classification is an unreliable construct that is exceeded every several
years with frequent heavy rains," he said.

Tom Bazan, a member of the Houston Property Rights Association who
has filed a civil rights complaint against the transit authority, said Metro
ignored Houston's vulnerability for flooding when it built its system at
grade.

"Metro refused to elevate its tracks because that is more expensive,
requiring the public to approve bonds," he said.

"Consequently, when streets gather more than 3 inches of water, the rail
system will shut down," Bazan said. "That's certainly going to be
embarrassing for Metro because they're going to have to use all our buses
to rescue the passengers," he said. "Why spend $2.5 million for a rail car
for it not to be able to travel through the typical flooding streets in
Houston?"

"Rail cars might not be able to travel through more than a few inches of
water, but the tracks were built on the crests of streets, which are higher
than areas near curbs," said Chip Lambert, spokesman for Metro. "If
streets are inundated with flood water, Metro will employ a bus bridge and
send buses to rescue stranded passengers and drive them to another rail
car or their destinations. Buses can operate in 6 to 8 inches of water,
Lambert said."

"In addition, the transit authority and City of Houston have taken several
precautions to minimize the risk of flooding along the light rail line," he
said.

"They have sealed and moved above ground the electric control panel
that powers the water pump near the Holcomb Boulevard overpass at
Fannin Street. They have expanded the drain line from Holcombe to
Brays Bayou from 42 to 46 inches. And they have extended the Fannin
Street bridge that crosses the channel by 60 feet to accommodate the
widening of the bayou, a project of the Harris County Flood Control District
that aims to reduce the risk of flooding in the area," Lambert said.

"Once Brays Bayou is widened, the light-rail area near the Medical Center
will be removed from the 100-year flood plain," Lambert said.

"While the Flood Control District agrees that channel widening will reduce
the areas risk of flooding, actual construction on the bayou will not begin
until 2006, said Alisa Max," spokeswoman for the district. Channel
widening near the Medical Center will not begin until 2010. "it's going to
be a while," she said. "The majority of relief will be coming when channel
modifications occur in 2010."

in the meantime, the city is rebuilding storm sewers on Fannin, Kirby
Drive, Hermann Drive and MacGregor Drive, said Gary Norman, public
information officer for the city's Public Works and Engineering
Department. "The projects will increase the carrying capacity of
underground sewers and decrease the amount of storm water flowing to
the Medical Center," he said.

Regardless of the efforts taking place, light-rail opponents insist Metro is
turning its back on flooding and cheating taxpayers and passengers.

"We need to spend more money on roads," Hutzelman said, adding that
less than 2 percent of daily trips in Harris County are made on Metro.

"The rail will not ease traffic, as it carries so few commuters. In fact, by
taking up lanes on the streets, it will cause more congestion along its
path," he said.

Bazan said he could support the rail if it were funded by private dollars
and raised above the streets.

"If they would have made it elevated, it would not tie up traffic and there
would be no flooding issues," he said. They could have built skywalks that
lead to elevated stations and have a space city appearance."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/thisweek/zone09/news/215877
6



=PTP==========================================

Houston Transportation Bulletin 4
October 15, 2003
_____________________________

The Metro Solutions plan to greatly improve transit in the Houston region
will come to a vote on November 4. To help increase understanding of the
proposal and of transit's place in the greater transportation picture, the
Gulf Coast institute will publish a series of educational bulletins.

...

Transit myths

"Transit is heavily subsidized, cars are not." Fact: All transportation is
subsidized. US transit expenditures total about $30 billion annually, of
which two-thirds are subsidies, compared with $120 billion spent on roads
of which $50 billion are subsidies (from general taxes), plus $30 billion in
general taxes spent on traffic services, $270 billion in parking subsidies,
and $600 billion spent on private motor vehicles(1).


Transit Facts

Across the nation, public transit rail revenue vehicle miles operated
increased by nearly 20 percent between 1991 and 2000. Non-rail revenue
vehicle miles (mostly bus) grew about 18 percent during the same
period(2).


Metro Solutions

METRO held 178 public and stakeholder meetings during its development
of the METRO Solutions plan between December 2001 and July 2003.
The alternative "plan" backed by METRO Solutions opponents, the "100
Percent Solution Plan," is still in draft form and has not yet had specific
public involvement for the additional 5,000 lane-miles on top of the
already planned 5,600 lane-miles(3).

Economic Benefits

The reduced pollution emissions (from nitrogen oxides and volatile
organic compounds) that result from public transportation use save
between $130 million and $200 million a year in regulatory costs(4).


Health

During the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, expanded public transportation
services reduced morning peak auto use by 22.5 percent and reduced
mobile source emissions. There was a 44.1 percent reduction in asthma-
related medical visits among HMO enrollees(5).


Metro Facts

Metro's Main Street light rail line that will open January 1, 2004 will feature
16 light rail stations, each uniquely designed by local artists for the
neighborhood it represents(6).


Existing Rail Systems

in 2000, Dallas's voters approved $2.9 billion in long-term bonds to
accelerate future light rail line construction. Dallas currently has over 44
miles of light rail with plans to expand to 93 miles(7).

Equity

Transportation policies that encourage personal automobile travel have an
inequitable effect on the finances of minority and low-income individuals
with those in the lowest fifth of income earners spending 36 percent of
their household budget on transportation compared with those in the
highest fifth income spending 14 percent(5).


Sources

1. Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth (draft), Todd Litman, Victoria
Transport Policy institute,  September 16, 2003.
http://www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf
2. Fitch Ratings, "Running for the Train: the Path Ahead for US Transit,"
June 2003.
3. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County.
4. The Benefits of Public Transportation, American Public Transportation
Association, September 2002.
5. Center for Transportation Excellence website, http://www.cfte.org/
6. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County
http://www.mocah.org/newsite/metro/metro.htm
7. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, DART inmotion newsletter, summer 2003.
8. Metro Solutions Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris
County.

Houston Transportation Bulletin is a publication of the Gulf Coast institute.
To support the institute, go to http://www.gulfcoastideas.org. To join the
institute's 1000 Friends of Houston, go to
http://www.1000friendsofhouston.org.
Email: issues@gulfcoastideas.org
_____________________________
David Crossley
Gulf Coast institute
3015 Richmond Suite 250
Houston TX 77098

Ph 713-523-5757
Fx 713-523-3057
http://www.livablehouston.org




=PTP==============================================

http://www.dailytrojan.com/article.do?issue=/V150/N35&id=01-
expo.35c.html&p=1

Daily Trojan
Vol. 150, No. 35 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)
Pages 1 - 13.

Exploring the Expo Line

Local leaders weigh in on a proposal to build a light-rail line next to
campus.

[PHOTO]
Katherine Beck | Daily Trojan
Light rail. A Metro Blue Line train arrives at the Pico Boulevard station in
downtown Los Angeles. The proposed Expo Line would also serve this
station, as well as USC's University Park Campus.

By JASON CARTER
Staff Writer

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is planning to build a light-rail
line connecting USC's University Park Campus with downtown Los
Angeles and Culver City, but community leaders disagree about its design
and cost-effectiveness.

The Expo Line, an electric-powered train designed to travel down the
middle of Exposition Boulevard on its way from Downtown's Seventh
Street Metro Station to Culver City, could be completed by 2012, said
Steve Brye, MTA project manager.

The MTA's ultimate goal is to extend the line to Santa Monica, Brye
added.

in order to keep an open space between campus and the communities
south of Exposition Boulevard, "the university's position all along has been
that (the line) should be underground between USC and Exposition Park,"
said Curt Williams, vice president of USC's Capital Construction
Development.

The MTA board directed its staff not to study the possibility of tunneling
the line because construction costs for an underground rail line are much
higher than laying street-level track, Brye said.

The university is concerned that the Expo Line will act as a barrier
between campus and the community south of Exposition Boulevard,
Williams said.

Jon Gibby, general manager of Exposition Park, disagreed.

The Expo Line would not be a greater obstruction than the Exposition
Boulevard median and the street's 60 mile-per-hour traffic, Gibby said.

The Expo Line would benefit Exposition Park by attracting visitors who
could not come otherwise, Gibby added.

Funding is the biggest obstacle facing the Expo Line project, Brye said.

The MTA has enough funding for preliminary engineering for the Expo
Line project, but will need additional funding to begin construction, Brye
said. Preliminary engineering will be finished some time next year.

Funding for the construction has become possible because outgoing Gov.
Gray Davis signed SB 314, also known as the Murray Bill.

The Murray Bill authorizes the MTA to put an additional half-cent sales tax
on Los Angeles County's November ballot to raise the $925 million the
Expo Line is estimated to cost, said Darrell Clarke, centerline outreach
manager for the Orange County Transportation Authority.

"If you build the whole thing economically, you could do it with the Murray
Bill," Clarke said.

The Bus Riders Union, a nonprofit community organization, said funds
should be spent on expanding bus service throughout the city instead of
constructing the new rail line.

The MTA is ignoring the issue of overcrowded, inner-city buses by
spending money on the Expo Line, said Manuel Criollo, lead organizer for
the BRU.

it is more cost-effective to invest in buses than in light-rail transit because
the bus system can service a greater volume of passengers at a lower
maintenance cost, Criollo added. Both the MTA and the BRU want to
attract more riders to public transportation, he said.

"Having a modern line like this close to the campus would be a benefit to
students, faculty and staff," Williams said.

The line will make the Westside and Downtown areas more accessible to
students, he added.

The Expo Line would provide an alternative to taking the USC Trams or
the DASH for students and faculty commuting to Seventh Street Metro
Station, said Stephan Lau, a senior majoring in accounting.

Riding the Expo Line may save students time and money on gas, said
Marco Shih, a freshman majoring in pre-business.

Rail tracks were laid from Exposition Boulevard to Santa Monica in 1875.

The line was then known as the Santa Monica Air Line, and was served
by Pacific Electric's Red Car trolleys until the line was abandoned in 1953.

After that, the tracks changed hands several times until the MTA bought
them in 1990.

Owning the land for the rail line makes the project more feasible because
no houses or businesses need to be torn down to make room for the
tracks, Brye said.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1016antitransit.htm
l

Arizona Republic
Oct. 16, 2003

Light-rail foes cite air woes

Valley planners say claims untrue

Bob Golfen

Opponents of the Valley's planned light-rail system claimed Wednesday
that the transit line would worsen air pollution and traffic congestion and
pointed at rail planners' own documents as evidence.

in a press conference on the lawn of the Arizona Senate building,
community activist Becky Fenger and economist John Semmens told of
their "silver bullet" discoveries gained through researching Valley Metro
Rail documents.

Fenger, speaking from behind a small table decorated with rubber rats
and roaches, said Valley Metro officials in their Final Environmental
impact Statement had reported to the Federal Transit Administration that
air quality would worsen after the light-rail system was built.

"To spend billions of dollars to worsen air pollution and traffic congestion,
that's insane," Fenger said.

Phoenix Public Transit Director Ed Zuercher said opponents were
misrepresenting the information in the environmental statement.

"I don't know where she gets her information, but it's not true," Zuercher
said, characterizing Fenger as "a professional anti-transit activist."

Voters go to the polls May 18 to decide on a 20-year half-cent sales tax
that would fund light rail and other transit, freeway and street
improvements Valley-wide.

Fenger and Semmens pointed out portions of the Valley Metro's
environmental statistics that showed projected air pollution increasing at
eight out of 12 locations along the light-rail route.

Semmens noted a section in the impact statement that showed traffic
congestion increasing along the rail line.

Zuercher, speaking on the lawn after the press conference, said light rail
is projected to prevent 10 tons of various tailpipe pollutants daily. The
estimate is supported by a model devised by the Maricopa Association of
Governments, a Valley planning organization, he said.

The opponents are "twisting the statistics" to suit their message, said
Valley Metro spokeswoman Daina Mann, noting that the federal
Environmental Protection Agency has praised Valley Metro's statistics and
conclusions in support of light rail's effect on air quality and traffic
congestion.

She said the air-pollution gains cited by the opponents are miniscule and
reflect gains caused by automobile traffic at the park-and-ride lots along
the light-rail route.

"This is common sense," Mann said. "At these particular sites, more
people are there parking their cars."

As for traffic congestion, the most recent projections show annual travel-
time savings of 6.3 million hours, the amount of time people will save in
travel time because of light rail, Mann said.



=PTP=============================================

http://www.news8austin.com/content/special_coverage/news_8_town_hall
/?SecID=381&ArID=86353

News 8 Austin
10/13/2003

Envision Central Texas: Scenario B

By: Antonio Castelan and Web staff

Central Texas' population is exploding. In the next 20 to 40 years, the
population is expected to swell from 1.4 million to 2.5 million.

Envision Central Texas (ECT) has spent the past two years working with
communities across the five counties, gathering citizen input on how best
the expected growth should be distributed and managed.

They have come up with four scenarios that consider land use,
transportation, and the environment.

Scenario B's main area of change is transportation. Like the other three
plans, it proposes a commuter rail train from Georgetown to San Marcos.

The average morning rush hour trip time would be 19 minutes, which is
along the same lines as the others. The highest (Scenario A) is 22
minutes and the lowest (Scenario D) is 18 minutes.

Ninety percent of Central Texas drivers would still use their cars to get to
work.

Scenario B also calls for an extensive express bus system and a light rail
from Williamson County to South Austin.

Planners at Capital Metro are already thinking down the road.



[GRAPHIC]
  Scenario B
Th plan would feature an express bus system and a light rail from
Williamson County to South Austin.



"We are looking at multiple methods of transportation. We are looking
down the road at the possibilities of using existing bus service, using light
rail, using commuter rail, and other forms so that there will be a lot of
solutions to help ease Central Texas congestion," Rick L'Amie of Capital
Metro said.

Scenario B also projects more people would work in Downtown Austin and
use the commuter rail.

it concentrates growth along I-35 and Texas Tollway 130, now under
construction.

There would be a 26 percent increase in urbanized land, and $5.5 billion
allocated to build a new infrastructure.

With 19,000 acres (30.2 square miles) to be developed over the Edwards
Aquifer, environmentalists said that number is unaccpetable.

"If Central Texas is going to preserve the Edwards Aquifer we are going to
need to protect the land on top of the aquifer," Colin Clark of the Save Our
Springs (S.O.S.) Alliance said.

Scenario B's development of the Edwards Aquifer is the second highest of
the four. If growth continues as it does now, in Scenario A, then 56.7
square miles would be developed.

Scenarios C and D, however, each call for less than one square mile to be
developed.

The housing trend would remain like it is now. Sixty-three percent of
people would live in single family houses and the remaining 37 percent
would live in condominiums and apartments, the same as in Scenario A.

Builders see the trends continuing.

"The first choice for almost every consumer is to be able to have a
traditional single family house with a traditional yard, and hopefully a
reasonable commute to work," said Harry Savio, executive vice president
of the Austin Homebuilders Association.






PTP Digest 2003/10/15-A = CONTENTS

* Houston: Rail foes attacked for deception, non-disclosure
   Houston Chronicle Oct. 14, 2003

* Houston: More facts vs. muths, FAQs on Metro Solutions plan
   Houston Transportation Bulletin 3 October 13, 2003

* Detroit: Suburb calls for LRT
   Detroit Free Press October 14, 2003

* Amtrak op-ed: Amtrak gains justify federal help
   Austin American-Statesman Tuesday, October 14, 2003

* Amtrak: Major ridership gains in No. California
   Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Monday, October 13, 2003

* Tampa: Bombardier shows off JetTrain locomotive
   Newstream October 2003

* Kuala Lumpur monorail continues ridership increase
   Star Publications (Malaysia) Tuesday October 14, 2003

* Milwaukee: Regional rail link planned, guided bus studied
   Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Oct. 15, 2003

* Orange County Ca: LRT property acquisition readied
   Los Angeles Times October 15, 2003

* Salt Lake suburbs: 'BRT' plan to go to voters
   Salt Lake Tribune TUESDAY October 14, 2003

* Phoenix: LRT planners mull saving historic trees
   Arizona Republic Oct. 14, 2003

* NJ: Regional rail's 'morbid lure' for suicides, aggressive drivers
   New York Times October 15, 2003



=PTP=============================================

Houston Chronicle
Oct. 14, 2003

Battle over Metro rail full of sound and fury

Opposition, allegations, debate court attention

By LUCAS WALL


The back and forth over Metro's transit plan continued at high speed
Tuesday with three news conferences, a televised debate and allegations
of lawbreaking and lying.

A group of 40 black ministers announced their opposition to the
Metropolitan Transit Authority expansion plan, saying Metro officials did
not meet with them to discuss concerns that bus service will be slashed.
That drew a perplexed response from Metro's president, who said she
assured dozens of the ministers in a July meeting that the plan includes a
50 percent expansion in bus runs with 44 new routes.

U.S. Rep. Chris Bell, D-Houston, accused Rep. John Culberson, R-
Houston, and other rail opponents of lying to voters about Metro's plan,
calling their actions "offensive and insulting."

The verbal combat also included a campaign watchdog group's
announcement that it will file a state ethics complaint against the largest
coalition opposing the transit plan. And a major business group
announced its support for the plan, which includes expansion of Metro's
light rail system, the first line of which is set to open Jan. 1.

"Metro wants to spend $8 billion on rail," said the Rev. J.J. Roberson,
president of the Baptist Ministers Association, who hosted a news
conference at his Mt. Hebron Baptist Church on Calhoun. "They will run
out of money and then cut bus service, which will leave many in our
community without transportation. We do not trust Metro."

The actual construction cost of the 40 light rail miles Metro proposes to
build by 2019 is $2.8 billion, the agency projects.

Roberson complained that the proposed light rail spur to the heavily black
Sunnyside neighborhood won't be built until 2018 and that nobody at
Metro would meet with his group as the transit plan was being drafted.

Metro officials denied the snub, showing the Houston Chronicle a program
from a July 7 meeting where Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter and
Shirley DeLibero, president and CEO, met with Roberson and others to
seek their opinions on the "Metro Solutions" plan. DeLibero said there
also have been several community meetings in Sunnyside.

The six bus routes serving Sunnyside will continue, she said, and Metro
will add two routes through that neighborhood.

"To say the bus riders are going to lose at the expense of rail is not true,"
DeLibero said.

Bob Stein, a Rice University political scientist, said it's smart strategy for
rail opponents to diversify their coalition. But, he said, he still expects an
overwhelming majority of blacks to vote for transit expansion.

in other activity Tuesday, Bell held a morning news conference at Metro's
railyard on West Bellfort to counter Republican attacks on the proposal.

"Rail will relieve traffic congestion, raise the standard of living for all
Houstonians and make urban living a true possibility," he said.

Metro's plan to expand light rail has turned into a bitter partisan fight, with
most Republican officials against it and most Democratic officials favoring
it.

At lunchtime, a downtown business organization, Central Houston,
endorsed Metro's plan during its annual meeting at the Toyota Center.

Central Houston Chairman Richard Everett said Metro Solutions is an
essential element in extending the downtown renaissance into other
neighborhoods.

Tuesday afternoon, Common Cause Texas announced that it is filing a
complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission, contending that the
nonprofit Texans for True Mobility has violated campaign laws by not
disclosing who has given it money for political ads assailing Metro's plan.

The intense day on the campaign trail ended with a discussion among
several key players Tuesday night on KUHT/Channel 8.

Chronicle reporters Kristen Mack and Mike Snyder contributed to this
story.



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2157760



=PTP===============================================

Houston Transportation Bulletin 3
October 13, 2003


The Metro Solutions plan to greatly improve transit in the Houston region
will come to a vote on November 4. To help increase understanding of the
proposal and of transit¹s place in the greater transportation picture, the
Gulf Coast institute will publish a series of educational bulletins.
...

Mobility Myths

"Building more roads is the solution to Houston¹s congestion." Fact: "it
would be almost impossible to attempt to maintain constant congestion
level with road construction only," states the recent Texas Transportation
institute Urban Mobility Study. In fact, even though Houston added
freeway and principal arterial street lane miles at a much higher rate (84
percent) than population (45 percent) during the past two decades,
Houston¹s congestion has increased 175 percent over that same time
period (measured by Annual Delay, or extra time spent traveling)(1).


Houston Mobility Facts

Houstonians travel more miles per day than there are miles between the
earth and the sun. The distance between the earth and the sun is about
93 million miles. Houstonians drive about 156 million miles per day (1).


Economic Benefits

Dallas¹s light rail has resulted in $1.3 billion of private investment
around its rail corridors (2).


Light Rail Playing Field

The FY2004 federal appropriations act passed by the US House of
Representatives states, ³None of the funds in this Act shall be made
available for the design, construction, or maintenance of any segment of a
light rail system in Houston that has not been specifically approved by a
majority of the participating voters in the Houston Metropolitan Transit
Authority service area in a referendum.²  Houston is the only city in the
nation with such a funding restriction in the Act. Consequently, Houston is
absent from the funding list that divides more than $1.2 billion federal
dollars among 25 cities. Houston¹s smaller neighbor Dallas is slotted to
receive $30 million next year (3). Since it began building light rail in
1988, Dallas is estimated to have received $493 million federal funds for
light rail (4).


100 Percent Solution Plan

The METRO Solutions opposition cites the ³100 Percent Solutions Plan²
being developed by the Houston-Galveston Area Council as an alternative
to METRO Solutions. However, the 100 Percent Solutions Plan not only
includes METRO Solutions, but includes an expanded version of METRO
Solutions with more rail and bus than in METRO¹s plan. The METRO
Solutions transit plan is a part of the 100 Percent Solution Plan that
already has identified funding sources (5).


Metro Facts

Transit serves 42 percent of all morning peak period, home based work
trips to downtown, 31 percent to the Medical Center, 7 percent to the
Galleria, and 6 percent to Greenway plaza. All areas would be served with
the METRO Solutions light rail, helping transit market shares in each
location to significantly increase by 2025 (6). Note: see attached pdf for
chart.


Correction: Transportation Bulletin 1 stated that METRO would complete
22 miles of rail and its entire bus expansion in the first ten years. It will
actually complete 22 miles of rail and only 33 percent of its bus expansion
in the first ten years.


Sources
1. 2003 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation institute. September
2003. http://mobility.tamu.edu.
2. DART website,
http://www.dart.org/newsroommain.asp?zeon=economicimpact
3. US House Resolution 2989, ³Transportation, Treasury, and
independent
Agencies Appropriations Act,² 2004.
4. Dallas federal funding dollars from a discussion with Morgan Lyons,
DART,
7 October 2003.
5. The 100 Percent Solution Plan (presentation to Transportation Policy
Council) Houston-Galveston Area Council, September 2003.
6. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County. Based on
Houston-Galveston Area Council data and travel forecasts for METRO
Solutions
with additional 72 Miles of rail.  Based on transit linked trips.


Houston Transportation Bulletin is a publication of the Gulf Coast
institute. To support the institute, go to http://www.gulfcoastideas.org. To
join the institute¹s 1000 Friends of Houston, go to
http://www.1000friendsofhouston.org.
Email: issues@gulfcoastideas.org
_____________________________
Gulf Coast institute
3015 Richmond Suite 250
Houston TX 77098


Ph 713-523-5757
Fx 713-523-3057
http://www.livablehouston.org



=PTP==========================================

http://www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl

Detroit Free Press
October 14, 2003

LIGHT RAIL: Make it part of the debate with other transit options

Editorial

The Ferndale City Council jumped the gun in calling for a light-rail transit
system along Woodward. Still, the action should spark a needed debate
on rail service in the region.

Ferndale is urging the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments and
the new Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority to start designing
a light-rail line from downtown Detroit to 9 Mile or even all the way north to
Pontiac. City Manager Thomas Barwin says Washington would pay up to
80 percent of the project's cost. Now, he said, the region is losing about
$60 million a year to urban areas that are building rail systems.

Heavily traveled corridors like Woodward need better service. But whether
to use rail, rapid-transit buses or something else is up for debate. The
federal government first requires an evaluation of those alternatives
before providing money. Michigan's congressional delegation should
make sure southeast Michigan gets the money to at least do that.

Rail service could spur business development and provide drivers with an
attractive alternative to congested commutes. But rail advocates must
recognize that the region lacks a consensus on mass transit. The costs
are high -- about $50 million a mile -- and the feds usually pay only 60
percent or less. The rest must come locally, and that could make the
suburbs more skittish about a regional system.

More important, high-cost rail lines must not take service from elsewhere
in the system. Metro job centers are spread throughout the region. Getting
low-income workers without cars to those jobs must remain the first
priority of the new regional transportation authority.

it's too soon to decide whether the benefits of rail in metro Detroit
outweigh the costs.



=PTP=================================================

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/e
ditorial_f3b80a32b1e06052001c.html

Austin American-Statesman
Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Amtrak needs federal help, not hindrance

John Young
WACO TRIBUNE-HERALD


if the U.S. economy were doing as well as the Texas Eagle, there would
be little suspense about George W. Bush getting a second term.

The Texas Eagle, the Amtrak route through Central Texas, increased
ridership almost 20 percent this year.

A 20 percent boost in ridership on the Texas Eagle? What a miserable
failure. Pull the plug on that sucker.

That appears to be the stance of the Bush administration. However, not
every Republican in Washington is on board. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison is fighting with extreme vigor not only to keep the Texas Eagle
running but to pump up America's investment in Amtrak.

Todd Gillman of The Dallas Morning News and the National Association of
Rail Passengers share some figures that make Bush's designs for Amtrak
indefensible, like the nearly 20 percent bump in ridership on the Texas
Eagle.

What Bush wants to do with Amtrak is comparable to what he proposes to
do with other programs like Head Start and Medicaid: dump it in the laps
of cash-starved states.

in the case of Amtrak, he proposes ending federal subsidies after six
years. On Medicaid and Head Start, he proposes ongoing funding to take
the form of finite block grants virtually certain not to keep up with needs,
thereby forcing states to make up the difference.

Opponents of Amtrak will say that it loses money. Guilty as charged. The
nation gets only 37 cents back for every dollar spent.

Just curious: How many cents do taxpayers get back for every highway
dollar spent? How many cents do taxpayers get back on tax subsidies to
oil companies to fuel behemoth vehicles?

Opponents of subsidizing Amtrak -- particularly our president -- are guilty
of one the greatest double standards of the century.

The rail passengers group points out that while Congress spent $26 billion
on Amtrak, it spent $405 billion on highways and $150 billion on airlines.

Hutchison thinks that instead of pulling back from Amtrak, the nation
should get serious and bolstering Amtrak. She proposes with an additional
$60 billion over six years -- $48 billion in loans -- to make Amtrak more
efficient and to better probe the possibilities of higher-speed rail.

if we are to have viable alternatives to our congested highways, policy
makers and citizens need to start putting roads and rails on comparable
planes.

A few years ago Texas nosed up to the visionary idea of contracting to
bring high-speed rail roughly along the interstate 35 corridor. The idea fell
through basically because of one arbitrary and wholly unreasonable
requirement: no direct state subsidies.

Unreasonable, and ridiculous. As much money as taxpayers pour into
highways, the thought of subsidizing passenger rail traffic shouldn't offend
anyone.

in this land of plenty, where our influence spans the globe and rebuilds
nations, this nation can afford viable alternatives to automobiles.
Unfortunately, our approach to rail is Third World all the way.

Young is opinion page editor of the Waco Tribune-Herald. Contact him at
jyoung@wacotrib.com.




=PTP=============================================

Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Monday, October 13, 2003

Summary of September ridership and ticket revenue results, as reported
by Amtrak [northern California]:


Capitol Corridor:
*            90,304 passengers  +7.5% vs FY02 and a record for the month
*            $ 913,710 ticket revenue  +8.4% vs FY02
(EKS Editorial: This September record ridership was achieved even
though on-time performance was still below the 90% standard- September
was only 82.8% - however, since October 6, on-time performance has
improved dramatically, especially on trains #527 and 538. Since October
6, only one day was at 83.3% (the lowest), and all the rest were between
87% and 100% on-time, including several 100% days, a most
encouraging trend.)


Pacific Surfliner:
*            204,880 passengers  +43.6% vs FY02 and a record for the
month (Please note that this number includes the 24,741 Rail 2 Rail
passengers from August that were not counted with the August results.
Excluding the August Rail 2 Rail ridership would still have resulted in
record ridership for September and a 26.3% increase vs FY02)
*            $ 2,689,138 ticket revenue  +18.7% vs FY02


San Joaquins:
*            56,132 passengers  +8.2% vs FY02 and a record for the month
*            $ 1,673,678 ticket revenue  +30.1% vs FY02 (Please note
that a portion of the revenue reported in September is actually for buses
from August that were not reported in time.)




Eugene K. Skoropowski
Managing Director
Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
1000 Broadway, Suite 604
Oakland, California 94607


e-mail: eskorop@bart.gov
Telephone: 510.464.6990
Fax:            510.464.6901




=PTP=================================================

http://www.newstream.com/us/story_pub.shtml?story_id=10985&user_ip=
66.69.194.85

Newstream
October 2003

JetTrain High-Speed Rail Locomotive Rolls into Tampa Wednesday
Morning, October 15, 10:00 A.M.

Bombardier Transportation

WHAT:

The Bombardier¹ JetTrain¹ high-speed rail locomotive has arrived in
Florida. After recent visits to Miami and Orlando, the next-generation
locomotive will be at Tampa's Union Station, Track 3, Wednesday
morning, October 15, at 10:00 a.m.

With a jet engine placed in the heart of the JetTrain locomotive, it is the
first non-electric high-speed rail solution designed for the American
market. With top speeds exceeding 150 miles per hour, it offers
passengers a new way to travel between cities every day in safety,
comfort and speed.

Bombardier is currently short listed with partner Fluor Corporation to
design, build, operate and maintain Florida's first high-speed rail system
that will link Tampa and Orlando and, ultimately, Orlando and Miami. The
Fluor-Bombardier proposal features JetTrain technology - the only non-
electric, FRA-compliant, high-speed rail technology in the world.

Fluor Corporation and Bombardier Transportation are inviting members of
the media for a technical briefing on the JetTrain technology, followed by
a photo-op of the locomotive.

WHO:

Ms. Lecia Stewart, vice-president, High-Speed Rail, North America,
Bombardier Transportation

Mr. Jerry Holloway, director, Media Relations, Fluor Corporation

WHEN & WHERE:

Tampa - Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Media briefing:

Tampa Union Station, 601 N. Nebraska Ave.
Baggage Room
10:00 - 10:30 a.m.

Photo-op:

Tampa Union Station, 601 N. Nebraska Ave., Track #3
10:30 - 11:00 a.m.

Public viewing:

Tampa Union Station, 601 N. Nebraska Ave., Track #3
12:00 - 4:00 p.m.

For more information on the Fluor-Bombardier proposal, visit
www.bombardier.com/fluor.

For more information on the Bombardier JetTrain technology, visit
www.jettrain.us.

¹ Trademark of Bombardier Inc. and/or its subsidiaries

---------------

Produced for Bombardier

Contact:

Stanton Communications
Summer Stitz, 202-223-4933
202-270-6830 (Cell)




=PTP================================================

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/10/14/business/64860
84&sec=business


Star Publications (Malaysia)
Tuesday October 14, 2003

KLIG confirms talks with govt

BY K.P. LEE

KL MONORAIL operator KL infrastructure Group Bhd (KLIG) has
confirmed discussions were being held with the government that could
eventually see the group or its holding company MTrans Holdings Sdn
Bhd emerging as a key player in a consortium to manage an integrated
public transport system for the federal capital.

its managing director Patrick Wong Kim Fah however declined to reveal
any details or the progress of the talks beyond saying that there was "still
a lot of discussions but ongoing."

Wong was responding to reporters' questions after the company's AGM in
Kuala Lumpur yesterday on recent speculation that MTrans was part of a
consortium with KUB Holdings Bhd and Datuk Mohd Nadzmi Salleh-
controlled Nadicorp Holdings Sdn Bhd in talks with the government on
managing the city's public transport assets.


[PHOTO]
A monorail station in Kuala Lumpur. - File Picture

it has been reported that this group would likely integrate the Klang
Valley's two light rail transit operations (Putra and STAR), the KL
monorail, as well as bus operations previously owned by Park May Bhd
and DRB-HICOM Bhd.

But it is understood that the talks have not been proceeding as smoothly
as expected.

A source told StarBiz that MTrans' talks with the government to buy Projek
Usahasama Transit Ringan Automatik Sdn Bhd and Sistem Transit Aliran
Ringan, operators of the Putra and STAR light rail transit lines
respectively, could have hit a sticky point: that of the huge debts of some
RM6bil the two companies carry in their books.

"Certainly no one wants to take on the massive assets and debts (of those
companies)," said the source.

When contacted later, KLIG executive director Lai Ying Choy declined to
comment, but said "any proposals that are ongoing will be in the best
interest of our shareholders."

On the performance of KL Monorail, the company said the current daily
users of the line, which started operations on Aug 31, was between
20,000 and 25,000 passengers on weekdays and exceeded 30,000 during
the weekends.

Lai said an operational break-even point would be reached with ridership
of around 40,000 to 50,000 passengers, which should be achieved within
a year.

"We expect to have between 60,000 and 80,000 (passengers per day)
about one year from now," Lai said, adding that the group had forecast
revenue of RM50mil in the financial year ending April 2005, the first full
year of KL Monorail's operations.

However, the group would not be posting a profit until 2007 due to the
high financing costs that would be charged to the accounts.




=PTP==============================================

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct03/177217.asp

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Oct. 15, 2003

Officials advance electric bus study

Review to proceed amid bid to shift funds to Metra train extension

By LARRY SANDLER
lsandler@journalsentinel.com

Local leaders voted Tuesday to keep a proposed $300 million Milwaukee
electric bus system alive - despite a move to use its main funding source
to extend Chicago's Metra commuter trains from Kenosha to Racine and
Milwaukee.

"The goal is to keep both of those projects moving forward, not to pit them
against each other," said Jim Rowen, policy chief for Mayor John O.
Norquist.

The guided electric bus system has replaced light rail as the leading
option in the Wisconsin Center District's Milwaukee Connector study of
how to link downtown attractions and nearby neighborhoods with public
transit. It could extend to Miller Park, the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee area and the near north side.

With preliminary study concluded, the project's four-member steering
committee decided to move the project into a more detailed phase of
study, Chairman Pete Beitzel said. The federal government would pay
most of the estimated $3 million cost of the environmental review phase,
and developer Gary Grunau has raised $400,000 in private money to
cover the local share.

Further study is needed to understand fully what the project would cost,
how it could be done and how it could be financed, Beitzel said.

Beitzel, a Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce vice
president, said city Public Works Commissioner Mariano Schifalacqua
and district President Dick Geyer joined him in a 3-0 vote to advance the
connector study.

County Executive Scott Walker has opposed guided electric buses, just as
he opposed light rail. But Walker's representative on the connector
committee, Milwaukee County Transit System Managing Director Tom
Kujawa, skipped the meeting Tuesday to discuss his agency's 2004
budget at a County Board committee meeting, bus system spokesman
Joe Caruso said.

A 1999 agreement among Norquist, then-County Executive F. Thomas
Ament and then-Gov. Tommy G. Thompson set aside $91.5 million in
federal money to implement the results of the connector study.

But with Walker's opposition stalling progress on the connector, Norquist
and Walker agreed last month to seek state and federal approval to move
the $91.5 million into the $152 million plan to extend Metra service. The
state and federal governments have not yet acted on that request.

Rowen said the connector project should move forward with the
understanding that if it is not completed, the funding should go to the
Metra extension. Beitzel said the connector study would consider that
option. The one-year environmental review of the connector would be
finished before the two years of preliminary engineering now starting on
the Metra extension.

This connector study phase also will look at whether the connector could
be operated separately from the bus system if Walker refuses to
participate, and at whether the project could be built in stages if money is
not available for the full plan, Beitzel said.

The Metra extension would run seven round trips daily, with three on
weekends and holidays, to stations in downtown Milwaukee, Cudahy,
South Milwaukee, Oak Creek, the Town of Caledonia, Racine, the Town
of Somers and Kenosha. Planners expect most passengers to use the
trains for short commuting or shopping trips rather than Milwaukee-to-
Chicago service.




=PTP===============================================

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
octa15oct15,1,4439125.story?coll=la-headlines-california


Los Angeles Times
October 15, 2003

ORANGE COUNTY

OCTA Ready to Buy Land for CenterLine

Agency will hire expert to help acquire right of way for the light-rail line
from Santa Ana to airport. Norby says the move is premature.

By David Reyes
Times Staff Writer

Orange County transportation leaders Tuesday approved spending $5.5
million to hire a right-of-way consultant to acquire property along the
proposed 8.2-mile CenterLine light-rail route in Santa Ana.

The agency has no specific contractor in mind but will put the job out to
bid, an action that one transit board member, Orange County Supervisor
Chris Norby, criticized as premature.

Norby, who sits on the Orange County Transportation Authority board and
is a CenterLine critic, argued that bids should be done after a decision is
reached on whether Santa Ana or OCTA is responsible for acquiring
property for the light-rail project. The key issues, Norby said, are time,
organization and who will manage the land acquisition. "What happens
when people don't want to sell their houses and appeal?" Norby said.
"Aren't we putting the cart before the horse here?"

At least 480 private properties lie along CenterLine's route, which roughly
follows Bristol Street from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center
to John Wayne Airport. The line is scheduled to open by the end of 2009.

Those properties will be acquired, either through voluntary sales or
eminent domain, after a consultant is hired by early next year. The
consultant would handle title searches, appraisals, relocation plans and
right-of-way management.

The transportation authority has projected that all properties will be
acquired and ready for construction by the end of 2007.

Revenue to pay for the consultant will come from local gas taxes and
Measure M, the sales tax approved by Orange County voters to fund
transportation projects.

Transit board member Cassie DeYoung initially challenged the agency's
plan to hire the consultant because of the uncertainty of federal support
for the project, estimated to cost $900 million.

The federal government is supposed to provide 15% of the funding, but
the transportation authority has yet to receive any word from Washington.
The authority is competing for funds with transportation projects from
across the country.

DeYoung later voted for hiring a consultant.

Norby said he was concerned about potential appeals from homeowners
and other property owners. If only 5% of the estimated property owners
appealed eminent domain action, 24 hearings would have to be held by
either Santa Ana or the authority, he said.

"I just hope those who support CenterLine really know what you are
getting into here," Norby said.

The vote was 8 to 2 to hire a consultant, with Norby and Supervisor Bill
Campbell dissenting.

A recent poll conducted by the Orange County Business Council showed
that 55% of county residents who had an opinion on the CenterLine
project support the light-rail project, even though it has been shortened
repeatedly because of a lack of political support.



=PTP================================================

Salt Lake Tribune
TUESDAY October 14, 2003

S. Davis mayors OK transit master plan

By Lori Buttars

    Mayors in six South Davis cities are fighting for their piece of the mass-
transit pie.
    Leaders from Farmington, Centerville, Bountiful, West Bountiful, Woods
Cross and North Salt Lake and county officials have signed off on an
aggressive new master plan calling for a 1/2-cent tax hike in Weber, Davis
and Salt Lake counties to fast-track $9.8 billion in Wasatch Front transit
projects.
    The proposal includes bus rapid transit as an alternative mode of travel
between Salt Lake City and south Davis County.
    Such a system -- with express buses traveling along dedicated street
lanes and getting priority at traffic lights -- is part of the first phase of the
new long-range plan that would be in place by 2012, according to Sam
Klemm, spokesman for transportation planners at the Wasatch Front
Regional Council.
    "Before that, we didn't have [south Davis County on the plan for
widespread transit improvements] for about 20 years," Klemm said.
    Klemm says the plan, which also proposes light-rail extensions to Sugar
House in Salt Lake City, Draper, the Salt Lake Valley's west side and Salt
Lake City international Airport, is open for public comment until Nov. 4.
    The updated master plan is welcome news in south Davis County,
where six mayors last year petitioned the WFRC for their own TRAX light-
rail extension.
    Light rail to the north of Salt Lake City did not make the list for the next
three decades.
    While bus rapid transit isn't TRAX, Bountiful Mayor Joe Johnson is
warming to the idea.
    "Hey, it's a start," he says. "And there are a lot of benefits to it. It's more
cost effective, and those buses can pull off main line and head up the
street if they need to. That gives us an east-west option that won't be
there with TRAX for years to come."
    Johnson's biggest concern is that voters will be turned off by the idea of
raising taxes to pay for what they might perceive as only a "bus system."
    He says he remembers that crisp day in the fall 2001 when he went into
the polling booth and voted in favor of increasing sales taxes a quarter-
cent to pay for improved transit options in Davis County.
    "They might have said 'commuter rail' [on the ballot], but I -- and a lot of
other people I know -- were thinking TRAX," he said. Commuter rail, a
high-speed train system between Salt Lake City and Ogden with two
Davis County stops, is planned to begin service by 2007.
    Officials from the six south Davis cities are chipping in $35,000 to help
pay for a $100,000 feasibility study designed to gauge their citizens'
support and which transportation modes fit with the county's needs. The
study would also examine potential ridership and routes.
    The Utah Transit Authority is putting in $45,000, Salt Lake City is
contributing $10,000 and Davis County is paying $10,000.
    South Davis County has nearly 250,000 residents. Projections show
that number swelling to 500,000 by 2030. WFRC planners already know
that half of the county's daily commuters travel into Salt Lake County for
jobs. Traffic clogs interstate 15 for nearly five hours of rush-hour gridlock
each weekday.
    With few alternatives for motorists along that narrow stretch between
the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch mountains, commutes can be
completely shut down because of jackknifed semis, automobile fender-
benders and construction.
    "Any time anything happens out here, you're done," says Layton
resident Russell Kuck, who travels to downtown Salt Lake City each
workday. "it's not safe to not have an alternative route when things like
that come up, and they happen more often than you think."
    The study would show whether south Davis County could sustain its
own intracity transit system in conjunction with I-15 and, eventually, the
Legacy Highway -- a four-lane road planned for south Davis County -- and
the new commuter-rail line.
    South Davis officials contend commuter rail and Legacy Highway are
necessary, but an intracity rapid transit system is the missing piece to
solving gridlock.
    "We are doing this assuming Legacy Highway gets built [and] assuming
commuter rail gets going," said Centerville Mayor Michael Deamer. "This
will be an assessment of our citizens' needs 20 to 30 years down the road
with the idea that we will get TRAX one day."
    The mayors expect most residents are receptive to the idea. Bountiful's
Johnson notes that TRAX didn't catch on with Salt Lake commuters until
after it was built and people saw it in action.
    "If [TRAX] were here, I think people would already be using it," Johnson
says. "Commuter rail is going to be great, but we are so close to Salt Lake
City, and if you have to cross the freeway entrance to get on commuter
rail, most of our residents are going to say 'to heck with it, I'll just drive.' "
    The biggest roadblock for residents might be other proposed county
projects.
    Davis taxpayers are still in shock after last year when Davis County
Commissioners proposed raising property taxes by 138 percent.
    Commissioners ended up raising taxes by 24 percent, but they made
no secret that they will soon be back with plans to raise taxes again to pay
for a bigger jail.
    "These are both services that people depend on government to
provide," said Farmington Mayor David Connors. "Of the two, the
transportation tax is probably a little more optional, but any forward-
thinking individual knows that waiting on this will mean we are in such
gridlock that we won't be ab